Don't Be Bullied: Be Like Mandy!

“Political thuggery is on the rise in America.” So says Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker. Overwhelmingly directed at the right, to the extent it cannot be ignored by the media – they lampoon its impact. Of particular concern were attacks on Bush-Cheney campaign offices. And how the left chuckles when conservative figures, such as Ann Coulter, are attacked onstage. But, tee hee, it was a just a pie-in-the face. What’s the problem? Well, my friends on the left: slime is as slime does. Lifson makes clear what the stakes are:

We are on a slippery slope if America tolerates political violence. It is a crime against democracy and liberty. The specifics of the weapons involved are less important than the intent to use violence as a political weapon.
If the worst charge that can be brought against the wielder of political pie-in-the-face is a misdemeanor – unless he is unlucky enough to damage the scenery – then we need new laws. Stealing or damaging property is a less serious crime than creating an atmosphere of fear in the political discourse.

To the growing list of intolerant acts against conservatives we can add this report from the Seattle Times. Pay careful attention to how it was written: again belittling the person on the receiving end of extraordinarily harsh treatment with political motivation. If the tables had been turned, and a liberal had been cursed at in this manner by a conservative politician’s spouse – the media would be all over it. And every story would have warning from the ACLU about the “draconian” impact of such an attack – and its “chilling effect” creating a “prior restraint” on cherished free speech rights.
And that is precisely what happened here. A Rossi campaign volunteer, in her capacity as a private citizen, voices concern in a television interview about a politician’s “official” conduct during the recount. Minutes later that politician’s spouse arrives at the door of that only minimally-acquainted neighbor, and proceeds to berate her with vulgar language. This is how “Mandy in Magnolia” told it in an e-mail to Sound Politics:

Yesterday, while… watching NWCN, they were asking people to call in on the State Supreme Court decision in the Governors race. I called in and asked some questions about King County Councilman Larry Phillips and his ballot, and expressed my concern that Councilman Phillips was spending a lot of time campaigning for the Democrats on our tax dollar. About five minutes after I was on the news, Councilman Phillips' wife Gail showed up on my doorstep. She was in a rage. I had to remove my three children from the front door into another room because she was shouting so loud. I am still alarmed at the fact that a person can call a news station and voice their opinion with repercussions as extreme as having a politician's wife come and hassle you to the point… that if she didn't leave I would have to call 911. After telling her that I shut the door on her. She screamed "You F@#king B*tch" thru the door loud enough as to where my children heard her. I opened the door and told her how classy she was. The next day I contacted Councilman Phillips' office to talk to the Chief of Staff about what happened. I wanted to clear this matter up privately. I did not hear from their office but later that afternoon I received flowers from Gail with somewhat of an apology. I wonder how big of a laugh they had sending me poisonous flowers; they were poinsettias! I am still in disbelief over this matter. I am still fearful that you can voice your opinion and have to deal with unstable people scaring you and your children. Doesn't my Councilman care enough about his constituents that he would try and rectify this matter? I would like to let the people know that I did in fact vote for Larry Phillips.

And for that, a Rossi supporter (and Dinocrat, no less!) earns a cynical crack about “Desperate Housewives” in the Seattle Times. This dovetails so neatly with the explanation that “it was a brief encounter.” But does it surprise anyone that the Seattle Times is “handling” the recount in this manner?
“Mandy in Magnolia” is a Rossi campaign supporter and volunteer – and as the daughter of a long-serving attorney and Superior Court Judge, would give so much more respect than that received for merely voicing her opinion regarding a legitimate issue in the recount.

(click for larger version)

Note the first "apology" (which isn't an apology at all), more a continuation of "put the Republican in her place." Then comes the second apology, written by the councilman himself, which came only after the Seattle Times got involved. And after ignoring Mandy's calls to speak with him for almost a week.

(click for larger version)

What we can all learn from Mandy is twofold: to keep speaking out on the issues in exactly the way she has in this instance; and (like her) to go one better by bravely “outing” any instance of harassment or conduct which constrains free speech. We have a new theme in the Rossi Movement:
Don't Be Bullied: Be Like Mandy!

posted at Sound Politics

Ready, Set… Reach Out in 2005!

Ready, Set… Reach Out in 2005!
P. Scott Cummins © 2004 The Urbane R

2004, the year we all learned that ideas matter. And how ideas affect your actions – like (crucially), whether you vote. There are lessons here for a place like Magnolia – a community with a greater percentage of children in private schools than almost everywhere in the city – and yet we are (sadly) the most affluent neighborhood in Seattle not supporting school levies. Magnolia is also perhaps the most profoundly anti-monorail community in Seattle, but most of us acknowledge that at existing rates of traffic increase – we will soon be hemmed-in (with no other alternatives) to the Fifteenth West-Elliott Avenue corridor. We are the community with the largest percentage of elderly living alone, and (for transportation) the most roadway bridge-dependent – this just only a few (of many) intersecting issues. If a Magnolia professor was drawing a Venn diagram about our community – we students could suggest intersecting circles for hours. For a variety of reasons, it can be predicted, 2005 will be a year when we come to grips with the challenges of the future – and the present. With that in mind, here are some ideas to consider in the coming year.

The first is a successful process toward resolution of Capehart Housing at Discovery Park. Like a present under the tree, the announcement of an agreement in principle and framework for going forward came just in time for the holidays. Mayor Greg Nickels should be commended for vision and action that will result in a historic benefit to Discovery Park. There was a significant element of compromise by many parties and stakeholders with standing in the conservation of Discovery Park. But frankly, in order for this to have happened – the United States Navy came through as a party in shared vision of Discovery Park. Doing so took leadership on the Navy’s part - and not inconsiderable focus on this issue, during a time when our nation is at war. I am mindful and appreciative of that outreach. We need to cherish our Capehart neighbors – and redouble outreach to them at church, school and elsewhere – over the next few years of transition time for these families. There is no better time than right now to honor them: as emblems of military families everywhere in service to our country.

Next is an issue of equal standing for many of our neighbors who worked with an incredible community activist, the late Ursula Judkins. Those people know that we continue to reap the benefits of her tireless efforts on behalf of our entire community. There is a broad and enthusiastic consensus for naming the new public green space at the top of the Magnolia Bridge after our Ursula. I hope you will take time this year to get involved in that effort – and to get to know Ursula’s legacy. She continues to inspire.

Over the years, we have seen great individuals work to advance our community by engaging with the landlord of certain storefronts along 32 Avenue West in the village. What we need now are some Magnolia neighbors to join them – and as volunteers bring their professional skills in public relations, land use law, real estate and zoning, organizational development and general hell-raising to bear. You can all schedule a ‘meet up’ by e-mailing me. You may well become the most popular people in Magnolia’s history.

