Kautzman's AP GO PO Blog

by Don Barbieri
Special to The Spokesman-Review

In September, the U.S. Senate began deliberations on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, following passage of a comprehensive climate and energy bill by the House of Representatives in June. Regional energy experts led by Sen. Maria Cantwell and people I trust from Avista and Itron have convinced me that now is the time for the Inland Northwest to stand up for a clean energy economy. We have the resources and technology; we just need the national leadership to do what is right and begin a transition to a clean energy economy.

For those of us in Eastern Washington, the need for this legislation is clear. Temperatures in Washington are expected to rise 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, which will result in snowmelt occurring earlier and faster each year. Early snowmelt means more water resource problems for our dry region, including limited water supplies for drinking, agriculture and forest fire mitigation. Given these damaging consequences, we need to make sure that we’re at the forefront of the conversation to shift our nation to a clean energy economy.

Not only do we stand to gain by mitigating the impacts of climate change, we also stand to benefit significantly from investments in a new clean energy economy. Washington has what it takes to be the future powerhouse for clean energy. We currently rank fifth nationally in wind power and fourth nationally in clean energy venture capital investments. Under the national legislation we would receive $680 million for expanded energy efficiency investments.

Eastern Washington is home to some of the most dynamic leaders in clean energy innovation, and some of the nation’s foremost clean technology research and development capabilities are at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Our universities are joining smart researchers together with free enterprise leaders to find workable solutions. We have an abundance of renewable resources here: sun, water, wind and, most of all, the human resources to lead the way.

A strong national commitment to a bold clean energy transition will spur a flurry of investments that will accelerate economic recovery and drive solutions that pay dividends for years to come. Arguing against clean energy will shortchange our community’s future.

It’s also an argument against our national security. Our foreign affairs and defense are linked to our energy policy through our dependence on foreign oil. There is no doubt we as Americans rely on foreign oil reserves controlled by countries whose interests are at odds with our own; currently, we are sending billions of dollars overseas to pay for oil, leaving us and our military personnel vulnerable to unstable or hostile regimes.

It’s not just the threats to our national security. In these tough times, families are clipping coupons, buying in bulk and pinching pennies any way they can. As costs for everything from groceries to gasoline climb, the costs of not solving our economic crisis grow. However, if the Clean Energy Jobs bill passes, the average family in Washington is estimated to save over $5 per month on their energy bills and nearly $10 per month on vehicle fuel costs. Nationally, the legislation would create 1.7 million new clean energy jobs, of which at least 34,000 would be right here in Washington. The Clean Energy Jobs bill will help revive our nation’s struggling economy while protecting our planet; now is our moment to seize that opportunity.

Here in Washington state, we have the opportunity to help our nation lead. Our senators are both accomplished leaders. Sen. Cantwell has established herself as a clean energy champion and Sen. Patty Murray is an influential member of the Senate’s leadership. Now it’s up to these senators to ensure that the U.S. Senate passes the Clean Energy Jobs Act this year. We need them to do more than vote for the bill; they must speak loudly for the people of Washington and actively work to advance the bill.

In these challenging times, we need immediate action by the Senate to create jobs. We need the Senate to put us on a path to a clean energy economy and shift away from the carbon-based fuels that threaten our environment, our economy and our national security. We need Sens. Cantwell and Murray to take on their leadership roles to advance this legislation so that Washington state will reap the benefits of energy independence and building a clean energy economy. The future will be much brighter when Congress steps up to this enormous opportunity.

Don Barbieri is chairman of the board for Red Lion Hotels Corp.

Objectors call Tuesday’s broadcast political move

Texas Gov. Rick Perry responds to a question in his Capitol office on Thursday about President Obama’s school-time speech next week.

DALLAS – President Barack Obama’s back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.

Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.

Schools don’t have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.

Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.

Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.

“As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education – it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality,” said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. “This is something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama’s Education Department “call for a worshipful rather than critical approach.”

The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.

“I think it’s really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this,” White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview.

“It’s simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they’re good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously.”

She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.

Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”

The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could “write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”

“That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it,” Higginbottom said.

In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.

PTA council President Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is “cutting out the parent” by speaking to kids during school hours.

“Why can’t a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?” Mendelsohn said. “Because that’s what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, ‘This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.’ ”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview that he’s “certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day.”

“Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment,” he said.

But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.

“Nobody seems to know what he’s going to be talking about,” Perry said. “Why didn’t he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?”

One school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, in west-central Idaho, urged people not to rush to judgment.

