Press "Enter" to skip to content

Blogging ID18

The Northwest blogging world is starting to see entries from state legislators - something new in the region. There have, of course, been public officials who have blogged for some time now, notably Portland council member Randy Leonard, who's been prominent on Blue Oregon since its inception. Now we're seeing elected officials with their own independent blogs, and with some attitude.

It may be that legislators who find themselves on the losing side of things have much more interesting posts to blog.

Washington Representative Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, may have the most remarkably detailed job-related blogging of any public official in the region. (You get a remarkably detailed insight into the daily routine of a legislator from reading it.) Some of the best reading there comes when Upthegrove is in the minority, which is not usually since Democrats overwhelmingly control the Washington House.

But it happens, as in this case: "There was one bill today where I was the only legislator to vote no...the vote was 97-1. I know there were other legislators who opposed the bill, but they just wussed out. It was a bill to ban the sale or use of devices that vaporize alcohol. Apparently, some people like to get drunk faster by putting their booze in a humidifier-like thing and inhaling it. It sounds like a stupid & awful thing to do, but there have been no incidents of problems with this in Washington. And, fundamentally, adults in a free society should be allowed to make stupid decisions about what they choose to put into their bodies. Crack down on drunk driving? Yes. Take steps to keep this kind of stuff away from kids? Absolutely. Make it illegal for adults to use a particular device to consume a legal product?.....two words for you: nanny state."

Then there's the new blog by one of the newly-elected Democrats in the Idaho House, Branden Durst, of Boise, which may be starting to include debate by other means . . . not a bad use of a blog.

He became a center of attention on the House floor last week when, trying to get reduced from two-thirds to 60% the voting percentage needed to fund a community college district, he tried to amend a bill touching on that subject by adding in provisions from a bill already shot down in the House Revenue & Taxation Committee. That earned him one hand-slapping (and a vote down on the House floor). Then all hell broke loose when, responding to a comment about upholding the committee system, he replied that the legislator "said we had a committee system that works. I would say that’s false.” Which, on a couple of grounds, probably was a violation of House rules on debate.

Blogging, Burst wrote: "I have found in my life those in control never like the idea of change. That doesn't mean it is not worth seeking out, however. To that end, I honestly don't believe I was voted in to office to maintain the status quo. The residents of District 18 that I met, regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof), demanded a fresh start. I am giving them that."


old printing pressOf all of the Northwest's newspapers, the Spokane Spokesman-Review seems to be doing the most thorough rethink of who they are and what they're about. Last year it developed a provocative "Newsroom of the Future" report.

In a post this month, one of the paper's blogs contains this sentence: "The Spokesman-Review is no longer a newspaper, but an information company that publishes news and information whenever and however people want it."

The specific prompt for it was a newsroom development called the "Breaking News initiative," which seems to be a variation on wire service instant publishing (the old motto there has been, "a deadline every second") with the variation of using a range of outlets for the material.

But redefining the newsroom doubtless will go on for quite some time.

A big deal

The gaming deal Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed with the Spokane Tribe of Indians on Friday got only so-so attention on the west side, but it may be one of the biggest events of recent years in regional gaming. Which makes it of interest regionally.

The tribe's stand on it sounds almost nondescript: “This proposed Compact promises to benefit not only our Tribe but the entire region as well, creating needed jobs and boosting the local economy. The proposed Compact also ensures that Spokane Indian Gaming stays limited and well regulated.”

There are counter-views. State Senator Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, wrote in an op-ed that "If anyone thinks that this deal is a one-time expansion of gambling, think again. The compact secures the tribe’s right to expand gambling well into the future. Bottom line: The governor has a strong voice in this matter, and her voice should echo what the public has to say. In 2004, voters overwhelmingly rejected I-892, an initiative to expand gambling. A compact that would add more gambling machines, encourage gambling expansion by other tribes, reward illegal operations and pave the way for off-reservation gaming takes us in the wrong direction. It’s a sweet deal for the Spokane Tribe, but for families across the state, it’s simply an escalation in gambling."

The deal allows the tribe to build five casinos and put in place 4,700 gaming machines (not all at once; there's a phase-in). That's larger than we've seen before, but hardly overwhelming.

But there is another factor to consider.


Wal-Mart limited at Cottage Grove

Looks like the hotly debated proposed expansion of the Wal-Mart at Cottage Grove will be disallowed by the city. The final vote by the city's planning commission comes Wednesday, but it already has acted to set up the vote for denial.

Wal-Mart wanted to change city zoning ordinances to allow it to grow its current store into a supercenter - essentially, adding a grocery store within. The rules passed when the store was originally built don't allow for that.

Vote in the House, vote in the Senate

Should be noted that while the overall House vote on Concurrent Resolution 63 - opposing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq showed a number of Republicans from around the country voting in favor, none of them were from the Northwest. The Northwest's House delegation voted on strict party lines, Democrats in favor, Republicans against.

(An asterisk here: Washington Representative Brian Baird, Democrat from district 3, did not vote. But given his earlier statements, there's no reason to imagine that he was torn; he likely would have voted in favor. So that means all nine other Democrats voted in favor, and all six Republicans voted against.)