In 2005 you will become aware that the Port of Seattle’s North Bay redevelopment plan is the most important single issue Magnolia has ever faced. And you will lament not getting involved sooner – and not having done more outreach to create community consensus favoring your viewpoint. Growth in vehicle traffic on commuter corridors, construction of a new Magnolia Bridge, and Alaskan Way Viaduct reconstruction – will all work in the decade ahead to isolate Magnolia like never before. Because of that, quality of life issues right here in Magnolia will come to dominate our attention. When driving to University Village increases to over one hour, you are going to wish our village had more options. And it could, if you make a strong commitment (beginning right now) to regularly shop there – and for those of you downtown workers with vested ‘lifestyle’ interests in Magnolia, time to move beyond considering the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce – and sign up as a member.

My great wish for 2005 is that the Briarcliff neighbors will move beyond the shouting. Hey, shout at me all you want – knock yourself out – I have been watering trees and picking up trash at the water tower for five years: and have a unique vantage point on who the committed community volunteers really are. But our Community Club leaders are our neighbors – and as volunteers (and in good faith) represent the wider interests of our community. Through many years of commitment and dedication they have acquired knowledge regarding the land use and building codes. Get into the wider issues, join in with the work of the Community Club – that is the way to create consensus you desire. The water tower site is a gem, which with stronger community involvement, could be a crown jewel for Magnolia. Be in touch to get involved.

In the weeks ahead, it will be my privilege to acquaint readers with some great neighbors – living, working (and committed to issues affecting us) in Magnolia. Here’s a hint: get ready for some ‘Baby Boomers’ with ‘Gen X’ sensibilities – but particularly those ‘Gen Y’ among us doing things in ways never imagined. You are going to hear about music, learn about art, and feel their strong dedication to things like the environment – and spirituality. It is going to affect the way you look at, and feel about, your community. And it is your community.

(P. Scott Cummins wants you to take charge in Magnolia. E-mail your directives to humbleservant@pscottcummins.com )

Mourning for Reggie White.... "The Bono of the NFL"

Reggie White: One look says it all

Word today of the passing of NFL Superstar Reggie White, dying at the same age my father did - the early forties is too soon to have completed one's work in this life. Reggie was, as they say, the 'real deal' and I am saddened by the loss - may our prayers go out for him and his family and many, many friends who have been staggered by the suddenness of his passing. Especially our good friend Mike Holmgren - we are thinking about you and holding up your friendship with Reggie. Reggie was a wonderful Christian man who spoke his mind, and like rock superstar Bono, was not above risking a foot in his mouth in order to bring people together.


Reggie help make it all happen for Mike and the Packers

Schedule The Run-Off... NOW!

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund must-read All the Votes Fit to Count in today's online Opinion Journal. The subtitle says it all: "Ukraine gets to revote. Why can't Washington state?"

Over this weekend I spoke with many people of both political parties, and the mutual consensus was clear: claiming victory with scant votes is pyrrhic at best - and more likely a prescription for voter backlash in two years. Out among the grassroots, partisans from both camps sense that the only way to wipe the slate clean is to do just that: hold a revote. Now no less national a figure as the Wall Street Journal's John Fund weighs in on the revote side as well.

If President Bush's margin of victory in Ohio had been 1,190 votes instead of 119,000 votes, it's a safe bet that state's 20 decisive electoral votes would still be locked in a bitter legal battle. In fact, the battle would likely resemble the one going on right now over who won Washington state's bizarrely close race for governor. The state is now concluding its third count of the 2.9 million ballots, and Republican Dino Rossi clings to a 50 vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire. King County, which includes liberal Seattle, is the only county left to report.

Amid all the wrangling over this election, almost all semblance of a fair system has been lost. It now looks like Washington's election will be decided by lawyers and a court, rather than by the voters. The result probably hinges on whether 723 King County absentee ballots that were rejected during the first two vote counts will be counted after all. A local judge has ruled that it is too late to inject the 723 ballots into the recount and that if they were valid votes they should have been counted in the first or second recounts. Democrats respond that the fault lies with King County clerks, who failed to take extra steps to verify the ballots, and not with the voters.

This gets to the major point: the King County 'Democrat Machine' power structure has the most to lose here.

Washington state's election nightmare began when Dino Rossi apparently won the election by about 3,000 votes. Then two days before the original vote count was certified, King County announced it had 10,000 more absentee ballots than it had previously estimated. Mr. Rossi's lead fell to less than 1,000 votes.

A local judge allowed Democratic Party officials to obtain the names and addresses of 723 people who had cast provisional ballots but were in danger of not being counted because of mismatching or missing signatures. Democratic officials then contacted voters and asked them who they had voted for in the race for governor. If the answer was Ms. Gregoire, the voter was allowed to correct his or her signature and thus have their ballot counted. Republicans belatedly began contacting their voters. The result was a net gain of some 400 votes for Ms. Gregoire. Mr. Rossi's lead fell to 261 votes.

At that point, the state began a mandatory machine recount of all ballots. But in King County the recount went beyond running the ballots through the counting machines. Officials there "enhanced" some 300 votes that had been rejected by the machines, in some cases altering them with white-out or filling in the ovals on the optical scan ballots. Again, these additional ballots benefited Ms. Gregoire. In 38 of the state's 39 counties, only 208 net votes were added to either Mr. Rossi or Ms. Gregoire in the recount. Then came King County, which represents 30% of the state's votes. Ms. Gregoire, who won 58% of the overall King County vote, harvested a net gain of 245 votes--more than the changes in the rest of the state for both candidates combined. At that point, with Mr. Rossi holding only a 42-vote lead, Democrats put up the money to pay for a third recount that would be conducted by hand, a process that most election observers, including those in charge of King County, view as less accurate than a machine count.

It didn't take long for new ballots to be discovered. On Dec. 7, more than a month after the election, King County said it had found 573 absentee ballots which had been rejected because they lacked or had improper signatures. A couple of days later, another 22 ballots were found hidden in voting machines that had been put into storage. None of these ballots had been stored in sealed and secured boxes. Election officials are usually leery of counting votes that haven't been kept under constant lock and key.

And then it got ugly. Exercise of raw political power is usually ugly. And here in King County, we are providing the political scientists with textbook case discussions the likes of which haven't been seen since the heyday of machine politics by Mayor Daily in Chicago, circa 1960.

