"We called them 'chicken'"

As you know, outspoken liberal Lewiston Tribune columnist and apparent Pullman/Whitman County hater Jim Fisher, has been bashing the Hawkins development and the Whitman County Commissioners. The latest subject of his ire, in a column last Sunday, was the WSU golf course. Fisher implied there should be some sort of linkage between the golf course and the Hawkins development:

Next for Palouse water talks: WSU golf course

Now that a reconfigured Moscow City Council has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with other Palouse governments on water use, it is in a position to seek reciprocity on one of the least defensible projects to threaten the region's underground water sources.

That project is the new 18-hole golf course that Washington State University is building, and watering, before the water reclamation system intended to keep it green is even begun. The school projects it will pour 60 million gallons of water on the course each year, and until the system that is years off goes on line, each of those gallons will come from the aquifers whose sustainability is in question.

The school's rush to complete the course without a wastewater irrigation system like the one the University of Idaho uses has raised objections from more than local water watchdogs. It even became an issue in the election that seated new Moscow City Councilors Wayne Krauss, Dan Carscallen and Walter Steed.

All three ran in opposition to the former council's reluctance to approve substantial increases in water consumption.

During the contested election, Krauss told people attending a candidate forum he objected to "the idea for us to try to save water here in Moscow so it can be used downstream." And a newspaper advertisement for the three candidates said, "In Pullman they're developing a new golf course. In Moscow we've raised water rates to cut consumption."

The promise to help end such a disparity no doubt helped elect the three challengers. And the other day, all three helped reverse Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney's objection to providing water to a new shopping mall on the Washington side of the state line along the Pullman-Moscow traffic corridor.

None of the three has claimed the Palouse sits on an infinite supply of water, however. And their willingness to negotiate a water agreement with Whitman County for the mall for which county commissioners have obligated taxpayers to the tune of $9.1 million in bonds gives them the right, and the credibility, to seek discussion of other water issues in the region.

The first of those issues should be WSU's rush to waste water.

I could rebut Fisher's arguments, but Idaho Rep. Bob Nonini (R- Coeur d'Alene), another target of Fisher's temper tantrums, did it best in a "Turnabout" column from Tuesday's Tribune:

Turnabout: Cheap shots, no warning

As some of my colleagues tell me, if the editorial writers at the Lewiston Tribune are criticizing you then you must be doing something right.

Well, I must be doing something right. In the last couple of weeks, I've been branded as being anti-education, and more recently the Tribune editors lend the impression that I'm leading a one-man crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The criticism doesn't bother me. Anyone who serves in this body, or in any other elected office, is subject to criticism. What is troubling is the methods employed by the editorial writers.

I don't know Jim Fisher or Tom Henderson, and they don't know me. All I know about them is when I pick up the Tribune and occasionally read editorials taking me to task. Again, I don't mind the criticism. I'm only disputing the antiquated method.

Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henderson are living examples of why newspapers are dying, and why newspapers are losing credibility. They read what somebody else writes, dish up a few cheap shots and present them as "cutting-edge" editorials. The tactics might have worked during the 1960s or 1970s, when Bill Hall was writing editorials. But the method strikes me as outdated by today's standards.

During Bill Hall's day, when the only practical way to contact someone was by telephone, contacting an individual was not always possible. But in 2008, when e-mails are used at least as much as telephones, there's no excuse for not making that effort.

It's my understanding that some of the nation's leading newspapers, including the Washington Post, have a policy to make every effort to contact an individual before criticizing him in print - if for no other reason than to give that person a heads-up. A conversation with a source may or may not change the direction of an editorial, but giving a fair warning shows that a newspaper has professional standards and a degree of class.

I'm sure that nothing I said will make a difference, so Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henderson can criticize me all they want. That's OK. I was born and raised in Wallace and put up with a lot worse than that in the school yards.

But in Wallace, we had a name for people who said or did something without first confronting you.

We called them "chicken."

Mixed Econuts: The Moonbat Open

Even after appellant Scotty Cornelius stated "I can't say it's because of anything WSU did ... There's not enough data for me to draw any conclusion." and after being eviscerated by a Palouse hydrogeology expert from the University of Idaho who testified that the golf course will not be a threat to existing wells, the attorney for the aquinuts opposing the Palouse Ridge Golf Course at WSU "said she plans to take the case to the Washington Supreme Court regardless of the outcome of the hearing." Can someone please tell me where in the hell these people are getting the money for all these lawsuits and appeals?

From last Thursday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Expert: WSU wells not threat to nearby wells

Opponents will have opportunity to rebut testimony of UI professor

A local hydrogeologist said Wednesday the well system at Washington State University should not impair the wells of neighboring domestic properties.

James Osiensky, a professor at the University of Idaho, testified on behalf of WSU and the Washington State Department of Ecology during the second day of an appeal hearing over the state's decision to allow WSU to consolidate its water rights.

The first two days of the appeal to the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board took place at the Lighty Student Services building at WSU. Each side was given six hours to present testimony, and the board will render a verdict within 90 days after the hearing is complete.

That could be some time after a board decision allowing the group of appellants to provide rebuttal to Osiensky's testimony.

The appellants - the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius - claim the consolidation will allow the university to pump more than three times as much water per year as it currently does. They argue that the university has contributed to the dropping levels in the Grand Ronde aquifer, and point to an 18-hole golf course under construction as a project that will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

Cornelius, who lives outside Pullman, has said his well is decreasing at a rate of 10 inches per year.

WSU currently has the rights to operate seven wells, though two large wells pump a majority of the water needed on campus at 2,500 gallons per minute. Additional wells can be used in case of emergency.

