HorsesAss.Org

Oops…

Supporters of the proposed Black Rock reservoir near Yakima are admitting they made a $2 billion error in estimating how much money would come from electricity produced by the project.

[…] Charlie de la Chapelle, a Yakima Valley fruit grower who is vice chairman of the alliance, said the grass-roots group regrets the mistake.

“We apologize for the error. We vow to scrutinize numbers we release more carefully and stand behind our other public statements,” de la Chapelle said.

Chapelle should run for President.

The Yakima Basin Storage Alliance now estimates that power sales will generate $412 million over forty years. Due to a calculation error an initial report had estimated power benefits at $2.4 billion.

Correcting the error reduced the current projected Black Rock benefits to $3.8 billion, an amount that is less than the estimated construction cost of $4.2 billion.

Of course, the US Bureau of Reclamation estimates that the reservoir would only return about 30 cents on the dollar, but I wouldn’t worry about the over $2 billion discrepancy because, you know… the YBSA has vowed to “scrutinize” its numbers.

Hmm. I don’t know enough about the environmental and economic impact of the Black Rock project to take a position one way or the other. The Yakima Basin is a crucial agricultural region to our state and our nation, and with global warming threatening the Cascade ice pack, water shortages could reach crisis proportions within decades. But it’s stupid-ass shit like this that makes taxpayers suspicious of all big, public infrastructure projects.

Overestimating the power revenues by 600 percent. Gimme a break.

Let’s be clear. Whatever the reservoir’s merits, the YBSA and its political supporters in Benton and Yakima counties are seeking to finance this project primarily through huge state and federal subsidies. If the project makes economic and environmental sense, fine. I could support it. Just be honest about the numbers.

And while you’re at it, why not be honest about the flow of tax revenues in this state, and stop lying to your constituents by perpetuating the myth that dollars flow East to West? Your dams, your irrigation projects, your freeways and your universities were built primarily with state and federal tax dollars. Nobody’s asking for any “thank you’s” — we’re just tired of all the “fuck you’s.”

State Rep. Maureen Walsh (R-College Place) has resigned as chair of the committee Democrats offered her as a show of bipartisanship:

Rep. Maureen Walsh stepped down Thursday as vice chairman of the House Committee on Early Learning and Children’s Services, The Associated Press reported. Walsh, R-College Place, was one of two Republicans selected by Democrats for top committee posts in December, in a nod to bipartisanship. Rep. Tom Campbell also was named chairman of the newly formed Select Committee on Environmental Health.

“Maybe it was naive of me to not think it would cause any problems,” said Walsh, who also cited family concerns as part of her decision. Her husband died in April, and she has a 14-year-old son attending school in Olympia during session.

“When it boiled right down to it, the fact that I had some folks in my caucus who would view me a little different or not see me as a team player … I don’t need that. I don’t need that at all,” she told The Associated Press.

There has been lots of hand wringing about how this is bad sign for bipartisanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. For Republicans, Walsh’s resignation makes Democrats responsible for whatever is passed from that committee. The GOP can now fire at will at Democrats without putting Walsh in the position of defending the Democrat’s agenda. Democrats need to realize that they are the choice of most voters. Democrats won in ’06! Frank Chopp and others can say nice things about working together with the GOP, but committee chairs need to be on the team and share our values.

Folks voted for Democrats in ’06 because, sure, they wouldn’t mind a little ‘working together’, but they voted mostly because they wanted to fix roads, fund schools, provide healthcare to kids, and pursue government reform. The House Speaker would do well remember why folks gave him that huge majority in the first place.

I’ve written two posts over the past couple days suggesting that President Bush intends to lead us into a broader war with Syria and Iran… you know, the kind of posts my righty trolls like to see because they think it makes me look like a paranoid, crack-smoking nutcase. Well apparently, I’m not the only one smoking crack these days.

Yesterday, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) — a presidential candidate — specifically asked her if “the president has plans to cross the Syrian and/or Iranian border.”

Sec. Rice couldn’t say no: “Obviously, the president isn’t going to rule anything out.”

This exchange prompted a comment from Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a conservative Republican who also is purported to have presidential aspirations. You know how it usually goes — a Democrat grills a representative of the Bush administration, prompting a Republican to come to his or her defense with prepared comments and questions.