Nonetheless, the Democratic controlled King County canvassing board rejected the Republican county prosecutor's advice not to count the 573 ballots. Then someone noticed that the list of disputed ballots did not include any voters whose names began with A or B. Another treasure hunt turned up 150 more votes that had been mistakenly put into storage. On Friday, Stephanie Arend, a local judge in neighboring Pierce County, stepped in and blocked the counting of all 723 new ballots. She said state law clearly stipulated that a recount was only supposed to count ballots already ruled valid, not add any more ballots to the mix.

On top of all this, the actual hand tabulation of the rest of the ballots in King County also saw a change in procedures midway through the count last week. Officials announced that they were overturning the policy of not counting ballots that had ovals filled in for both candidates ("over votes") and now would send these ballots to the canvassing board for final review. Officials said this represented no change in the rules, but the fact is that ballots are now being treated differently depending at what point in the recount they were examined.

So once again it goes back to the state Supreme Court. Like the movie 'Ground Hog Day' we face the specter of endless, looping media event. There are realistic scenarios under which this whole mess could be back before the Supreme Court several more times over the weeks ahead, right up through the actual Ground Hog Day.

The state Supreme Court will have to sift through this tangled web and reach a final decision quickly. The inauguration of a new governor is scheduled for Jan. 12. The dilemma the court faces is clear. The 723 disputed new voters were rejected by King County officials using a level of verification and scrutiny that they had agreed on in advance. Now county officials want to add votes into the final recount that were not included in the first two counts because they have belatedly found that the ballots would have been declared valid if the clerks had gone further and taken additional verification steps.

But do the two political parties want any part of this in light of the fallout which would well hurt them badly in future elections?

Legally, there is a strong argument for not adding new ballots into the already compromised recount process. But perception also matters. Should Mr. Rossi win because some ballots aren't counted, he'll take office under a cloud of "fraud" as Democrats claim that more people wanted Ms. Gregoire to win. Their argument will carry some weight.

Former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, a moderate Republican, says confidence in the election system has been so damaged that the only way to restore it may be to consider holding a new election in February. King County has now added ballots into its count so many times that almost no one other than the lawyers involved can easily explain the chain of events.

There is no provision in Washington state law for holding a new election. It would have to be ordered by the state Supreme Court or by a special session of the legislature. But now is the time to raise the issue because no one knows for sure which candidate will come out ahead this week in the final count. Sam Reed, the state's secretary of state, says a rerun of the election is eminently doable and notes that a small town in Washington did rerun an election after it was discovered that some people who were ineligible had been allowed to cast ballots.

We shall soon see if pride goeth before a fall, most certainly it will should experience be our guide: the state party leaders - for both the Republicans and Democrats - have been in a protracted state of war for so long now it is but fait accompli. They see each other through the cross-hairs of political rifle scopes - and view tactics on a skirmish-by-skirmish basis - effective for election campaigns maybe, but disastrous for doing the people's business. Uber-Commentator John Fund, from his vantage point outside of the Northwest, is a bit less jaundiced, and (hopefully) more sage on this score:

If leaders of both parties could agree that the November election has been hopelessly compromised, public pressure for a clarifying rematch would build. It would be highly irregular, but so too is the fact that whoever wins the third count of votes would govern under a cloud in which their legitimacy would be questioned. Let's hope the public will also demand a thorough housecleaning of Washington state's election laws, which imprudently allow 65% of its voters to cast troublesome absentee ballots.

Washington state's predicament is also a warning flare for the rest of the country about how sloppy our election procedures still are. In most states we are just as unable to handle a photo-finish election as we were when the Bush v. Gore legal fight occurred in 2000; It's time to redouble our efforts to make our elections something the rest of the world can't snicker at.

I spoke with a leading regional political (television) reporter yesterday. He quickly acknowledged that the reputation of our region is on the line. Certainly elected King County officials have the most at stake. But our entire region is now viewed as a laughing-stock: ongoing banana republic backroom machinations have splashed us all with a broad brush - extending beyond politics to our corporations (can you say Microsoft, Starbucks), non-profits (billion dollar charities like the Gates Foundation and World Vision), cultural institutions, sports teams and yes - also you and me. The news media in this country (and around the world) will soon have a lot of fun about the corrupt yokels out Seattle-way. Over the last decade, our region has become best-known for losing Boeing and screwing-up the W.T.O. conference. With vote-counting processes somewhere south of Ukrainian standards it must be asked: Ready for a third major embarassment?

Pierce County - Last Bastion of Sanity?

It seems that issuing temporary restraining orders to elections officials is just one more good thing coming out of Pierce County. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is reporting:

Last week, the Pierce County Council passed Ordinance #2004-72S, creating a Firearms Advisory Commission that will make recommendations to the Council on firearm-related issues. This is an important new addition, as the Council has been actively passing "no-shooting" ordinances lately. The new Commission will be made up of seven County residents, at least three of whom will represent local shooting groups, and will be charged with reviewing all existing County restrictions for appropriateness and will provide input to the Council on future proposals. Special recognition for their tremendous efforts in securing passage of this ordinance go out to Pierce County Council member Dick Muri (R), and NRA member and activist Allen Hodges.

It is "politically correct" to disapprove of the N.R.A. - yet this levelheaded action illustrates the kind of work in which they are involved. On the other hand, the progressive Left Wing wants to completely ban handgun ownership, in vain pursuit of a panacea approach, as we have seen recently in San Francisco - as outlined in N.R.A.-I.L.A. reports, in the San Francisco Chronicle, and as analyzed this week on Rosenblog.

Full disclosure: I am a N.R.A."life member" - though support reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - but find that the many laws constituting the status quo work to maintain a constitutionally 'well-ordered' society. However, I would support study of requirement for handgun owners to qualify for and maintain a 'concealed weapon carry permit' in order to own handguns. In the state of Washington, this largely consists of an application background check (verification of felony-free status) and fingerprinting into the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) database. I personally find this system to be more of an honor than a burden. But let us be clear: the anti-gun forces out there are not interested in reasonable compromise - and give the N.R.A. no call to reach out, so long as cities like San Francisco and Washington, DC encourage violent criminals with ham-handed attempts at prohibition. It did not work with alcohol in the 1920's - except to foster the rise of organized crime. Think what that would mean regarding black markets for handguns - versus a responsible approach based on compromise and consensus? As the N.R.A. states:

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wants to ban guns in the city! This week, the Supervisors submitted a proposal to the Department of Elections that will ask residents of San Francisco to vote next year on a proposed gun ban that would strip law-abiding citizens of their Constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The measure would abrogate the right of any citizen to own a handgun for any reason. Only law enforcement officers, members of the military, and security guards would be allowed to possess them. The measure would also completely ban the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses. If passed next November, city residents would be forced to surrender their firearms within 90 days.

According to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (Dist.-6), "The hope is...that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it."