Wednesday's testimony was dominated by expert witnesses who said measures were taken to ensure the university's consolidation would not decrease water availability on neighboring properties.

Osiensky said he has determined the drawdown of the Grand Ronde aquifer should not exceed two feet every 10 years through any combination of the university's seven wells pumping water. His research has shown that the aquifer will decrease 1.95 feet in 10 years if WSU continually pumps water. The aquifer will only decrease another half-inch in the same time frame with WSU operating its wells under the consolidation.

"Drawdown is a necessary evil," he said. "You can't get water without drawdown."

Rachael Paschal Osborn, the appellants' lead attorney, made a motion to strike Osiensky's testimony from the record. She said the respondents pulled a "bait and switch" by bringing in Osiensky when another expert witness could not take the stand due to a scheduling conflict. She added that the respondents did not disclose Osiensky's testimony and strayed from questions relevant to his deposition, which was taken last fall.

"We think allowing Dr. Osiensky's testimony is a violation " Osborne said. "They come in and it's trial by surprise."

Board members met in private to discuss the motion. Board Chairwoman Andrea McNamara Doyle said Osiensky's testimony does violate the respondent's duty to disclose, but instead of striking the testimony from the record she allowed the appellants to provide rebuttal to his testimony at a later date.

The board will have a conference call this afternoon with attorneys from both sides to set a time and place for closing arguments and the appellant's rebuttal to Osiensky's testimony.

The appellants agreed to proceed with the cross examination of Osiensky on Wednesday, questioning the equation he used to formulate the data from his testimony. They argued the method he used assumes the aquifer is not confined to an infinite area and is not isotropic or uniform in thickness, among other things - most of which do not pertain to the Grand Ronde.

Osiensky said there may be "some discrepancies" because the data used in his method was not spot-on regarding the Grand Ronde. He noted that the drawdown would be slightly more in some cases, although the "relative impact would stay the same."

Osiensky said the drawdown in Cornelius' well is a sum of drawdowns from all pump wells in the Pullman-Moscow area.

Guy Gregory, a senior hydrologist with the Department of Ecology in Spokane, testified that he did an analysis of wells that could be affected by the consolidation. He found no evidence that the change would impair the water rights of other wells.

"We know there's water in the area," he said.

Osborn said she plans to take the case to the Washington Supreme Court regardless of the outcome of the hearing.

She said the appeal in front of the board only addressed whether WSU was impairing the water rights of other residents in the region. It's on more-complex issues, such as the university allegedly "water hording" unused water rights and the interpretation of the municipal water law, that demand an appeal to a higher court.

"This isn't over," she said.

"Pullman firm to design WSU hotel; Duane Brelsford's Corporate Pointe Developers will take lead on $20 million conference center project"

Congratulations to WSU for supporting a local business. And congratulations to Duane Brelsford, Jr. and his partners. They earned the win. Now the speculation begins as to what company will operate the hotel. From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman-based Corporate Pointe Developers has been chosen to design a hotel and conference center on the Washington State University campus.

Ryan Ruffcorn, a project manager for WSU Capital Planning and Development, said Corporate Pointe President Duane Brelsford and his team were selected from the pool of four finalists because of their impressive presentation to the university.

The fact that Brelsford and his team have ties to Pullman also was a benefit. In addition to Brelsford, the project design will include general contractor Bob Askins, Tom Sheldon from the architecture firm GGLO of Seattle, and Yogi Hutsen of Coastal Hotel Group. Brelsford, Sheldon and Askins all are Pullman High School graduates.

"They're all invested in WSU and Pullman," Ruffcorn said. "They have a good grasp on the area - they understand the market."

Ruffcorn said the university began to investigate the need for a hotel and conference center in 2002. Independent analysis identified a need for such a development and a campus group survey indicated many conferences and professional seminars happen outside of Pullman because of a lack of facilities.

Ruffcorn said the research results were received before the Schweitzer Engineering Laboratory Event Center was constructed in 2006.

"We're excited about it," he said. "After five years, we're ready to get something rolling."

Brelsford said the approximately $20 million project will likely be constructed on university property on Fairway Drive and include a 120-room hotel and 20,000-square-foot conference center. Construction isn't expected to begin until late 2008 or early 2009.

Brelsford hopes for his company to own and manage the hotel and conference center upon its completion and lease the land from the university. He added that he soon plans to launch a marketing analysis on a group of condominiums proposed for an adjacent property, which may draw WSU alumni to "come back to Pullman and participate in the amenities."

Brelsford said his company's long-term plan for the project probably worked in its favor. Companies competing with Corporate Pointe included: Spokane-based ANA Construction and Development; Concord Eastridge, a company with headquarters in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Arlington, Va.; and Chicago-based Johnson & Partners Development and Co. in partnership with Columbia Hospitality in Seattle.

"We're not just here to do it and turn it over to a flagship company to operate it," Brelsford said. "We know there's a market out there and we want to address that market as soon as possible."

Ruffcorn said the university has not yet made any funding or operations decisions regarding the project. University officials will work with Corporate Pointe to draft a letter of intent, which will bind the two entities together as far as scope and vision of the project, followed by the initial design phase.

Any other discussions regarding possible land leases or other opportunities on the property will come later, though Ruffcorn said condominiums are something the university "sees as a possibility" in the project.

"We're open to just trying to find the right relationship," he said. "We'll just see how this all plays out."

Brelsford said the hotel and conference center will be in an attractive location, especially with the university's 18-hole golf course, tennis arena and recreation center within walking distance.

