Daily Archives: January 23, 2012

Longview Longshore Settlement With EGT

No official announcement of the terms of the settlement but Governor Chris Gregoire announced a settlement between the Longview Longshoremen and the Export Grain Terminal (EGT);

“While the parties are still working to finalize certain conditions over the next several days, we are optimistic we can resolve the dispute and get on with the business of operating the facility,” EGT CEO Larry Clarke said in a statement.

See previous posts on this issue here. More later.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

The Zero Says Abortion is "Health[y] for our Society"

Today Oregon’s newspaper of record (here) editorialized in favor of abortion. And the sun came up today. It’s no surprise that The Zero would editorialize in favor of abortion but it’s the ‘why’ and a key observation that are so baffling–and tragic.

The newspaper swallows whole the notion that, on this 30th anniversary of abortion on demand, “Big Abortion” wants to reduce its the number of babies being killed. You’ll forgive me the urge to laugh.

Here’s the plan:

…an innovative and positive campaign aimed, in part, at preventing abortion. We’re speaking of the “One Key Question” initiative crafted by the Oregon Foundation for Reproductive Health, a nonprofit associated with NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon.

If they do, then it’s time to talk about prenatal care and having a healthy baby. If they don’t, then there’s an opening to talk about birth control.

Ladies, NARAL wants to be in on your private consultation with a doctor.

That’s like having Big Tobacco in on every office consultation providing guidance on your smoking habits under the guise of reducing the amount of smokers.

Lord, please forgive the Oregonian editorial writers their gullibility.

But it gets worse than that:

Today in Oregon, desperate women can terminate a pregnancy safely and legally, and the availability of abortion bolsters not only their own family’s security but also the health of our society.

Did you catch that? The newspaper of record has pronounced that abortions have made our society more healthy.

That’s a a little like saying gang members do society a favor by cleansing the gene pool. Ok, I admit to actually saying that on occasion. But would you make that same statement about grandma wanting to take a spate of pills to end her life? Will her death make society “healthier?”

Where are all those do-gooders who want to save the lives of murderers on Oregon’s death row in support of  the Governor’s unconstitutional moratorium? I thought they believed keeping alive the psychopaths who murdered multiple people was more healthy for society.

Sure is confusing.

I believe cheer-leading the killing of innocent children is unhealthy for society. I believe the desensitization that results from our cavalier treatment of life is unhealthy for society.

Silly me.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Longview Longshore Settlement With EGT

No official announcement of the terms of the settlement but Governor Chris Gregoire announced a settlement between the Longview Longshoremen and the Export Grain Terminal (EGT);

“While the parties are still working to finalize certain conditions over the next several days, we are optimistic we can resolve the dispute and get on with the business of operating the facility,” EGT CEO Larry Clarke said in a statement.

See previous posts on this issue here. More later.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Scott St. Clair: Put a sock in efforts to tell the rest of us to put a sock in it

During each election cycle, predictable bad pennies show up. Like stuck records, stupid ideas are repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. In today’s Olympian is a letter to the editor complaining about the length and cost of political campaigns. Letter writer Gordon Personius repeats the bad-penny stupid idea that the answer is a 90-day limitation on campaigns, which would be exclusively publicly funded. 
How many ways to you want to gut the hell out of the First Amendment to do this? No American, left or right, should ever be forced to subsidize offensive political speech, which is the essence of public funding of campaigns. 

Of course, this doesn’t deter certain elements of the electorate from continuing their effort to control what speech should be acceptable and how it should be disseminated, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.

The left – always a hater of free and unfettered speech not towing its party line – has never figured out that the First Amendment’s simple language, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” means what it says. What part of “no law” do they not understand – the “no” or the “law”? 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently saidthat the answer is changing the channel or turning off the TV if you find political commercials not to your liking or excessive. In other words, take responsibility for your own life. There are some of us who are not so thin skinned or easily offended who welcome political campaigning.

In fact, we need more of it – much more of it. According to OpenSecrets.org, just under $1.5 billion was raised during the 2008 presidential campaign with $1.3 billion of it spent. Compare that to what CBSNews.comreported as the 2009 ad budget for one company, Procter & Gamble, which was $8.6 billion (10.9 percent of net sales). 

To sell toothpaste and soap P&G spent six times what all candidates raised and spent to run for president. 

Given many of the chowder heads elected to office and some of the mind-boggling ballot measures voters support, it’s patently obvious that the issue isn’t that there’s too much money in politics – there’s not enough opposition money in politics. 

Money is the ability to communicate. Whether in person on the campaign trail or through advertising, most assuredly the more money you have the more you’re able to get your message out. And the more money an opponent has, the more it can communicate on what a dunderhead the other guy is.