In 1982, San Francisco enacted a similar ordinance which also purported to ban all handguns. That measure, with the help of NRA and its members, was eventually struck down.

Ironically, Washington, D.C., a city that effectively bans the right to self defense with a firearm, has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. As such, San Francisco officials would be remiss to use the District of Columbia's gun-ban experience as a model.

According to the anti-gunners' logic, if gun bans worked, Washington, D.C. would be one of the safest cities in America. In reality, the District holds the notorious distinction of being the murder capital of the United States.

As for the District's draconian gun ban, on September 29, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act--" legislation that seeks to restore the right of self-protection to law-abiding citizens of Washington, D.C. HR 3193, was introduced by Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and passed on a bi-partisan vote of 250-171. The bill is the House companion to Senate bill S. 1414, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

The citizens of Tacoma (and all of Pierce County) have gone through a horrible period, of grief and soul searching since the April, 2003 tragic death of Crystal Brame at the cowardly hands of her husband - the Tacoma Police Chief. It has been a time of great reform in that department for almost two years now - as outlined by the Tacoma News Tribune. One might have expected the Pierce County Council to politically 'duck and cover' on any issue related to responsible citizen oversight and input regarding firearms use there. Responsible government officials - not always an oxymoron in Pierce County. See you at the Puyallup gun show - I'm in the market for a nice Rossi twelve gauge - those Rossi's are straight shooters.

Rosenberg Puts Down A Marker

Editorials & Opinion: Wednesday, July 04, 2001
Guest columnist
Shame on Fremont for its tribute to Lenin

By Matt Rosenberg
Special to The Times

Imagine a statue in Westlake Plaza of Hitler, who stoked ethnic and class hatred to inspire extermination of six million Jews. Unthinkable. Yet, under the insidious, value-neutral rubric of "provocative art," Seattle proudly displays a larger-than-life sculpture of a man equally abhorrent.

His focus on strict adherence to the bloody principles of revolutionary class war led to a vastly greater death toll than that of Hitler. There's much to the ugly truth about Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, whose likeness shamefully stands in a public square in Fremont.

Respected historians agree Lenin laid the ideological groundwork for 50 million to 100 million murders in the name of 20th-century Communism. Still, some local media observers have suggested our Lenin is cloaked in "ambiguity" and the statue deserves a pass because he inspired solidarity among our Wobblies in their heyday, or because a democracy-promoting fragment of the Berlin Wall has been considered for installation nearby.

Such blithe rationalizations and the labored explanatory text adjoining the statue itself betray worries we're condoning something awful. We are. It's finally time for Seattle's limousine liberals and bicycle-riding bohemian bourgeoisie to face Lenin's real meaning. There just aren't two sides to it.

In "Fifty Million People Dead: The Grand Failure - The Birth and Death of Communism in the 20th Century," former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski details "the catastrophic legacy of Lenin" in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia. He writes that Lenin exemplified the "concentration of power in just a few hands and reliance on terror."

Estimates from leading Soviet and European scholars in the "Black Book of Communism" are of some 85 to 100 million dead at the hands of 20th-century Communists. Here again, Lenin is strongly implicated as the founding father of Communist mass murder.

Reviewing this years-in-the-making 800-page work, the noted biographer of Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Michael Scammell, wrote in The New Republic about the book's "suffocating torrent of fresh evidence from newly opened Soviet archives" of murderous excesses under Lenin. These included mass exterminations by the "Cheka" secret police Lenin founded (renamed the MVD and later the KGB), and torture.

One internal report from Lenin's time noted, "orgies and drunkenness are daily occurrences. Almost all the personnel of the Cheka are heavy cocaine users. They say this helps them deal with the sight of so much blood on a daily basis."

Scammell observes, "the 'Black Book of Communism' lays to rest once and for all the myth of the 'good' Lenin versus the 'bad' Stalin. . . . Lenin blazed a path of tyranny and bloodshed not only for Stalin, but also for Mao, Ho Chi-Minh, Pol Pot, and a century's worth of psychopaths at every level of the Communist chain of command, from dictators to bureaucrats."

Then read "Black Night, White Snow," by the late Harrison Salisbury, the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning Russian correspondent. Guiding Lenin were these, his own words: "We must stick the 'convict's badge' on anyone and everyone who tries to undermine Marxism, even if we don't go on to examine his case. When you see a stinking heap on the road you don't have to poke around in it to see what it is."

The recent biography, "Lenin," by British scholar Robert Service of St. Anthony's College in Oxford, confirms his place in history as "a rebel whose devotion to destruction proved greater than his love for the 'proletariat' he supposedly served."

Lenin's disturbing legacy persists. A State Department report estimates some 100 killings last year of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, considered a threat by Chinese communist leaders. Aware of Falun Gong's plight early on, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell in late 1999 issued a proclamation saluting the group, but quickly rescinded it after protests.

Local media references amusedly note Lenin stands amidst Fremont's groovy capitalism, guarding a burrito stand, no less. Detached modern irony abnegates the taxing responsibility to thoughtfully employ free expression (a basic human right Lenin killed people to deny).

Our breezy attitude puts us in distinguished company. A fancy Las Vegas eatery, Red Square, also installed a statue of Lenin for arty, edgy atmosphere. Appropriately enough, someone excised his head.

But it was recovered and then frozen in a block of ice used in the restaurant's sub-zero designer vodka "locker." Customers would don a Russian fur coat and hat, march in and snort a few premium Stolys chilled on Lenin's frozen cranium. Then back to their tables for caviar, blinis and the house specialty, "Siberian Nachos."

What good, campy fun! Forward, comrades, to the baccarat tables!

Seattle's Lenin statue isn't illegal. But it is unconscionable. A man from Issaquah brought it from a Poprad, Slovakia, junk heap after the Iron Curtain fell. That's where it belongs.

Matt Rosenberg is a Seattle writer and regular contributor to the opinion page of The Times. He can be reached at oudist@nwlink.com.

Copyright 2001 The Seattle Times Company
___________________________________________________
Letters to the editor

Lessons in lenin
Without the statue, would we reflect on personal freedoms?

Editor, The Times:

I have to disagree with Matt Rosenberg's call to remove the statue of Lenin from display in Fremont ("Shame on Fremont for its tribute to Lenin," Times guest column, July 4). And my reasoning is specifically because of his call for its removal.

Without that statue, the general public would not get access to discourses such as yours about Lenin, communism and the USSR. Ignorance is risk: Our appallingly short memory spans and negligible sense of history need to be prodded by conversations and thoughtfully written historical perspectives in public papers. This discussion would never have taken place if Lenin weren't in Fremont.