"We're looking to attract a lot of conferences. We're trying to keep those local," he said. "I've always had a love for the hotel industry. It's fun to get back into it."

Corporate Pointe has built about 1,400 apartments, 150,000 square feet of office and retail space and theaters that house more than 40 movie screens in Pullman, Lewiston and Spokane. Before Brelsford began developing, he was a project engineer and project manager for the construction of nine Embassy Suites hotels and oversaw the renovations of two inns.

Fat Bottomed Profs You Make the Rockin' World Go Round

In today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki wrote:

Much is made of the fracture between town and gown in Pullman...Part of the reason that Pullman has a problem with separation between the community and the university is because topographically, Pullman is separate from the university.

Wrong again, Chuck. The town-gown fracture in Pullman is created when tenured WSU professors make comments like this, not by four hills:

I've pretty much lost sympathy for most of the working people on the Palouse.

I've never seen a more dysfunctional, irrational culture in a 1st World country than what's on the Palouse. Keep voting against your interests, and alienating your intellectual and real allies.

I believe that a good part of this is because most people in the region are wildly ignorant about who actually butters their bread.

The universities provide for the living, and also agricultural community support, for all of Latah and Whitman County.

Alex McGregor, president of The McGregor Company, had a few thoughts on Chuck's divisive and arrogant comments in a column in the Daily News back in December 2003:

Ag and WSU: Whitman County cornerstones

A Daily News Town Crier columnist, Chuck Pezeshki, called State Sen. Larry Sheahan "a liar" or a "dumb rube," largely because he has worked to strengthen the agricultural economy (Opinion, Nov. 19). Higher education "is our economic driver," Pezeshki said, while agriculture is "a minor player" in the county and state economy, with "poverty level" wages and "nonexistent sharecropper jobs."

Say what?

Family farms in Whitman County grow more wheat than do their counterparts in any county in the United States, and they've been doing so since 1910.

Growers in this area are leaders nationally in dry pea and lentil production.

Here's what the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service reports about their trade: Agriculture is the state's largest employer, offering jobs for 170,000 people, and it is the second largest industry after aerospace.

The $5.5 billion of raw agricultural commodities produced annually contribute, when processed, transported, and marketed, $29 billion, or 13 percent, to the Washington economy. Hardly a "minor industry."

Pezeshki claims only a small percentage of Whitman County jobs are agricultural. He ignores many whose livelihoods involve serving farm families -- those employed by grain companies, implement dealers, fertilizer firms, insurance agencies, trucking businesses, automotive dealers and so on.

As a land grant university, Washington State University employs many in its College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences whose professions are closely related to crop production. "Nonexistent" jobs? Try telling that to the more than 300 dedicated people of my family's Whitman County-based business, who have devoted their careers to serving farm families here and in nearby counties. There are many other firms whose success depends upon agriculture. "A minor player?" Get real.

The people of Whitman County agriculture have worked closely with dedicated university scientists for generations. Working together, we've made big strides forward -- yields have more than doubled, water-borne soil erosion has declined 75 percent and dust has been reduced six-fold.

Growers, and the businesses serving them, have won awards for their environmental achievements at the state, regional, and national level including recognition from the current governor for their progress in pollution prevention. As Donald Meinig puts it, in his historical study of our region: "the collaboration of scientist and farmer is now so close that one can glimpse the ideal of the future when every field is a test plot, every farm a laboratory, and every farmer a scientist."

Agriculture is a big business in terms of its regional importance but a special one, too -- no other trade is so dramatically a family enterprise, dependent upon sustained wise stewardship of natural resources, as is farming.

Let's give thanks this holiday season for our remarkable "salt of the earth" farm family neighbors and the bountiful foodstuffs they produce rather than, as my daughter Emily would put it, "dissing" them.

Working together, growers, university researchers, local business people and neighbors can achieve much in the future, as we have in the past. As Nobel Prize winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug puts it, if we allow misconceptions, not science and good judgment, to dictate the future of agriculture we as Americans will be guilty of "displaying a diminished gene frequency for common sense."

I remember personally -- as do many agricultural people -- working hard over the years urging legislators beyond the Palouse to join our local representatives in supporting funding for WSU. The building now under construction between Martin Stadium and Johnson Hall -- Plant BioSciences I -- is the first of six buildings planned as a plant science and biotechnology center, likely to be the finest such facility in the western states.

It speaks volumes about what our elected officials see as the importance of agriculture and of WSU in the days ahead. It is strong evidence the close working relationship between farm families and our land grant university -- begun at the end of the 19th century when it was called Washington Agricultural College -- is not only part of our shared heritage, but of our future, too.

I hope we can move beyond needlessly provocative rhetoric. Both agriculture and WSU are important to our economy and our future. We cannot succeed long-term without each other. All of us -- university, business, and farm families -- need to work together to keep the economy of the Palouse strong. It's a big task but, pulling together, we can do it.

Exactly. The recognition of the value of all players in the local economy will help bridge the town-gown divide in Pullman, not trams, bicycles built for four, $40 Schwinns, or stilts.

"Their own little pathetic White Trash world"

The blog "Alan Gregory's Conservation News" linked to an op-ed piece attacking Idaho Gov. Otter's proposal to reinstate public hunting of gray wolves to reduce the wolf population that Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki posted on Ted Williams Blog at Fly Rod and Reel Online in February. The same column also appeared in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

Chuck dropped by Alan Gregory's blog and left some very illuminating comments.

Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but the always modest Pezeshki claims his book "Wild to the Last," published by WSU Press, led to President Clinton's Roadless Initiative:

Hi Alan,

We pretty much stopped them in their tracks. That book and the events in it were the lead-in to Clinton’s Roadless Initiative. The landslides in Idaho, and the associated pix, were the belly-punch in the stomach that the USFS got that led to the roadbuilding moratorium, which then led to Clinton’s rulemaking.

Of course we didn’t know it at the time. We were just hauling ourselves out of bed every day, determined to fuck with the machine.

And so we did!

Best,

Chuck

Yeah!!!! Stick it to the man, Chuck!!!! You pathetic Abbie Hoffman wannabe.

So how does Chuckie regard Idaho (and likely the rest of us great unwashed):

The point still stands– the Idaho State Legislature and the Governor operate as if they’re in their own little pathetic White Trash world.

"I've pretty much lost sympathy for most of the working people on the Palouse"

For those of you who doubt that professors are elitist snobs, I submit as Exhibit A the arrogant, bitter, socialistic rantings of Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki. If you don't have access to the online version of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Chuckie is posting comments on Dnews.com bitching about the Saturday article that reported poor ol' impoverished WSU profs only make on average $92,000 a year.

Pezeshki's comments are some of the most amusing pieces of left-wing intelligentsia fluffery I've read yet and pull back the curtain on how our faculty libs really feel about the issues. His comments demonstrate quite well why we have no reason to ever fear the campus moonbats getting into political power locally.

One thing that really has to change if the relationship between the towns and the universities is to improve is that the towns need to stop HATING the professors that have chosen to come here for their rank and salary. These professors drive the quality of life in our cities, and their taxes pay for many things that people with lower salaries cannot. The universities also profoundly boost the average income in the area.

Mind you, Chuck's happy with his salary. He's just pissed off there's not more genuflecting to our Ph.D. betters like him. And he wonders why people "hate" professors? Chuck forgets one very important point: IT IS THE "FILTHY WORKING CLASS" HE DESPISES SO MUCH THAT PAYS HIS DAMN SALARY AND FOR ALL OF HIS TRIPS TO LONDON, VIENNA, ET. AL. WITH THEIR TAXES! YOU DON'T LIKE SUCKING OFF THE GOVERNMENT TEAT? THEN GO GET A JOB IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT AND PRODUCE RESULTS, RATHER THAN FLINGING DISDAIN FOR THOSE WITH NO LETTERS AFTER THEIR NAME LIKE YOU!!

Sorry, A G. You get no sympathy from me-- and I've gotten to the point where I've pretty much lost sympathy for most of the working people on the Palouse as well.

If you poll most of the professors on campus, they are for higher taxes, which would predominantly affect the rich. Most of the professors are for socialized medicine, which would profoundly help the working poor and lower middle class in the area. Most professors would be for some form of low-rent, subsidized housing in the area. The one thing that the professors are mostly against is sprawl, and loss of community character, because that's the one draw we have going here.

But it's the working classes that are convinced that these things are the enemy. So be it.

I agree that people ought to be appreciative of the good fortune they have. But it's that doggone MARKET I keep hearing about from the lower-middle class that votes for Republicans that's supposed to raise them up and bring us down. It just doesn't seem to be working that way, though.

I've never seen a more dysfunctional, irrational culture in a 1st World country than what's on the Palouse. Keep voting against your interests, and alienating your intellectual and real allies. It's really worked great so far, hasn't it? Your children are being sent to war, your paycheck is dropping, and I can tell you from where the currency rate sits, the bottom is about to drop out from underneath the dollar, making those 'Guaranteed Low Walmart Prices' a thing of sunny memory.

I'm not happy about any of this. And having run for office to try to stop this, I've put my money where my mouth is. But it's exhausting, personally, the level of acrimony from the community. Myself, as well as others-- the ones that would really be interested in sharing community leadership, are really at the point of almost checking out.

Just remember, when the Gods want to punish you, they grant you your wishes.

Best,

Chuck

Are the arrogant, know-it-all, meddling, elitist, communist professors really going to check out of the Palouse? From your lips to God's ears, Chuck.

If You Were Wondering...

No, I didn't know anything about tonight's WSU Economics Club Wal-Mart forum until I read about it in today's Daily Evergreen. When I asked club president Grant Williams who from the Pullman business community would be speaking at the forum, this is the response I received (my emphasis added):

Dear Mr. Forbes:

The Wal-Mart forum is commencing tonight, from 7-8pm in Todd Hall room 216 on the WSU campus. While, to my knowledge none of our speakers have declared a specific anti Wal-Mart opinion, we both know how "facts" have a way of "revealing" an opinion. Because of time considerations we were unable to get any non-faculty/grad student speakers, although you and your colleges [sic] are more than welcome to attend tonight and participate. In the future I will make sure to contact your organization about community representation.

Sincerely,

Grant D. Williams
WSU Economics Club President

"Time considerations?" What the heck does that mean? Who did they ask? I have no idea who the "faculty/grad student speakers" are, but I think we can all guess. This has PARD media circus written all over it.

My advice is to ignore the whole thing as obviously no serious effort has been made to represent all viewpoints.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Reason #561 Pullman Has to Roll Out the Red Carpet for Every Proposed Project

It ain't like developers are beating down our door. According to today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Washington State University extended its deadline Thursday to receive proposals for a planned hotel and conference center on campus after it didn't receive any proposals from developers.

Chillin' Wit Da Mullahz

"High quality of life makes a big difference. When people have a good quality of life, they're chill and less prone to radical thinking. There's a lot of poor people supporting (the) wealthy."