“Is the president dictating to these kids? I don’t think so,” Dalgleish said. “He’s trying to get out the same message we’re trying to get out, which is, ‘You are in charge of your education.’ ”

Posting said judges ‘deserve to be killed’

Turner

CHICAGO – Internet radio host Hal Turner disliked how three federal judges rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed,” Turner wrote on his blog June 2, according to the FBI. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”

The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of “anti-truck bomb barriers.” When an FBI agent appeared at the door of his New Jersey home, Turner said he meant no harm.

He is now behind bars awaiting trial for threatening the judges, deemed by a U.S. magistrate as too dangerous to be free.

Turner’s case will likely test the limits of political speech at a time when incendiary talk is proliferating on broadcast outlets and the Internet, from the microphones of well-known commentators to the keyboards of anonymous webizens. President Barack Obama has been depicted as a Nazi and slain Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller as “Tiller the killer.” On guns and abortion, war and torture, taxes and now health care, the commentary feeds off pools of anger that ebb and flow with the zeitgeist.

Mark Potok, an editor at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks extremists and hate speech, thinks that “political speech has gotten rougher in the last six months.”

While federal authorities moved swiftly to stop Turner, scholars note that the line between free speech and criminality is a fine one.

Turner’s attorney says prosecutors overreacted.

“He gave an opinion. He did not say go out and kill,” defense attorney Michael Orozco said last week after unsuccessfully seeking bail. “This is political hyperbole, nothing more. He’s a shock jock.”

That is not how U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his prosecutors see the case. They charged Turner, a blogger admired by white supremacists, with threatening the lives of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit: Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer.

Writing on his blog, which has since been taken down, Turner disputed a June 2 ruling by the three judges, who said a federal district judge had properly dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit to overturn handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. It was a Supreme Court matter, said the judges.

Turner called the judges – including Posner and Easterbrook, two of the nation’s most prominent conservative jurists – “unpatriotic, deceitful scum.” He said the only thing standing in the way of the judges and “the government” achieving ultimate power “is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.”

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Turner said, “The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.” He added his own words: “It is time to replenish the tree!”

Turner, 47, who had three semiautomatic handguns, a shotgun and 350 rounds of ammunition in his North Bergen, N.J., home when the FBI arrested him, worked at times as an FBI informant. Although Fitzgerald’s office says he provided occasional information on right-wing extremists, Orozco said he was recruited as an “agent provocateur” to get leftists to act in public against him and reveal themselves to the FBI.

First Amendment scholar Martin Redish said much of what Turner wrote is protected by the Constitution, including his declarations that the judges should be eliminated. But he said Turner probably crossed a line when he printed information about the judges, their office locations and the courthouse.

“I would give very strong odds on a thousand bucks that once he said that stuff, it takes it out of any kind of hyperbole range,” said Redish, a professor at Northwestern University Law School. “I just don’t see him being protected.”

December 07, 2008

By George Will

WASHINGTON — Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such as the “fairness doctrine,” should be repeated. That Orwellian name was designed to disguise the doctrine’s use as the government’s instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of political commentary.

Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better.

Until the Reagan administration extinguished it, the doctrine required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air. The government decided the meaning of the italicized words.

When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum. In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a New York station owned by the Socialist Party was warned to show “due regard” for others’ opinions, and the government blocked the Chicago Federation of Labor’s attempted purchase of a station because all stations should serve “the general public.” In 1939, when Democrats ran Washington, the government conditioned renewal of one station’s license on that station’s promise to desist from anti-FDR editorials.

In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the fairness doctrine constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration’s use of it, as one official described it: “Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” Richard Nixon emulated this practice. In 1973, Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, a liberal, said the doctrine “has no place in our First Amendment regime” because it “enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio.”

The court’s 1969 ruling relied heavily on the scarcity rationale. But Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer, in their book “A Manifesto for Media Freedom,” note that today there are about 14,000 radio stations, twice as many as in 1969, and 18.9 million subscribers to satellite radio, up 17 percent in 12 months, and 86 percent of households with either cable or satellite television receive an average of 102 of the 500 available channels. Because daily newspapers are much more scarce than are radio and television choices, should there be a fairness doctrine for The New York Times?

The 1969 court dismissed as “speculative” the possibility that the fairness doctrine would cause broadcasters to “eliminate coverage of controversial issues.” But the proper worry was that the doctrine would continue to stifle the flowering of controversy. A court that considers the doctrine today will note that whereas in 1980 there were fewer than 100 talk radio programs, today there are more than 1,500 news or talk radio stations.

Further subverting the “scarcity” rationale for government supervision of broadcast content, some liberals now say: The problem is not maldistribution of opinion and information, but too much of both. Until recently, liberals fretted that the media were homogenizing America into blandness. Now they say speech management by government is needed because of a different scarcity — the public’s attention, which supposedly is overloaded by today’s information cornucopia.