The resolution itself, by the way, is short, and reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

There's the possibility that party split may be muddied over in the Senate. There, word has broken that Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith will vote for cloture, to block a possible filibuster of Senate consideration of the resolution.

A couple of weeks back, Smith took a lot of heat for opposing cloture on a Senate resolution on the same topic, developed in large part by fellow Republican John Warner.

On the border: We decide

Lewis Lukens
Lewis Lukens

Considering that Lewis Lukens is by occupation a diplomat - in his role as the U.S. consul-general now stationed at Vancouver, British Columbia - he used some words on Thursday that were remarkably guaranteed to outrage. They were provocative enough to almost seem intended to do so.

He was speaking on the United States side of the border at Bellingham, at the Western Washington University Border Policy Research Institute. The Institute's mission is to develop "research that informs policy-makers on matters related to the Canada-U.S. border," which is less than a half-hour away.

The subject of the moment is the "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative" (WHTI), under which border crossings between the United States and neighboring countries will be tightened. In the case of U.S.-Canada crossings, that means among other things the impending requirement of a passport to cross. (At present, a valid driver's license is sufficient.)

Of the policy that has been in force for several generations, that of a relatively open border, Lukens' comment was that "We've been spoiled, there's no doubt about it." What exactly he means by suggesting that we've been "spoiled" by such good relations is unclear. How exactly should that change?

Not for him any further consideration of the matter: “Fighting WHTI is not going to help.”

Which sounds like this: Now, now, children. The decision's been made by the people who know best. Just sit down, keep quiet, get in line and don't question our wisdom. He may have some familiarity with the mindset; just prior to his posting at Vancouver, he was executive secretary at the U.S. embassy at Baghdad, where his job was "managing the office that served as the nexus between policy and management issues in Iraq.") Does he perhaps need a refresher course in where decisions ultimately are supposed to come from in a constitutional democracy - which is to say, not from the top?

The point here is not particularly arguing the border policy (is it necessarily irrational to require passports at any border? not necessarily) as it is to suggest that this is a reasonable topic of discussion, and that public servants have no business trying to shut down discussion of it by the people who pay their salaries.

And there is a reasonable argument here against WHTI.


A judge, confirmed

Randy Smith
Randy Smith

In a way, you wouldn't think this would have to be so difficult: Nominate judges who carry no big controversial baggage, and reasonable senators will confirm them. It takes both sides; sometimes, too often, we seem to have had neither.

But both apparently have been on the job in the case of the nomination, and Senate confirmation today, of Randy Smith to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was the first circuit court nominee to make it through the system in the new Congress.

Smith, who is now an Idaho 6th district judge based at Pocatello, has drawn across the board praise. He is a former Idaho Republican Party chair who, as a judge, was described as fair and impartial by Democrats no less than Republicans.

If the eventual confirmation was something of an encouragement that the system can work, there is also this: He was first nominated to the court in December 2004. That nomination was held up because Californians wanted the circuit seat and maintained it was properly "theirs"; last month, he was re-nominated, this time for an undisputed "Idaho" seat.

Who eventually will fill the "other Idaho" seat is completely unknown, as is whether the needle can be threaded as well as in the case of Randy Smith.

Definition by the hire

Pat Kilkenny
Pat Kilkenny

Oregonian sports columnist John Canzano has a highly quotable line today, following up on the hiring of insurance company founder and major Ducks booster Pat Kilkenny as the University of Oregon's new athletic director:

"I suppose the upside here is that the university has finally abandoned any pretense about who is running the institution, and whether a public place of learning was for sale."

Kilkenny, who replaces 12-year director Bill Moos, who is a major donor to the institution and doubtless well connected among the sports boosters, has no personal experience running an athletics department. Canzano: "you're forgiven if your reaction was, 'Wow, a big fan with a bunch of money just became the AD.' Because that's pretty much what happened."

It does seem, though, the logical extension of what has gone before.

One distraction, or all of them

cell phoneYou really do need to read the fine print. To casually browse the Oregonian this morning, where the above-fold front page was dominated by a story on cell phone regulation, the impression you'd get would be fairly black/white: Cell advocates on one side, and the people who'd like to ban them altogether from the ranks of drivers on the other.

The actual legislative debate turns out to be a good deal more nuanced. And, in our view, more realistic.

A bunch of proposed pieces of legislation have been drafted, but the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee seems to have boiled down the live prospects to two. It held a hearing on them this afternoon.

The less interesting of the two is Senate Bill 293, which disallows drivers (while driving, of course) from using a hand-held cell phone, though "hands free" use (with a headset or the equivalent) would still be allowed. It's similar to an effort now underway in Washington. This has the fell of a compromise position, and maybe it is, though the committee was told about several series of studies that show no better driving skills for users of hands-free compared to hand-held. (Did any of those studies compare concentration impairment from cell phone conversations against in-car passenger conversations? We'd be fascinated to see any such results, but we've heard of none; implicitly, we suspect one kind of conversation is about as distracting as the other. If so, do we see a proposal to ban car-pooling next?)

The other bill, which is the one backed by the Oregon State Police, seems more interesting, and also more subtle.