- Our favorite Schwinn-riding moonbat, Alex McDonald, quoted in yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News at the Progressive Student Union "discussion" following the WSU College Republicans' airing of the film "Obessesion: Radical Islam's War with the West" Wednesday night.

"They're chill?" What?

Maybe they need a Wal-Mart in Gaza, Alex?

Seriously, this is the most pathetic of all the leftist apologies for Islamic terrorism. It demonstrates just how flawed conclusions can be when viewed through the red-colored lens of American academic neo-Marxists. "It's class struggle!! It's multi-national corporations!! All they need is a living wage, good medical benefits and a labor union and everything will be fine!!"

Hogwash. Osama bin Laden comes from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Mohamed Atta, who crashed American Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, was a degreed architect and town planner. All of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from middle-class families and had college degrees. Shehzad Tanweer one of the London subway suicide bombers, left an estate worth 121,000 pounds.

In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, Marc Sageman studied 172 jihadists. He found that Al-Qaeda members are from the upper or middle class. Sageman notes, "the vast majority – 90 percent – came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways."

Islamic terrorists are motivated by cultural and religious factors. It's ideology, stupid, not the economy.

WSU Gets Torched

Guess what has just been posted on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's blog, The Torch:

Free Speech under Attack during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week

WSU President Floyd In Cahoots With Progressive Student Union Protest!!!

UPDATE: Here is the link to authenticate the rumor


Gregory T. Wilkins, Director of Campus Involement, has been tabling at the WSU Glenn Terrell Mall over the last couple of days. Mr. Wilkins, as well as the Progressive Student Union, has been handing out stickers that read:

"RESPECT: Campus Climate Response."

This "stickering" is in lieu of our screening of "Obsession", which is fine (freedom of speech). What is not fine... is being funded by Washington State University's President, Elson S. Floyd. It is against WSU policy to grant a Registered Student Organization (or individual) funding to protest another group (or individual) on campus. This is looking very similar to the controversial play in 2005 when FIRE had to step in to restore law and order.

Ignorati Emeriti

Here is Nick Gier's response to the polite invitation from Daniel Schanze, WSU College Republicans President, to attend the screening of "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" tonight.

From: nickgier@adelphia.net
Date: October 23, 2007 7:31:33 PM PDT
To: Daniel Schanze dschanze@mail.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Documentary Invitation

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for the invitation, but from what I've read about this film I can only draw the conclusion that it is not a balanced account and will damage our government's attempts to win moderate Muslims to our side in the war on terror.

I will not recommend the film to my students or my friends. I will recommend that they attend all the alternative events that have been planned for the Week of Tolerance.

I've appended one column and attached two others that I've written on this topic. One of these might appear in the Daily Evergreen this week.

Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho

That's right folks, The proud professor emeritus who taught Philosophy for 31 years LEAPS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FILM IS BAD BUT HASN'T EVEN SEEN IT YET. Nevertheless, he is prepared to unleash "the full fury of progressive voices for tolerance on the Palouse" on the College Republicans for showing it.

My God, this is the clearest example I've seen yet of liberal elitist closed-mindedness, academic dishonesty, and sheer willful ignorance that Michael wrote about recently. Would you want this man teaching you or your child how to think logically and rationally?

Nick Fury, Agent of Intolerance

"The College Republicans appear surprised about why we find their outrageous film so objectionable, but by the end of the week they will have felt the full fury of progressive voices for tolerance on the Palouse."

- UI Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Palouse Moonbat-in-Chief Nick Gier on Vision 2020 today.

Boy, nothing says "tolerance" like "full fury."

And in the UI Argonaut today, Rula Awwad-Rafferty, UI faculty member and JUNTURA committee chair (JUNTURA "enhances student academic success and promotes the values of respect, understanding, and equality within a diverse university experience") stated, “I don’t think hatred ought to be tolerated anywhere. But you don’t fight hatred with hatred.”

Really? So if you can't hate Mohamed Atta and Osama bin Laden, is it okay then to hate George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld? How about Wal-Mart? How about conservatives and evangelical Christians? Because you sure see a lot of campus-sponsored and -approved hatred directed at all of them, especially from Gier, who has compared fundamentalist Christians to Jihadists, (from the below picture on his UI-based web site, we can tell which Gier thinks is worse.) This is Gier's "full fury of tolerance?"


By the way Nick, here's a hint for you. If you were to post a sacrilegeous picture of Mohammed like that in Iran, it wouldn't be Jesus knocking at the door packing heat, it would be the Revolutionary Guard.

If I were the CRs, I wouldn't worry. That gasbag Gier doesn't have enough fury to get out of a wet paper bag.

Pie in the the Sky Island

There's another laughable, elitist, self-absorbed, solipsistic piece of Marxist excrement by Chuck Pezeshki in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

It’s interesting spending a week in a big, European city, especially after Pullman, with its sky island feel. I’m in Vienna this week, setting up collaborations for our students in engineering, with the intention of giving them the necessary experience to succeed in the global marketplace. This means that I have to succeed in the global marketplace — something that is not as easy as it used to be.

Vienna is an interesting city, in that it is relatively large — more than 1 million people live in and around Vienna — but feels small. The Viennese want their living spaces to be livable, and they have laws here that, while they would never make it in the United States, work together to make a city that is manageable on all levels. You can reach literally everywhere on the U-bahn, the subway system, and the trams. One ticket bought for a week costs only $15. The Viennese understand that if you want public transit to work, it has to be frequent, affordable and convenient. And because of this, buses and trains are always filled. You can even find parking downtown most of the time if you choose to take your car. Contrast this with our own situation, where we do nothing but cut back on the availability of public transit, and then wonder why it doesn’t work.