And these worrywarts say the proliferation of radio, cable, satellite broadcasting and Internet choices allows people to choose their own universe of commentary, which takes us far from the good old days when everyone had the communitarian delight of gathering around the cozy campfire of the NBC-ABC-CBS oligopoly. Being a liberal is exhausting when you must simultaneously argue for illiberal policies on the basis of dangerous scarcity and menacing abundance.

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism’s name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.

McCain holds final fundraiser for RNC

Matthew Mosk
Washington Post
October 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain stepped into a ballroom at the Grand Hyatt in New York Tuesday night for what was likely to be his last fundraiser of the 2008 presidential campaign.

But while the event, which was expected to net between $8 million and $10 million for the Republican National Committee, will provide a much-needed infusion for the GOP nominee, it will do little to whittle down the massive financial advantage that Sen. Barack Obama is using to dominate the electoral landscape.

Exactly how much money Obama has raised will not be clear until next week, when the two campaigns are required to report their September fundraising totals to the Federal Election Commission, although some strategists are openly speculating that he could approach $100 million for the month. That would shatter a record Obama set in August, when he brought in $67 million.

As the first presidential candidate to run a general-election campaign entirely with private donations, Obama has a significant fundraising advantage and is using that imbalance to swamp McCain on the airwaves and in building turnout operations coast to coast.

Voters in large swaths of Florida will see Obama television commercials dozens of times before catching sight of a McCain ad. A drive across Virginia will wend past 51 Obama field offices, compared with 19 for McCain. “It’s given them resources to compete in multiple battlegrounds in all dimensions – on the ground, through the mail, with media, everything,” Chris Kofinis, a Democratic political strategist, said of Obama’s fundraising success. “I think people will look back and say this was one of the most pivotal decisions in his campaign.”

Since accepting $84 million in public funds, McCain has been barred from raising money for his own campaign. He has sought to keep pace with Obama’s effort by hosting RNC fundraisers like Tuesday night’s event in New York. The party committee raised $66 million in September and has begun to expand its presence on television with ads featuring blistering attacks on Obama.

At the same time, the RNC is leading an effort to challenge the legality of millions of dollars in “un-itemized” donations that Obama has collected. Under FEC rules, his campaign does not have to document the names of donors who give less than $200.

The RNC is keeping a growing list of phony donors and unexplained credit card charges that they believe point to more than a simple inability by the Obama team to keep track of all the money flowing in. Steve and Rachel Larman, a Missouri couple who vote Republican, told local reporters that they found a $2,300 charge for a donation to the Obama campaign on their credit card statement that they could not explain. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia Republican, had a similar experience, she said, when she opened her MasterCard statement last month to discover a $5 charge from the Obama campaign. “I thought, ‘Oh, my! This is not from me,’ ” she said.

Other donations have arrived under such obviously bogus names as Edrty Eddty and Es Esh.

Experts called it a common problem on an uncommon scale – while there have always been donors who, for a host of reasons, tried to circumvent federal election rules and give campaign contributions without providing their real names, they are more frequent with Obama because of the volume of donations his campaign is processing.

“I’m sure they have a system in place to screen out improper donations,” said Scott Thomas, a former FEC chairman. “Their problem is they have such a massive donor base and so many of these coming in that it’s hard to keep up.”

Obama campaign aides said they have followed a policy of sending immediate refunds to people who contact the campaign to say that they have been charged for a contribution they did not make. “While no organization is protected from Internet fraud, we have taken every available step to root out improper contributions, updating our systems when necessary,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

So far, the complaints have not prompted FEC action. And Obama’s controversial decision to forgo public funding and instead raise money on his own is paying huge dividends.

The most noticeable evidence of his spending advantage has been on the airwaves, where, in some states, Obama been running seven or eight times as many commercials as McCain. Evan Tracey, an analyst with the Campaign Media Analysis Group, called the disparity stunning.

“McCain’s in a shouting match with a guy holding a bullhorn,” Tracey said.

Video games sport ads for Obama

An ad for presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is seen in the XBox360 Live version of “NBA Live 08.” Eighteen video games will feature Obama ads in the next few weeks. Associated Press (Associated Press )

Devlin Barrett
Associated Press
October 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – Too busy playing video games to watch presidential ads on television? Barack Obama has found you, too, by becoming the first presidential candidate to buy ad space inside a game.

Eighteen video games, including the extremely popular “Guitar Hero” and “Madden 09,” will feature in-game ads from the Obama campaign in the final weeks before the election. The ads – appearing on billboards and other signage – remind players that early voting has begun and plug a campaign Web site that encourages people to register for early voting.

Obama campaign officials said the video game ads target 10 states that allow early voting, including several battleground states: Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Montana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Colorado.