When you scratch the surface of contribution and spending limits and public financing of campaigns, you find that those who complain about this issue favor candidates or issues that attract little financial support. Whether because their fundraisers are too lazy or too inept to get the job done or because the candidate or issues are too repellant to voters and contributors vary in individual cases – there are no other plausible explanations.

The American people are smart enough, and the Constitution presumes they have the absolute right, to think, discern and make election decisions without anyone “protecting” them from somebody’s idea of excessive political campaigning. Put a sock in it.


Scott St. Clair is a former investigative journalist with Washington’s Freedom Foundation.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

The Zero Says Abortion is "Health[y] for our Society"

Today Oregon’s newspaper of record (here) editorialized in favor of abortion. And the sun came up today. It’s no surprise that The Zero would editorialize in favor of abortion but it’s the ‘why’ and a key observation that are so baffling–and tragic.

The newspaper swallows whole the notion that, on this 30th anniversary of abortion on demand, “Big Abortion” wants to reduce its the number of babies being killed. You’ll forgive me the urge to laugh.

Here’s the plan:

…an innovative and positive campaign aimed, in part, at preventing abortion. We’re speaking of the “One Key Question” initiative crafted by the Oregon Foundation for Reproductive Health, a nonprofit associated with NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon.

If they do, then it’s time to talk about prenatal care and having a healthy baby. If they don’t, then there’s an opening to talk about birth control.

Ladies, NARAL wants to be in on your private consultation with a doctor.

That’s like having Big Tobacco in on every office consultation providing guidance on your smoking habits under the guise of reducing the amount of smokers.

Lord, please forgive the Oregonian editorial writers their gullibility.

But it gets worse than that:

Today in Oregon, desperate women can terminate a pregnancy safely and legally, and the availability of abortion bolsters not only their own family’s security but also the health of our society.

Did you catch that? The newspaper of record has pronounced that abortions have made our society more healthy.

That’s a a little like saying gang members do society a favor by cleansing the gene pool. Ok, I admit to actually saying that on occasion. But would you make that same statement about grandma wanting to take a spate of pills to end her life? Will her death make society “healthier?”

Where are all those do-gooders who want to save the lives of murderers on Oregon’s death row in support of  the Governor’s unconstitutional moratorium? I thought they believed keeping alive the psychopaths who murdered multiple people was more healthy for society.

Sure is confusing.

I believe cheer-leading the killing of innocent children is unhealthy for society. I believe the desensitization that results from our cavalier treatment of life is unhealthy for society.

Silly me.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Scott St. Clair: Put a sock in efforts to tell the rest of us to put a sock in it

During each election cycle, predictable bad pennies show up. Like stuck records, stupid ideas are repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. In today’s Olympian is a letter to the editor complaining about the length and cost of political campaigns. Letter writer Gordon Personius repeats the bad-penny stupid idea that the answer is a 90-day limitation on campaigns, which would be exclusively publicly funded. 
How many ways to you want to gut the hell out of the First Amendment to do this? No American, left or right, should ever be forced to subsidize offensive political speech, which is the essence of public funding of campaigns. 

Of course, this doesn’t deter certain elements of the electorate from continuing their effort to control what speech should be acceptable and how it should be disseminated, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.

The left – always a hater of free and unfettered speech not towing its party line – has never figured out that the First Amendment’s simple language, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” means what it says. What part of “no law” do they not understand – the “no” or the “law”? 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently saidthat the answer is changing the channel or turning off the TV if you find political commercials not to your liking or excessive. In other words, take responsibility for your own life. There are some of us who are not so thin skinned or easily offended who welcome political campaigning.

In fact, we need more of it – much more of it. According to OpenSecrets.org, just under $1.5 billion was raised during the 2008 presidential campaign with $1.3 billion of it spent. Compare that to what CBSNews.comreported as the 2009 ad budget for one company, Procter & Gamble, which was $8.6 billion (10.9 percent of net sales). 

To sell toothpaste and soap P&G spent six times what all candidates raised and spent to run for president. 

Given many of the chowder heads elected to office and some of the mind-boggling ballot measures voters support, it’s patently obvious that the issue isn’t that there’s too much money in politics – there’s not enough opposition money in politics. 

Money is the ability to communicate. Whether in person on the campaign trail or through advertising, most assuredly the more money you have the more you’re able to get your message out. And the more money an opponent has, the more it can communicate on what a dunderhead the other guy is.

When you scratch the surface of contribution and spending limits and public financing of campaigns, you find that those who complain about this issue favor candidates or issues that attract little financial support. Whether because their fundraisers are too lazy or too inept to get the job done or because the candidate or issues are too repellant to voters and contributors vary in individual cases – there are no other plausible explanations.

The American people are smart enough, and the Constitution presumes they have the absolute right, to think, discern and make election decisions without anyone “protecting” them from somebody’s idea of excessive political campaigning. Put a sock in it.


Scott St. Clair is a former investigative journalist with Washington’s Freedom Foundation.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com