But these aren’t usual times:

SEN. HAGEL: When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question — will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night — you cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it’s carried out, I will resist it.

I guess Sen. Hagel is smoking crack too. Or perhaps he’s just put partisanship aside because he cares more about his country than his party?

I can’t prove that the Bush administration is insane — that it is in fact being guided by a kind of group psychosis — but then, I cannot find any evidence to the contrary. If the President directs air strikes or troop movements across the Syrian and/or Iranian borders, our military commanders will follow the orders of their Commander in Chief, with or without Congressional authorization. Short of preemptive impeachment, there is absolutely nothing the Democratic controlled Congress can do to prevent the president from following this disastrous path, regardless of the illegality of such an escalation.

If the President intends to choose this path, only the Republicans can save our nation from a catastrophe of historic proportions. Only a Republican Party unified in opposition to their President can persuade him that the political risks are as real as the military ones.

If you are a Republican, and you oppose escalating this war into a broader regional conflict, it is incumbent upon you to contact your party leaders and elected officials at all levels of state, local and federal government, and plead with them to publicly oppose any policy that would lead to war with Syria and Iran. Follow Sen. Hagel’s lead, and let your party know that if this policy is pursued, you will resist it.

At the height of the Watergate scandal our nation stood on the edge of a constitutional crisis. It was only when President Nixon became convinced that he had lost the support of his own party — that the threat of impeachment was real — that he finally backed down and resigned. President Bush needs to understand that he cannot legally expand this war without Congressional authorization, and that if he does, the political consequences will be brutal, swift and bipartisan.

Frank Shiers is under the weather (as opposed to just being under six inches of snow) so I’m filling in for him tonight on 710-KIRO from 9PM to 1AM — and possibly tomorrow night. (That should be motivation for Frank; he’ll want to get well before I drive away his audience with my lefty rants.)

I’m also filling in Saturday from 7-10PM and doing my usual Sunday 7-10PM slot.

Anyway, anybody has some topic ideas, post them in thread. And please stay up late tonight to call in and chat.

I’d initially missed this nugget in President Bush’s speech last night.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

Patriot air defense? To defend us from whose missiles? The insurgents don’t have missiles. Al Quaeda doesn’t have missiles.

Oh. But Iran and Syria do.

Maybe we’ll need those Patriots to defend us from Iranian missiles now that we’ve just invaded sovereign Iranian territory?

The Bush administration is fucking insane.

UPDATE:
Well, at least now I know where we’re going to get all the ground troops to fight this wider, regional war.

Um…

Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., announced today that she and husband Brian Rodgers are expecting a baby boy in May.

I fully expect all the sexist righties who so callously attacked Darcy Burner — accusing her of abandoning her child to run for Congress — to immediately demand Rep. McMorris’ resignation.

As for me, I congratulate the couple. Kids are great.

Earlier today you may have seen the post by Rep. Adam Smith, in which he explains his reasoning for opposing escalation in Iraq:

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But the big question is whether or not Rep. Smith is willing to use Congress’ constitutional power of the purse to limit the President’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq. [See the update below]

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But Congressman, it is the President who has put the troops in this fight between himself and Congress! Let’s be clear: Democrats should fund the troops who are currently engaged, but not a single soldier more. Let’s draw a line in the sand. I think the working class folks of the 9th District would appreciate a congressman who sticks up (and always has, I might add) for the grunts who could be shipped out in a “surge.” Let’s make sure Rep. Adam Smith knows we’ve got his back on this!

Speaking of ‘speaking out,’ I’m seeing a trend starting to work its way around the blogosphere. Lefties are flying off the handle at perceived slights and sins of omission. Like this:

Our Senators have been remarkably quiet about Iraq for a long time. Until lately, Iraq wasn’t even on Patty Murray’s website. They’re doing better lately, but I was disappointed that they had no thoughts about the most important issue facing the country.
Did I miss something? I thought the Republicans were supposed to come up with right wing ideas, and Democrats were supposed to come up with left wing ideas. Instead, Murray and Cantwell are letting Bush and Cheney do all the thinking (no, I can’t read that with a straight face either). They are content to respond.