And let's face it: While preserving art and propaganda from our glorious - as well as not-so-glorious - past is essential, it should also be noted that the statue is not being displayed in anything that could be considered a place of honor. There's no question that its placement in front of Taco del Mar is distinctly ironic and uncomplimentary to the memory of Lenin. As it should be.

-- Gary Tucker, Seattle

Think Taliban

Shame on Matt Rosenberg for his July Fourth diatribe against the public display of a statue of Lenin on the streets of Fremont!

Rosenberg certainly makes the case that Lenin was responsible for horrible acts against humanity. However, his advocacy for the statue's removal or desecration is reminiscent of the recent destruction of the 1,500-year-old statue of Buddha by the Taliban in Afghanistan because it offended their religious beliefs.

Whenever I drive by Fremont's Lenin statue, I am reminded that it is a display of the very freedom that makes our country the greatest in the world and that to retain that freedom we must remain ever vigilant to preserve it from the attacks of those who would deprive us of it.

-- Robert Benish, Lake Forest Park

His own words

Matt Rosenberg is right to point out the shame reflected on Fremont by its statue of Lenin. Eight years ago, the Library of Congress held an exhibit called "Revelations from the Russian Archives." One item was a telegram from Lenin to some local communist leaders. In part here is what it said:

"Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts (farming districts) must be suppressed without mercy! We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang, so the public sees, at least 100 notorious kulaks [farmers], 2) publish their names, 3) take away all their grain, 4) execute hostages... This needs to be accomplished in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble and scream out; let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Yours, Lenin. P.S. Use your toughest people for this."

Fremont's Lenin statue is not some quaint example of local color erected by campy, misguided leftists. It is a memorial that honors a malevolent man who devoted his life to spreading hate and death.

-- Paul Guppy, Seattle

Bit of a joke

Matt Rosenberg is a myopic fool. The statue in Fremont is not there to venerate Lenin, the Stalinistic pogroms, or Maoist persecutions. Everything that Fremont represents would have been anathema to Lenin and Leninism.

When the statue of Lenin was plucked from the Poprad scrap heap and placed in Fremont as a bit of a joke, no one realized the transformation that Lenin would undergo. Lenin, standing as he does, quietly tells us every day that democracy defeated communism.

Rosenberg needs to look beyond why the statue Lenin was originally cast and place it in context of where it stands today. Very few symbols could be so transformed by a simple change in location.

We should celebrate the victory the Lenin statue in Fremont represents and stop whining about what it once stood for.

-- Jeffrey Kirtland, Seattle

Statue of limitations

Rosenberg does a fine job excoriating Vladimir Lenin, but his complaint is unneeded. The relocated Soviet statue in Fremont is not tribute, but mockery; we can be amused by it because we no longer fear what it represents.

If anything, it is a monument to the demise of Leninism, and where better than ever-skeptical Fremont to celebrate the failure of a brittle, brutal ideology?

-- Tyler Page, Kent

Double fantasy

I'm glad to read that someone else is bothered by (the statue). Each time I passed the statue, I felt irritated and embarrassed by its presence. And somewhat bewildered that in the heart of ultra-sensitive Seattle there stands a statue to a guy who was the trigger man for a century of suffering in Eastern and central Europe.

In an effort to resolve this situation, I offer this modest proposal. Like those folks in Las Vegas, let's cut off Lenin's head. But instead of encasing it in a block of ice, let's melt it down, recast it in the image of someone more in tune with Fremont's funky locus, and replace it. I suggest John Lennon.

What could be better? From a statue of Lenin to a statue of Lennon. People will flock to see it. Money for the project could be raised by cutting a slot in the statue for passersby to drop coins in. Perhaps enough money might be raised to someday commission another statue. A statue of Marx. Groucho, of course.

Imagine.

-- Barry McDermott, Kirkland

Bad company

When the statue was first erected, I expressed concern to friends and was ridiculed. I'm ashamed to say that was the last time I brought up the issue. At the time, I also mentioned Hitler and Idi Amin. I was derided as a humorless spoilsport.

Would Fremont today consider such a tribute to Milosevic? It's time to lose the statue.

-- Diane Dambacher, Seattle

What does Jay think?

Matt Rosenberg needs to slow down a bit. Fremont is not paying tribute to Lenin. I dare to think that 87 percent of the passersby think the statue is of Jay Buhner, or else don't have a clue who it is.

The statue is, however, a symbol. It's the logo of Communist Russia; just as the Golden Arches represent McDonald's, and the swoosh represents Nike. It is with a great sense of irony (get some, Mr. Rosenberg) that the logo of communism now guards a burrito shop.

Oh, Mr. Rosenberg, don't go see "The Producers" on Broadway. It pays tribute to Hitler.

-- Jim Bowman, Seattle

Ukrainian Ballots & Lenin In Our Midst

Fremont makes the Lenin statue central to their community celebrations - that they want to link a mass murderer to Christmas insults Christians everywhere.

(cross-posted at Sound Politics)
For those of you that are new to Sound Politics or blogging in general, it was the Fourth of July, 2001 B.B.E. (Before Blogging Era) which became a defining moment for values in this community. And it was then proto-blogger Matt Rosenberg with this op-ed piece in the Seattle Times which set down the marker. But his point would not have been made without the letters to the editor which followed. And while you're at it, read this in Capitalism Magazine from Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation - yet another Rosenberg fan.
With the Ukrainian Ballot crisis in King County, we are experiencing another moment of clarity regarding our political culture - which stings like a cold splash of dioxin on the face. This is a fascinating time in our region's politics - one marking the re-awakening of Republicans and 'Scoop Jackson' (or should I say, Matt Rosenberg?) Democrats.

Matt hasn't been the only one to stand up to Lenin and his Fremont boosters - take this recent op-ed by Mike Dillon (Publisher of weekly newspapers, among them the Queen Anne and Magnolia News, North Seattle Herald-Outlook, Capitol Hill Times, Kirkland Courier, Madison Park Times, and Beacon Hill News & Sound District Journal. Oh, and for some gratuitous, self- aggrandizing full disclosure: I am also a columnist for Pacific Publishing).
Finally, I ask you to consider the full ramifications of our countenancing Lenin in our midst. Personally, I support a range of actions, from protest and boycott all the way to civil disobedience regarding efforts at its removal. If you are still not convinced, may I commend you to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, DC.