Because space is tight, stores are small. Grocery stores have a reasonable variety of items. The local Billa chain has everything you need, and it is of high quality. But there is only one way into the store, leading you past all the items, and only one way out. Beer is cheaper than soda pop. And because the stores are relatively small, there are lots of them—all within walking distance from somewhere. They’re not the only chain in the world to use the idea of walking availability to make a buck. Walgreen’s in the United States uses the same principle with their drug stores, so the notion of having hyper-sized stores to stay profitable in the U.S. market just isn’t supported by the evidence.

Even where space is available, super-sized stores don’t exist. We visited the small town of Murzzuschlag, two hours outside of Vienna, with Jutta, the young woman who arranged our business meetings. Murzzuschlag has 40,000 people, and by our standards is able to support multiple Wal-Marts. But they don’t exist. The largest store is a garden store — about one-quarter the size of our big-box stores. Zoning as we know it also doesn’t exist, and the steel plant sits on the edge of the business district. It is clean, because the citizens won’t tolerate living in a degraded environment. Surrounding the valley are neat, small, very alpen-style homes. I asked Jutta where the poor people lived. “We don’t really have poor people like you do in the States,” she replied. “If someone loses their job, they are supported by the government until they find another one.” She seemed not to show any judgment toward those people, giving me the impression that Austrians like themselves as a nation a whole lot more than we do.

Looking back at our own local battles across the sea, it’s clear that Austrians have some sense of what they want their future to be. They’re aware that change is coming, and they are planning for it. They know that automobiles aren’t going to be around forever, and while they use them, they don’t plan their cities around them. They know that parts of their cities should work together — and in order for that to happen, things have to exist in an appropriate scale. It’s impossible to imagine a fight over Wal-Mart here, because such a thing as a Wal-Mart doesn’t exist. Austrians aren’t extravagant spenders, and they’ve decided that living in the space that they have, and using it wisely is a better choice than the end alternative of running out of space — war.

As we Americans scale up everything that we do, with bigger freeways, bigger big-box stores, and bigger houses, we might stop and ask ourselves where the trajectory is really leading. Or where it has already led us. And we might ask, as our own wars drag out, if any of this is really worth the price.

I'm going to resist the temptation to rebut Pezeshki's ridiculous contentions of how "Sky Island" Pullman should be like a European city, or bring up the fact that for much of the time since WWII, Austria has been dominated by a socialist government, or the even more vile assertion that somehow American's love of Wal-Mart and big-box stores leads to war (it was an Austrian, by the way, that took the world into war over lebensraum, or living space: Adolf Hitler.)

No, I'm much too busy with more important things to do that. Instead, I'm going to quote yet again from Gregory Hand's superb column "Snobbish tendencies:"

Where do these people come from? Visit a college campus today and see what is going on there (not most of the professors, who tend to be culture snobs, to be discussed next.) No, the faux intellectual snobs, while including some professors and graduate students, are the teenage and early twenty something undergraduate students. These are the ones who are so brilliant as to be enlightened (indoctrinated) by the liberal orthodoxy taught at most schools today, but ironically not intelligent enough to realize that with all these rights that are demanded come corresponding responsibilities.

Look at the hooligans who just rioted at the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy. It is true that many Europeans participated in the mêlée that ensued. The poor unfortunate chap who was shot dead thinking the Italian police would allow him to hurl a large fire extinguisher at them unchallenged was Spanish. But there were also large contingents of Americans as well, completing their parentally funded summer tours of Europe with a little bit of last minute rioting before heading back to the yacht club. I supposed it is something to tell their unfortunate colleagues at the posh private schools in the fall who didn't get to hang out in Europe on mommy and daddy's credit card. Isn't it just amazing the number of rich white kids who travel the globe lamenting the capitalism that allows them their nice homes, their fancy cars, and the extensive travel that they enjoy so much? Are they that ignorant?

To answer the question, yes, they are; and they are because of this supposed superior intellect that has given them an enlightenment that most dolts like you and I don't have, protesting for a variety of inane causes (Free Mumia! Save the suckerfish! Stop global warming!). It is unfortunate, but their grasp of the issues, despite their strenuous arguments to the contrary, is rudimentary at best. They have no realistic idea, beyond their utopian pipe dreams, of the ramifications of the policies that they advocate. It is difficult to rationalize with them, because they immediately snobbishly dismiss any opposing arguments as inferior ones coming from intellectually substandard people.

The most rapidly rising class of snobs are the cultural/society snobs. These are people who go to symphonies, operas, wine tastings, foreign films, coffee houses and various other stylish venues not because they necessarily enjoy it, but because they like to be seen at such events, and they enjoy bragging about going to those who did not attend. On the flip side they also get pained looks on their faces when discussing amusement parks, NASCAR, public beaches, Wal-mart, chain restaurants and any other place where Grubman's 'white trash' might be hanging out. How déclassé.

They tend to congregate either in San Francisco or LA on the West Coast or New York, DC or Boston on the East Coast, as anywhere not attached to an ocean is 'flyover country.' They love the words 'diversity' and 'culture,' and often praise both lovingly just because it makes them look more sophisticated to be discussing such things.

Like the intellectual snobs, the cultural snobs are part of the 'hate America' crowd, albeit for different reasons. The intellectual snobs hate America because they are all socialists and communists looking to create some naïve workers paradise and destroy capitalism. Cultural snobs, on the other hand, hate America only because it looks better when they travel to Europe to put down other Americans, and to lament to anyone who will listen that France is better then America because it is more 'diverse' and has better 'culture.' Besides, who are snobbier, and therefore can appreciate the attitude, than the French?