“These ads will help us expand the reach of VoteforChange.com, so that more people can use this easy tool to find their early vote location and make sure their voice is heard,” said Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro. The campaign did not say how much it cost to launch the ad blitz on gamers.

The idea of embedding advertising temporarily inside a video game is relatively new, having only begun about 18 months ago, and Obama is the first presidential candidate to buy space, according to Holly Rockwood, a spokeswoman for Electronic Arts Inc., whose company is featuring the Obama ads in nine of its games.

The Democrat’s ads are aimed primarily at game players who like sports, including NASCAR, the NBA, the NHL and skateboarding.

Rockwood would not say how much the ads cost, but she said they are running on the Xbox Live versions of the game through Nov. 3. They began earlier this month.

“It reaches an audience that is typically hard to reach: young males, roughly 18 to 34,” Rockwood said. “That’s very appealing to our advertisers.”

Rockwood declined to say how much revenue the company generates from selling ad space in its games.

For those who still associate video games with clunky “Pac-Man” or “Space Invaders” consoles, here’s how in-game advertising works: The Xbox 360 console connects to the Internet, so it can be updated with new features, including ads. In the case of “Burnout: Paradise,” the game came out in stores in January, but the Obama ads were only inserted this month.

New technology used in Iraq and Afghanistan to hunt down and kill terrorists may inject itself into the presidential race.

Tim Rutten

September 13, 2008

Friday, The Times’ Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes reported that the United States has escalated its war against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies by “deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq.”

It’s a story whose significance may extend well beyond the benighted hills and valleys of Pakistan’s violent Pashtun hinterlands and onto the hustings of our current presidential campaign. Coupled with Thursday’s report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission, the odds of an “October surprise” that could influence the general election have risen appreciably.

U.S. officials also told The Times that the new surveillance systems allow the operators of the unmanned Predators to locate and identify individual human targets “even when they are inside buildings. … The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator’s lens of confirming a target’s identity and precise location.”

The Times’ story confirms the most sensational revelation contained in Bob Woodward’s new book, “The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2007,” which was published this week. Woodward revealed the technology’s existence but, heeding requests from intelligence officials, declined to describe its operations except to say that it had allowed U.S. forces to locate and kill decisive numbers of senior Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi insurgents. In what may be the book’s most controversial claim, Woodward argues that the secret technology and the so-called Anbar Awakening — in which counterinsurgency techniques developed by the Marines won over tribal leaders in that crucial Sunni-dominated province — had as much or more to do with stabilizing Iraq as the “surge” in U.S. troop numbers.

Beyond the purely military considerations, there are potentially significant political implications. First and most obvious is the question of the surge’s efficacy. The answer matters, particularly to John McCain, who has been one of the surge’s most resolute supporters. If it turns out that it was only one — and, perhaps, the least consequential — in a confluence of successful American initiatives, then McCain could go from steadfast to stubborn in voters’ minds.

The real wild card pops up if this new surveillance technology allows U.S. forces to find and kill Osama bin Laden. Bush wouldn’t be human if he didn’t desperately want to see the Al Qaeda warlord dealt with before inauguration day 2009. Moreover, as Woodward writes, the president frequently relishes the death of individual extremists and insurgents in a way that even our professional soldiers find striking. Then-American commander in Iraq Gen. George W. Casey Jr. “told a colleague in private that he had the impression that Bush reflected the ‘radical wing of the Republican Party that kept saying, “Kill the bastards! Kill the bastards! And you’ll succeed.” ‘ Since the beginning, the president had viewed the war in conventional terms, repeatedly asking how many of the various enemies had been captured or killed.”

If U.S. special operations forces capture or kill Bin Laden, or if a CIA technician pushes a button and puts a Hellfire missile between his eyes, Bush will have made good on the vows he made seven years ago to bring the Al Qaeda leader to some sort of justice. In the eyes of many who supported him over the years, that would allow the president to leave office with at least part of his historical reputation intact.

There also are many Republican activists who must hope that an October surprise involving Bin Laden would give McCain — unswerving supporter of the war and advocate of a muscular, hard-line foreign policy — a boost by association. At the very least, anything that makes his connection to his party’s now dismally unpopular president less of a stigma helps the GOP candidate.

Still, it’s also possible that this particular October surprise might also help Barack Obama, at least at the margins, which is where this election increasingly looks to be decided. The Democratic nominee, after all, opposed going to war in Iraq, in part because it was a distraction from the conflict with the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda, which had, after all, committed the 9/11 atrocities. If a military technology heretofore monopolized by operations in Iraq finally brings Bin Laden to answer for his crimes, Obama and his supporters can argue that the war in Iraq delayed the day of reckoning in Afghanistan.

That’s the thing about surprises, no matter what the month: The consequences frequently are as unlooked-for as the event.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com