The Lenin cult was well established in the old Soviet Union soon after his death, his followers will do anything to 'neutralize' his image - placing his statue in Seattle - the most Left Wing city in America, is a triumph for Communists worldwide.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
OPINION ORDER NO. 7 6 3 2 1 - 6

DAVID T. McDONALD and RONALD
TARO SUYEMATSU; SANFORD
SIDELL; BRENT CAMPBELL; and
HILLARY DENDY, Petitioner-Electors,
and
WASHINGTON STATE DEMOCRATIC
CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED;
KING COUNTY RECORDS,
ELECTIONS AND LICENSING
SERVICES DIVISION and DEAN
LOGAN, ITS DIRECTOR; FRANKLIN
COUNTY AUDITOR; PEND OREILLE
COUNTY AUDITOR; and PIERCE
COUNTY AUDITOR as representatives
of WASHINGTON STATE COUNTY
AUDITOR CANVASSING BOARDS,
Respondents,

and DINO ROSSI, a Washington Citizen and Elector,
WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY,
an unincorporated association,
Intervenor-Respondents.

By a petition invoking this court’s mandamus jurisdiction and a statute entitled “Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors,” RCW 29A.68.011, various electors and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee seek an order directing Secretary of State Sam Reed to promulgate “uniform standards” for the manual recount now taking place in the Washington State election for Governor. Their Motion and Brief in Support of Emergency Partial Relief specifies that three such sets of standards are being sought:

(1) standards that ensure that all ballots rejected in previous counts are fully canvassed so that the hand recount produces as complete and accurate a tabulation as possible; (2) standards for evaluating previously-rejected signatures according to the more liberal standards applied in most counties; and (3) standards that allow party representatives to meaningfully witness the hand recount, by observing all actual ballots being counted.

Petitioners thus argue that, contrary to current practice, in a manual recount election workers and canvassing boards must consider anew all ballots previously left uncounted, in keeping with their statutory duty to count all votes cast or each ballot cast, though their argument mainly focuses on rejections made on the basis that absentee and provisional ballot signatures do not match with signatures on file. They seem to suggest that this is necessary in part because King County improperly refused to permit voters to protest the decision not to count their ballots on November 17, 2004, the date the election results were certified. Petitioners further suggest that, contrary to the election statutes, including a statute that requires the Secretary to promulgate uniform election rules, the various counties now employ disparate tests and procedures for comparing signatures, with King County having a greater rejection rate than other counties that is statistically significant. And they suggest that the procedures in place for witnessing the recount are contrary to law, and that such witnesses must be given “a meaningful opportunity to be heard before erroneous government action finally disenfranchises a voter.”

This court is mindful that it is the policy of the State of Washington “to encourage every eligible person to register to vote and to participate fully in all elections.” RCW 29A.04.205. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1964). Nonetheless, we must reject petitioners’ arguments.

In this context, a “ballot” is a physical or electronic record of the choices of an individual voter, or the physical document on which the voter’s choices are to be recorded. RCW 29A.04.008(1)(c),(d). “‘Recount’ means the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended election returns….” RCW 29A.04.139 (emphasis added). The procedure for recounts is set forth in RCW 29A.64.041, and starts with the county canvassing board opening “the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted.” See RCW 29A.60.110. Thus, under Washington’s statutory scheme, ballots are to be “retabulated” only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210.

It follows that this court cannot order the Secretary to establish standards for the recanvassing of ballots previously rejected in this election. And petitioners’ call for uniform signature-checking standards (seemingly beyond the statutory requirement that the signature on an absentee ballot be the same as the signature in voter registration files) is beyond the relief that can be afforded in this action.1 Petitioners suggest in their reply brief that a claimed disparity in signature-checking standards implicates equal protection concerns under the privileges and immunities clause of our state constitution, Const. art. I, § 19, but they claim no discriminatory intent. We are mindful that King County rejected a higher percentage of signatures than did other counties, but the record before us does not establish the reason for this disparity, and it could be for factors other than the standard employed.2 We do not take petitioners’ argument to suggest that a claimed disparity in rejection rates of voter signatures triggers some independent right, constitutional or otherwise, to a recanvassing of rejected ballots under a newly developed standard, nor does such an argument come to mind.

Petitioners also seem to suggest that recanvassing of rejected ballots is necessary because the methods employed by King County to allow voters to rehabilitate rejected absentee and provisional ballots run afoul of Washington’s statutory and regulatory scheme. But we find no support for this notion. We note that the county gave absentee voters who failed to sign their ballot affidavits until 4:30 p.m. on November 16, 2004, the day before certification, to sign and return the affidavits, in accordance with WAC 434-240-235. And although this regulation does not require as much, the county likewise permitted absentee voters with problem signatures until 4:30 p.m. on November 16 to provide an updated signature. The county’s procedure for handling signature problems with respect to provisional ballots, which also specified a deadline of 4:30 p.m. on November 16, appears to comport with pertinent regulations and federal law, and petitioners do not persuasively suggest otherwise. Although, as petitioners point out, RCW 29A.60.190(1) provides that the election results should include absentee ballots postmarked on or before the date of the election and received on or before the date of certification, this statute does not address how ballots rejected for missing or invalid signatures are to be handled.

As for petitioners’ request that we order the Secretary to promulgate “standards that allow party representatives to meaningfully witness the hand recount,” we are not convinced that such standards are presently lacking. RCW 29A.64.041 provides that the recount may be observed by persons representing the candidates, that these witnesses may make no record of the names, addresses, or information on the ballots, poll books, or applications for absentee ballots unless authorized by the superior court, and that the Secretary or county auditor may limit the number of observers to not less than two on each side if, in his or her opinion, a greater number would cause undue delay or disruption of the recount process. Petitioners provide no support for their suggestion that witnesses or observers are participants who have a right to be heard and influence this manual recount process.

For the foregoing reasons, we reject petitioners’ arguments and deny their petition for mandamus and request for relief under RCW 29A.68.011.


/S/ CHIEF JUSTICE

1 RCW 29A.40.110(3) requires that the signature on an absentee ballot return envelope be “the same” as the signature in the voter registration files, as determined by the canvassing board or its designated representative, whereas WAC 434-253-047 requires a signature for a provisional ballot that “matches a voter registration record.”

2 We note in passing that the declaration of Dean C. Logan, Director of King County Records, Elections and Licensing Division, says that King County, like many other counties, looks for three points of similarity between the signatures on absentee and provisional ballot envelopes and the signatures on file. If staff finds less than three points of similarity, a supervisor looks at the signatures using the same three-point system. “If the supervisor also believes there is a question as to the validity of the signature, it is referred to the canvassing board for a determination.” Petitioners have submitted the declaration of Joshua C. Jungman, who says that he and other Democratic staff members contacted county auditors to investigate the methods and procedures used to compare and verify signatures. Several auditor offices reported using the same three point method, with canvassing boards having the final say. Mr. Jungman suggests that in King County the decision “doesn’t go to the canvassing board,” but does not say who provided this information. Significantly, petitioners do not suggest that any particular method of signature verification is faulty, or what uniform method should be mandated by the Secretary.