I’m getting worn out with folks runnin’ off half-cocked, with goofy ideas about exactly what senators and congressfolk ought to say and when they ought to say it. Senators Murray and Cantwell have some power to wield. Attention Democrats!! We’ve got power now!! This means it doesn’t matter what they say so much as what they do. As Kos says, just because Murray and Cantwell aren’t angrily denoucing Bush’s plan before he releases it doesn’t mean they’re not ready for a fight.

And in this fight, even the soldiers are with us.

UPDATE:

Rep. Adam Smith was on KUOW today and said it was “appropriate to place limits” on the President regarding the increase of troop levels. He’s open to the idea, but is concerned that it might not be possible. He wants to make sure such a move doesn’t hurt the troops, which is his first concern (as it should be).

Um… I was listening to President Bush’s speech this evening, and I’m not exactly sure that this is what the Iraq Study Group meant when they recommended that the US “actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.”

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

So… as long as we’re escalating the war in Iraq, I guess the only question regarding Iran and Syria is, which one is Cambodia and which one is Laos?

UPDATE:
Great minds think alike. The General has uncovered Our Leader’s visual aid:

Rep. Adam Smith / Guest post:

Yesterday several of my colleagues and I met with President Bush and senior members of the Administration to discuss his plans for a “troop surge”. The meeting included the Vice President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and Karl Rove. Other members of Congress present included Representatives Skelton, Harman, Edwards, Reyes, Lantos, Dicks, and Berman.

I went to the meeting highly skeptical that escalating our troop presence in Iraq by approximately 20,000 personnel is the right answer in Iraq. I hoped to learn more about the administration’s thinking and to ask tough questions about his rationale. The President and his advisors laid out a plan to use a troop surge to support an Iraqi-led effort to “clear and hold” areas of Baghdad to help restore credibility for the Iraq government. They are obviously committed to their plan, but it was clear that they understand the hole they are in. There was no swagger – but it remains to be seen if they truly listen to Congress and to the American people who have deep and justified concerns about such an escalation.

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

I’m concerned that the President continues to view this as a military problem, not a political problem. We have tried troop increases in Baghdad before with very limited results. We need to see from the Administration a real commitment to a broader diplomatic and political effort if we are to have any sense of minimal stability in Iraq. So far, the Administration has talked about such efforts, but not backed them up with resources and action. We simply cannot afford more of the same.

We also have to keep in mind that the global war on terror is exactly that: global. How does our commitment in Iraq affect our ability to prosecute the wider war? As I said yesterday in an interview, the recent air strikes against al-Qaeda targets in Somalia are a reminder that Iraq does not constitute the entire war on terror, and we have to remember that the battle in Iraq does not necessarily determine success or failure in the broader struggle.

In the weeks ahead, I’ll have the opportunity to participate in Armed Services Committee hearings, especially in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities (which I will chair) to more fully examine the President’s plan.

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Smith
[Rep. Smith is a Democrat, representing Washington’s 9th Congressional District]

Apparently, Seattle was only fourth last year nationwide in bank robberies.

With 74 bank robberies in 2006, Seattle ranked fourth in the nation behind only Los Angeles (357), Boston (343) and Philadelphia (292), said FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs.

Statewide, FBI agents and police responded to 272 bank robberies last year, compared with 221 in 2005, Burroughs said.

Washington has historically had among the highest number of bank robberies. The state recorded 357 robberies in 1998, an all-time high. However, the numbers have declined in recent years.

FBI Special Agent Larry Carr blames our high number of bank robberies on Seattle’s high level of homelessness.

Of all of the robberies investigated last year, Carr said he can’t think of any suspect who had a permanent address.

“If they’re not homeless, they’re transient. They’re living in a hotel room based upon the proceeds of their bank robbery,”

In case your wondering, here are some WA bank robbery fun facts:

• 93 percent of bank robbers are men.
• Most bank robberies are nonviolent. Only four assaults occurred in 272 robberies.
• The bank most likely to be hit? Bank of America.
• Average take statewide? $3,622
• Average take Seattle? $2,004
• Average take Spokane? $6,026

Hmm. I’ve been robbing banks in the wrong city.

Due to an equipment failure, the Montlake Ale House is closed tonight, so we’re moving the gathering to Elysian Fields, down by Qwest Field.