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Opposing viewpoints; WSU students who have served in Iraq have different opinions on war, reasons behind it"

Even though Amy Gray did not make it to the screening of "Outside the Wire" last month, I'm glad she did follow up with two of the vets that spoke that night in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News (although I wonder why she did not mention the event by name). These guys need to have their stories told, and thanks to the CRs, they have had that opportunity.

Brian Schafer will graduate from Washington State University on Saturday, but he won't get to rest for long. Next month, he and fellow WSU student Isaiah Bryant will return for their second tours of duty in Iraq.

Schafer and Bryant are among 93 current WSU students who are Iraq war veterans. They agree that most students don't think about the fact that soldiers are in a war zone and that four WSU graduates have been killed in the war.

"People think they have life so tough here," Schafer said. "It's hard to get along with the student population."

Frank Boothby, veterans coordinator for the WSU Office of Veterans Affairs, said he's sometimes surprised when he talks to civilian students who come to his office doing research for a political science or comparative cultures class.

"They do tend to be relatively unaware of what's going on over there," he said. "It's probably youth. I'd hate to say ignorance, but a lack of hearing much in-depth about what's going on over there."

Schafer and Bryant recently took part in a campus discussion about the war in Iraq, with a goal of educating their fellow students about their experiences. Another WSU student, Dell Hogge, 59, also has spoken publicly about his experiences in the war-torn country, although his views contrasted with those of Schafer and Bryant.

Seeing it first-hand

Schafer, a 24-year-old psychology student from Auburn, Wash., is a corporal in the Marines for the Papa Battery, 5th Battalion of the 14th Marine Regiment from Spokane. The all-male regiment was providing security at the Al Asad air base in the Al Anbar province of Iraq between August 2004 and February 2005. They were stationed in northern Iraq, about 124 miles west of Baghdad.

"We were the quick-react force for the area, on a two-minute standby," Schafer said.

He and six other men were on two-day rotations that required being 12 hours "at the ready." They then had 12 hours of downtime, although they were on alert around the clock. They stayed in portable storage units and could be out the door in four minutes with all their gear.

"We would hear the explosions and we could deploy the whole platoon," Schafer said. "When we got in the vehicles, they'd tell us where we were going."

Everyone from Schafer's group returned home safely, although he remembers hearing a Humvee drive off a 30-foot cliff in the dark because it was driving with blackout lights. Schafer helped rescue the men, who were taken by MedEvac to Germany.

Schafer was in Iraq on Jan. 30, 2005, the day the Iraqi people voted for the first time since the current American occupation began.

"To see them with their purple fingers (indicating they had already cast a ballot) waving Iraqi flags and American flags at the same time - it was a great feeling," he said. "Now they could vote for whoever they wanted, not just Saddam Hussein. They were crying and to see them waving both the flags - it was wonderful."

A different take

Not everyone who has served in Iraq shares Schafer's sentiment. Hogge, a former National Guardsman, returned from Iraq in July 2003.

"The people who serve us are good people who went in for good reasons," Hogge said, explaining that most soldiers enter the service for the many benefits, both financial and educational, and to serve the country. They also join the military because it's a family tradition.

"They're wonderful people in a no-win situation," he said. "The day we arrived in Kuwait, (President) George Bush told us that the war was over. He said that all was left to do was to clean up and go home. As soon as I found out we weren't hauling in food to help people, but concertina wire and ammunition, I wanted out."

Hogge has read dozens of anti-war books and encourages people to read them, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

"We are a mercenary army in the employ of oil companies," he said, wearing a T-shirt with the words "REFUSE ILLEGAL WAR."

One of the four WSU graduates who have been killed was an ROTC cadet from Hogge's platoon, Jamie (Campbell) Krausse. The others were Brian Freeman, an undergraduate, and alumni Damien Ficek and James Schull. Ficek was from Palouse and graduated from Palouse High School.

"I'm not trying to talk anyone out of going. They're doing what they were trained to do," Hogge said. "I just think it's wrong. Jamie's life was lost in vain, so that Exxon could make $39 billion last year - and it really ticks me off."

Hogge is studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the hopes he can help other veterans who are returning from Iraq. He speaks openly in support of other soldiers - and against the war. He said he knew soldiers who had nervous breakdowns, becoming highly anxious and hitting the ground when a cloud of dust stirred.

"They thought it was nerve gas," Hogge said. "I'm invested. This is personal."

Schafer's degree also is in psychology. He has done two reports on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and said he may pursue a graduate degree to continue his studies in that area.

"There's guys who came back with us who we don't see much. I don't know if it's deployment depression or PTSD," he said.

To those who lobby against the war, Schafer's eyes twitch in a quick roll. He tells of an Army friend whose job is so classified that Schafer does not know what he does.

"He told me, 'If the American public knew half of what I know, they'd be glad we're over there,' " he said. "When you go, you put your opinions to the side and just go."

Headed back

Bryant was in the infantry with the 792nd Chemical Company based in Yakima. He worked mainly with the military police, guarding prisoners.

"We're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people there. Nowhere in the history of civilization has the goal been to help people. We were there to help people," he said. "The Iraqi people are very supportive. There was huge resistance four years ago, but it's the insurgent groups that are causing the problems."

Bryant's contract is up in October and he intends to re-enlist for another three years.

"I love the uniform; I love serving. Even with some of the crappy stuff that happens, it's great. You make great friends and get opportunities you wouldn't get otherwise."

Schafer said he does not allow himself to think about the dangers.