Magnolia's Rejected Voters

This from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"There are more than 1,500 absentee ballots that were rejected by King County elections officials because there was a signature mismatch. Democrats sued to force officials to reconsider previously rejected ballots in the ongoing hand recount, arguing that some voters were wrongly disenfranchised. The court ruled against them Tuesday."

Thanks for telling it like it is - the Democrats say "hang the rules" and "do what we say" - when it suits them. So who are these people? Here's the list from Magnolia's 98199 published in the P-I:

BRANIGAN MICHELLE MARIE 1681 SEATTLE 98199
CHAPMAN KATHARINE R 1688 SEATTLE 98199
CONROY JAMES RAYMOND 1671 SEATTLE 98199
FAHLMAN KELLY 1669 SEATTLE 98199
FOUNTAINE JAMAL DAVID 1682 SEATTLE 98199
FROWNFELTER MILAH B 1698 SEATTLE 98199
HANSON KORIN E 1816 SEATTLE 98199
HESTER CATHERINE E 1813 SEATTLE 98199
HILL LAWRENCE E 1686 SEATTLE 98199
HUERTAS JUDY A 1697 SEATTLE 98199
KJELDTOFT MARIA SONJA 1692 SEATTLE 98199
KOENIG PAUL M 1673 SEATTLE 98199
KOZBER WERNER 1692 SEATTLE 98199
KUO TONY 1689 SEATTLE 98199
LEWELLEN ANDREA B 1664 SEATTLE 98199
MCHUGH LAURIE B 1672 SEATTLE 98199
OHARA CAROL L 1816 SEATTLE 98199
OLIVER MARGARET NICHOLS 1703 SEATTLE 98199
PHILLIPS LAWRENCE R 1661 SEATTLE 98199
PIZARRO ANSELMO O 1813 SEATTLE 98199
SCHWEITZER JESSICA ANN 1693 SEATTLE 98199
SULLIVAN CASEY S 1682 SEATTLE 98199
WILSON WENDY A 1692 SEATTLE 98199

So who are these twenty three? I have lived in Magnolia for eighteen years, and been involved in campaigns in this legislative district for twenty (having lived in it for over forty years all told). I compared this group with Democrat-provided "walking lists" from a recent school levy campaign. With the exception of King County Councilman Larry Phillips (who hied off to Ohio to campaign for John Kerry, according to reports, and had not time to fix up his absentee ballot signature card), this group (it strikes me) is NOT 4X4 Democrat voters (meaning those who vote Democrat every time). They are probably new voters, most likely Bush-haters - but are they 2-1 against Dino? Tough to say, but if a "new" run-off election were ordered by the Supreme Court tomorrow, I would give better than even odds that they would either not show up to vote for the Gr(egoire)inch - or would vote Dinocrat!

Merry Christmas From The Urbane R

Merry Christmas and God's Blessings to you and your family during this holiday season - a time of joy and remembrance - our prayer is for peace in our world. Scott, Kathleen, Mallory & Savannah Cummins - plus Sophie (woofing you joy!) 

Tony Blair Earns It

That the U.K.'s socialist newspaper The Guardian now opines that British PM Tony Blair ranks amongst the worst British leaders in history is reason enough for me:

I love this guy! Err, chap!

As a student at the incredible post-modern salon of technocracy known as Britain's University of Bath in the late 70's, I came to know that conservatism was in my blood. Ask me, sometime, to blog about my interaction with legendary local MP Tony Benn! Ye shall learn of Anglo-Communism, Lenin in tweed, and Utopia-Most-Grand.

This week the other Labour Tony, the Tony of our generation, was off to Ulster. A place we in the States would refer to as a "bad neighborhood" - though, mind you, not because he had any compulsion to do so. Blair's domestic popularity, as the Guardian piece indicates (again, as we say in the States), just plain sucks. Big time. It would behoove Blair to stay away from trouble spots. Like Northern Ireland. And The White House Iraq policy. He has already 'caught it' in major ways at home, ways we Americans have had little coverage of in our media, for stepping up on behalf of George W. Bush in steadfast ways. Ways of a true friend - ways that defy loyalty itself, regarding Iraq. This is the kind of loyalty which canland one in HOT water with populist, jingoist, spineless politicians of every stripe.


In the end, Blair's work on these (oh, so very hard) issues will earn him lasting respect and admiration. Place in History kind of respect. Though as a warrior for peace, Blair may well experience the kind of election vagaries which Winston Churchill himself experienced - as tests to his character. And, like Churchill, it will work out that the entire planet may once again benefit from the idiocy of the British, and their overwhelming tendency to cast off the giants among them. Giants like Tony Blair.

2004 – From Awareness To Activism?

2004 – From Awareness To Activism?
P. Scott Cummins © 2004 The Urbane R

The overnight flight from London to Entebbe had been long and many passengers awake the greater portion of it. Onboard were mostly well-dressed people, mainly African, bearing the stoic manner of experienced business travelers. Scattered in small groups were several young people, European it seemed, already dressed for work outdoors under the equatorial sun. After the second (or was it third?) movie, as the flight neared its end, people could stand it no more – and began to mill around the cabin. I struck up a conversation with an affable septuagenarian, Norwegian as it turned out – a man with many prior trips to Africa. He spoke in admiration for a group of his fellow citizens seated nearby, in the early twenties – on their way to teach landmine removal in Southern Sudan – funded by the Lutheran World Federation and their national government. I asked him what it felt like, on a flight injecting him back into his work dealing with intense poverty and overwhelming disease issues, to face the “cultural imperialism” of Hollywood movies. His response made it clear he was no iconoclast: “I quite enjoyed it, actually – particularly the last one with Albert Finney.” He was unabashed in his appreciation of the United States, which had donated over $150 million for direct assistance in Southern Sudan over the last two years, and had made commitment for over $180 million more going forward for the next biennium. “Ten years ago this month, horrible genocide broke out in Rwanda” he said. Adding “the despair had turned to anger, anger to blame, blame to hatred, and hatred to unimaginable killing. There was no ‘hope’ in 1994, in the way of direct involvement by Europe or America. Today the Darfur region in Southern Sudan is on the cusp, things can break either way.” He than added that the Norwegian government had donated almost $75 million (U.S.) for this purpose, while other nations of his country’s general economic size were donating in the range of one tenth that sum or less – so in many ways he said, Norwegians felt a sense of partnership with America.