I know it’s a bit of a hike, but they serve good beer and good food. And it’s awfully damn big, and usually pretty empty when there isn’t a game going on.

We’ll be back at the Montlake Ale House next week.

I have a small retirement account left over from the days when I actually earned a living. Most of it is in a mutual fund, but I do own one stock directly. And that stock just went up 8.3 percent today.

Here’s why.

Oh. My. God.

It’s gadgets like this that make me wish I could just sell my soul to the highest bidder.

Kudos to Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-Poulsbo) for introducing a bill, HB 1087, that would prohibit paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.

     NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that the preservation of the integrity of the initiative and referendum process is of utmost importance to the citizens of Washington. In Prete v. Bradbury, the court of appeals for the ninth circuit concluded that an Oregon law banning payment of electoral petition signature gatherers on a per-signature basis is not per se unconstitutional. Courts of appeals for the second and eighth circuits have upheld laws banning payment per-signature in New York and North Dakota as well.
     The legislature finds that paying workers based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition increases the possibility of fraud in the signature gathering process. This practice may encourage the signature gatherer to misrepresent a ballot measure, to apply undue pressure on a person to sign a petition that the person is not qualified to sign, to encourage signing even if the person has previously signed, or to invite forgery. To protect the process from fraudulent practices, compensation per-signature needs to be addressed in Washington.

     NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 29A.84 RCW to read as follows:
     A person who pays or receives consideration based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.

My buddy Tim Eyman told David Postman that the measure is unconstitutional, and I guess Eyman should know, since he’s managed to pen and pass four unconstitutional measures himself. Still, considering the fact that a similar Oregon law has already passed constitutional muster, Tim shouldn’t be so cocky.

And speaking of unconstitutional initiatives, Eyman himself filed a new one yesterday, requiring a two-thirds vote for the legislature to approve any tax increase. Of course, the state constitution specifies a simple majority, so what’s the point? Yawn.

[UPDATE!!! Just got word that the Montlake Alehouse is closed tonight due to equipment failure.

Tonight’s Seattle DL has been moved to Elysian Fields, down by Qwest Field. Why there? Good beer, and plenty of room.]

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

I know the local news today is probably going to be dominated by our impending climatic doom (ie, it might snow) but if the forecast holds up we should be getting our usual rain until well past last call. So I fully expect the usual crowd.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

NOTE:
The inaugural meeting of the Mercer Island chapter of DL will be held tomorrow, Jan 10, 6:30PM at the Islander Pub, 7440 SE 27th Street, Mercer Island. I know the DL calendar says they meet at the Roanoke Tavern, and I understand they plan to meet there in the future, but at least for this week it’s at the Islander.

I don’t really care who came up with the idea first, Danny or Dan. (In fact, I’ve been quietly thinking along the same lines myself in recent weeks.) The point is, as long as we’re going to have to live without the Viaduct for a number of years regardless of the replacement option, why not just live without it and see how it goes?

Transportation planners predict massive gridlock if the Viaduct disappears, but… well… transportation planners have been wrong before. One thing we’ve learned from our nation’s freeway construction binge is “build it, and they will come.” And one thing we’ve learned from the few experiments in freeway removal is “tear it down, and people will find some other way to get the hell where their going.”

Okay, that second catch phrase isn’t all that catchy. But for the most part it’s true.

I’ve always found it odd, the argument that Highway 99 is a vital north-south freeway that we simply cannot do without, when in fact the vast majority of 99 runs at-grade, traffic lights and all. And ironically, my own yearlong personal experience routinely heading north on 99 from South Seattle to Ballard during afternoon rush hour found that the double-decker Viaduct was the only portion of 99 that was absolutely guaranteed to be mired in stop-and-go traffic.

How could a surface street option possibly be any worse?

So yeah, tear down the Viaduct, try the “surface plus transit” alternative, and let’s see if it works. And if it doesn’t, well… we can always blame Danny and Dan.

UPDATE:
David Sucher points out that he argued for this approach way back in May. So there you have it… two Dans and two Daves all think it’s a good idea. What’s there to lose?

UPDATE, UPDATE:
One sign that an idea is catching on is when everybody starts demanding credit for it.