Baird invents his own image
Space does not permit expanding on Congressman Brian Baird’s dissidence and obfuscations regarding his beliefs. But one example should be sufficient to illustrate the situation.
Baird has cultivated a persona that he is all for and in support of our military — veterans and active duty, when the facts are completely the opposite. Now, for sure, Baird will help any individual in the hopes that they will write a letter to The Columbian, and this has worked wonders for his image. In reality, Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), a recognized premier advocacy organization for the military, notes that of the 24 bills before Congress, Baird has signed on to two (http://capwiz.com/moaa/bio/sponsortrack/?id=615&lvl=C&azip=98686&bzip). Readers can decide if this is a rousing supporter of our military.
As usual, Baird will the majority of the time vote against a bill if it is passing and for the bill if it is failing. Just in the last few weeks, Baird voted “no,” as one of the two “no” votes, on a bill. See, both sides are happy with him: If you wanted it to pass, it did. If you wanted it to fail, he tried.
Ron “Wick” Thomas
Vancouver
Kyl’s sanctimony is on full display
Historians have long debated George Washington’s religious inclination: Deist or Christian? Although he often attended an Episcopalian church in Philadelphia, his writings reveal little about his spirituality.
Now, however, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has settled the matter with finality. In The Gospel According to Kyl, working on or beyond the sacred holiday is un-Christian. Since Gen. Washington planned his attack on the Hessian troops in Trenton on Christmas Eve, 1776, expedited the planning and logistics on Christmas Day, and soundly defeated our enemy on Dec. 26, he cannot possibly be a Christian. Regardless, the surprise attack worked and turned the course of the war.
Think I would have joined the heathen Washington rather than follow pious Gen. Kyl.
Larry Johnson
Woodland
Responders’ care should be priority
Many members of the Senate said $6 billion was too expensive (Congress compromised and passed $4 billion in aid) for the 9/11 first responders’ health care costs, but to them, approval of almost $900 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts was a done deal. What is wrong with this picture?
Roberta Upson
Vancouver
Division gives more power to parties
Has anyone noticed the paradigm shift that those who fancy themselves Democrats have made? They are distancing themselves from that ideology and prefer the label “progressives,” but the meaning is the same: socialist.
Look around our cities and note how many generations of Americans have been coddled in a welfare state, never needing education or employment because public assistance would foot the bill. Now we have a government and “yes we can” liberals (socialists) screaming for higher taxes for the rich. What a concept. Work hard, advance in your profession or succeed in business and enjoy the privilege of supporting all the something-for-nothings out there.
Americans will have another opportunity for reform in 2012. We must elect representatives and a president of neither Republican nor Democratic party. There should be no majority or minority party, only public servants who think of America first and legislate on majority votes, not on party priorities.
One need only look at the current division of the nation to see that the professional politicians have won. We are a divided house, and therefore the political parties can do as they please.
Our present situation is one where Republicans and Democrats alike couldn’t care less about their constituents.
Power over all is their goal.
Peter L. Williamson
Vancouver
Web readers sound off
On the editorial urging resuming construction on Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada:
There are about 100 functioning nuclear power plants in the U.S., producing about 20 percent of the nation’s electric power generation. But only a few under construction. One modern nuclear plant can produces as much power as almost 1,000 wind generation towers, and the peak power of windmills is produced less than 8 hours per day.
We already have lots of radioactive waste, so there is no option, a storage solution must be identified. Our country’s politics and economy is in disarray at the moment, there is no political will to solve the problem. Nuclear energy will slowly decline in the U.S., as plants age and are decommissioned.
Even if there was a sudden change in acceptance, it would take possibly 20 years for new plants to come on line in numbers sufficient to have a significant impact on the energy supply.
The best strategy is conservation and continued refinement and integration of alternative energy sources into the main power grid, and the improved efficiency of conventional power sources, especially natural gas.
— normseubert
The editorial shouldn’t single out Harry Reid and President Obama for cynically playing politics on this. Republicans would have done the same thing if the shoe had been on the other foot.
— lance_sjogren
The whole thing is “disposal” of nuclear waste, right?
Then we need to actually dispose of it. I say
reduce it down to its most concentrated form, put it into a sealed, explosion-proof container, mount it on top of a SpaceX rocket and shoot it at the sun.
It will burn up long before it hits the sun and “disposal” is done.
—hawkeye
On the editorial supporting Gov. Chris Gregoire’s recommendation to consolidate state government agencies:
I agree! It is too bad, however, that it took a fiscal crisis to motivate these money-saving and efficient consolidations.
To use a trite phrase that says it all: Better late than never.
—manthou
This is good news. However, beware of politicians baring “budget cuts” gifts!
One would think fiscal responsibility would have been a priority all along. If you don’t think a tax increase isn’t on the horizon, I have a unicorn tethered in my backyard! As long as the unemployment rate continues, the social payouts will dry up. We are doomed!
—Blather
On the editorial supporting local wetland banks:
Wetland banks and off-site mitigation seems like a good idea for borderline wetland areas. Trading an acre of swamp in Orchards for an acre of swamp in Felida or Fruit Valley seems pretty harmless to me. I trust the idea will not be expanded to allow development of significant watercourses or stream beds in exchange for off-site mitigation. That would be a very bad idea.
— E_Terrific