Reflecting back on that conversation at the close of this year, I cannot help but appreciate the sense of community here which has brought Magnolia neighbors together to assist our Terry McGill and Sister Schools with empowering work in Uganda over the last eighteen years. And the beacon of hope and opportunity which Uganda, in turn, provides to its neighbors like Sudan because of its progress and healing in the wake of genocide there a quarter century ago. Neighbor working with neighbor to assist, endow and encourage. Here at home, and around the world.

In a community like Magnolia we have much to be thankful for, and a lot of people to thank. 2004, no doubt, marks a year with the largest outpouring of community-minded giving in many a decade. Ambitious and beneficial projects in the arts, recreation and environment were brought to fruition this year – and not even an African-style tropical downpour on day one of our wonderful Community Festival this summer could dampen enthusiasm for the sharing and growth in those programs as people connected at the booths there. As well, in the going-on two decades that I have lived here, direct community service projects by youth service organizations such as Camp Fire and Scouts have been growing continuously, with 2004 a banner year.

My sense is that this spirit of outreach is based not only on an “attitude of gratitude” - but crucially as well on leadership by sustained example from many community heroes among us. Take the example which eclipses all others: the post World War II era of construction that created our community – and not only its homes, but houses of worship. That era took commitment and sacrifice – families deciding not only to take on home mortgages, but to join with their neighbors and add the stress of financial responsibility for debt related to church facilities – construction often done by families themselves after work and on weekends. We are the beneficiaries of that spirit to this day – because of them we can gather to foster human services, community consensus, artistic expression and yes, even spiritual growth. There is great substance behind the affection with which we refer to our neighbors from The Greatest Generation.

Catch that spirit; it will benefit your life and family in ways unimagined until you are empowered. There are many opportunities for you in our community. Find something that touches your heart. Make a commitment. And dive in. There are many organizations with gifted leaders – true workhorses – that know how to tap your unique talents. You will be respected and appreciated. In many, if not most cases, the hard work of start up and organization has been done. Experience the true meaning of the holidays this year – the Community Center with its wall full of flyers and brochures to give you ideas, is just one of many doors open to you right here in Magnolia.

My holiday wish for you and all you hold dear is to take the opportunity to feel that which was once at the heart of this time of year – and by doing so find a way to make it part of what you hold precious about life itself – and to keep on experiencing this throughout 2005 and beyond. If you do that, Magnolia will be a far better place, as will Sudan, Uganda, and our entire world.

Rick Steves Says It All - About The Looney Left

Below you will find our Seattle neighbor (travel guy) Rick Steves opining on all we need to understand about Islamo-Fascist terrorism. Oh, how I would love to debate him, point by point, on this little essay from (of course) the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The fundamentalist views of liberals are incredible to me. We can only hope that Bill O picks up on this - then some rhetorical justice will be done. Update: justice is being done - as in this eminently superior posting on Steves's article at Seattle Sense - on my short list of must-read blogs; and now from Brian Crouch on Sound Politics; and finally on Rosenblog as well. There is justice in this world, after all. Didn't the Dan Rather 'Memogate' story get 'outed' after a thorough fisking by bloggers in just this same manner?

As it stands, Steves lays out a Clinton era fallacy, inartful to the point of doggerel, that would only bring on more of what was: the sudden rise of Islamo-Fascist terrorism during the 1990's. Steves is unfortunately like those three little monkeys, neither seeing, hearing or speaking (he says) in ways to inflame Islamic passion. This brand of diplomacy was an invitation to let loose the dogs of hell, in myriad ways - as we saw with genocide in Africa and (even) Bosnian Europe during the 1990's. And the misguided (and some say borderline evil) Clinton policy of wave-after-wave of cruise missiles, which was a major tipping point in motivation for the 9/11 attacks, Steves has conveniently forgotten.

No doubt Steves will be up for peace prizes from the Left (just after Patty Murray gets hers for having 'broken the code' on Usama bin Laden). Patty and Steve - keep it up, we need you... this is the kind of rhetoric upon which to further consolidate on Republican victories in '06!
__________________________

Saturday, December 4, 2004

Can we fight terrorism constructively?
By RICK STEVES
SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Editor's note: Filling in for David Horsey this week is Rick Steves, author of the "Europe Through the Back Door" books and host of the popular public television travel program, "Rick Steves' Europe."

On Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers collapsed and angry clouds of dust chased U.S. citizens through the streets of New York City. The world was outraged. And the United States was outraged. So much so that -- three long years later -- many Americans still refuse to even dignify the attack by asking, "Why did they do it?"

But we must understand the enemy to combat them. Let me play the role of one of the thousands of Muslim parents who've named their babies Osama in the past year and look at the situation from the point of view of these devout Muslims offended and threatened by the reach of U.S. power.

Who was actually being attacked on that terrible day? The targets chosen were not symbolic of average Americans (say, a shopping mall or sports stadium). They weren't symbols of the freedoms that this country stands for (Statue of Liberty). Rather, the 9/11 hijackers went straight for the institutions of U.S. might in the world: international corporations (the Trade Towers), the U.S. military (the Pentagon) and -- had the fourth plane reached its likely goal -- our commander in chief (the White House).

So, why did they do it? Because "they hate freedom?" Come on -- that's ridiculous.

A billion Muslims throughout the world have three serious concerns: Palestine needs security and self-respect; they want the American military out of Islam; and they want control of their natural resources (to charge whatever they like for their oil). These are three basic foreign policy questions that any U.S. president could address without compromising the security and interests of America or Israel.

The United States' overwhelming global dominance is unprecedented in human history. Many Muslims fear the Americanization of their culture. In addition, the United States declares natural resources (such as oil) in Muslim countries "vital to its national security." And our immense military -- as big as the rest of the world's combined and unfightable by means other than terrorism --defends U.S. access to markets and natural resources throughout the globe.

It's clear that maintaining our dominance by force is costly in civil liberties, our moral standing in the world, tax dollars and human lives. So my Burning Question is:

Could we more effectively fight terrorism by understanding what motivates it and then taking away the source of the anger? Wouldn't it be cheaper and wiser to just face our enemy, ask "Why?" and respond constructively?

Locke Weighs In On Recount

Outgoing Washington Governor Gary Locke held a press conference yesterday, and scrupulously avoided reference to Governor-Elect Dino Rossi by that title. Instead, he only made reference to Rossi and Attorney General Christine Gregoire together. Locke took issue with the procedure of certifying the election - saying the results would not truly be certified until done so by the Legislature in January. Locke did strongly support the "non-cherry pick" method of hand recount - and said recounting only a few counties would be a "piecemeal approach" that could likely lead to a statewide hand recount anyway - and further delay. Look for streaming of the press conference here on TVW - the state public affairs cable outlet.