"I just put it to the back of my mind. I never try to think about it much. You just deal with it when it comes, wake up the next morning and keep going."

Scapegoat?

Scapegoat - Widely used as a metaphor, referring to someone who is blamed for misfortunes, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes. Also referred to as the fall guy.

Bruce over at Cougster and I don't always see eye-to-eye on the issues. But I have to agree with him about former WSU police chief Steve Hansen. The investigation into allegations that Hansen used his WSU computer to view and forward pornographic e-mail reported:

...we did not find it apparent the contents were actively retrieved through web surfing. Further, it was not apparent that the content in admitted emails or other questionable files found in subject’s hard drive were ‘sexually-explicit’.

...we are unclear whether the contents are in fact obscene or ‘sexually-explicit’ as indicated in the allegation.

...We found exception in the existence of four short media clips when we reviewed all program files for appropriate content.

If the four videos cited in the WSU report are the only reason Hansen accepted demotion to Lieutenant, scapegoat is the only word that comes to mind.

If Hansen, as it appears, was demoted because of the WSU policy that states "WSU computer resources may be used for legitimate WSU purposes only," then stand by for thousands of such demotions at WSU.

You can find linkks to the four videos at Cougster.com.

University of Rhode Island Student Senate Dumps College Republicans

Institutions of higher learning are attacking College Republicans. We have seen this with here at WSU with the C.R.'s being attacked by two militant professors. Will ASWSU attack the College Republicans like the student senate did at URI?

University of Rhode Island Student Senate Dumps College Republicans
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) ^ | April 18, 2007 | Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

PROVIDENCE, R.I., April 18, 2007—Displaying a dramatic disregard for students’ constitutional rights, a committee of the University of Rhode Island (URI) Student Senate voted on Monday to derecognize the College Republicans student group. For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 “scholarship” for white, heterosexual, American males. The College Republicans refused to apologize and contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. FIRE is now calling upon URI President Robert Carothers, who has already informed the Senate that it could not compel student speech, to reverse the decision to derecognize the group.

“Neither the Student Senate nor anyone else at URI has the power to force the College Republicans to say things against their will,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “As bad as it may be to tell people what they cannot say, it is still worse to tell them what they must say. The Supreme Court has long recognized that compelled speech is not compatible with free societies. It is stunning that URI’s student government would show such contempt for fundamental rights, especially after URI’s own president explained it to them.”

The College Republicans student organization first advertised the satirical “White, Heterosexual, American Male” “scholarship” in November, 2006. The scholarship consisted of a nominal $100 to be awarded to someone fitting those criteria who submitted an application and an essay on the adversities he has faced. College Republicans President Ryan Bilodeau explained that the point was to use satire to protest scholarships awarded on the basis of race, gender, or nationality. Over 40 URI students applied for the “scholarship,” many submitting equally satirical application essays.

In a meeting on February 19, the Student Senate’s Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee (SOARC) prohibited the College Republicans from disbursing the money. The group agreed that it would not give out the $100, but SOARC decided that even advertising the satirical “scholarship” violated URI’s anti-discrimination bylaws and demanded that the group publish an apology in the campus newspaper. Unwilling to apologize, Bilodeau appealed SOARC’s decision. The Senate denied that appeal.

FIRE wrote to Senate President Neil Cavanaugh on March 13, stating that because the Student Senate derives its authority from a public university, it must comply with the First Amendment prohibition on compelled speech. The Student Senate, however, in a memo to the College Republicans on March 27, ruled again that the College Republicans must publish an apology and claimed authority to force them to do so. That sanction was later reduced to an “explanation” to be published in the campus newspaper and a mandatory apology to be sent to all of the students who applied for the scholarship.

The College Republicans agreed to publish an explanation of its intentions, but refused to write any apologies. FIRE wrote to URI President Robert Carothers the following day to urge him to intervene in the situation. FIRE wrote, “URI administrators have a legal duty to step in where the Student Senate has failed and to check its attempt to trample upon students’ most basic freedom of conscience.” And in a letter dated April 6, President Carothers did indeed instruct the Senate in no uncertain terms to drop its unconstitutional demand for an apology. Carothers wrote that the mandatory apology “does not meet constitutional standards as laid forth in the First Amendment and in subsequent court decisions interpreting the standard.”

But at a meeting on Monday night, SOARC nonetheless unanimously voted to ignore both its constitutional obligations and Carothers’ directive and derecognize the College Republicans for refusing to issue an apology. SOARC’s decision will be voted on by the entire Student Senate on Wednesday, April 25.

FIRE wrote another letter to Carothers yesterday calling upon him to immediately reverse SOARC’s decision to derecognize the group. FIRE wrote that “[b]y fulfilling this responsibility as a public official, you can teach the Senate leadership that they must respect the rights of URI students and help to instill in them an understanding of the full repercussions for repeatedly and recklessly defying the Constitution.”

“URI’s student government thinks it is above the law—that it can take fees extracted from students by a state university and yet ignore the constitutional obligations that come with them. It is sadly mistaken,” Lukianoff said. “President Carothers must act now to stop this rogue organization from conducting these unlawful acts under the aegis of the university.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty universities across America can be viewed at www.thefire.org.

Thoughts from an evening at Outside the Wire: What It Means to Truly Support the Troops

In the context of the contemporary university campus, it takes bravery to present the particular side of things the WSU College Republicans showed to the WSU campus by screening Outside the Wire. It certainly is not bombs and bullets that our CR's have to face, which they admitted before the film rolled, but it would be wrong to dismiss as insignificant the social toll that comes with speaking truth to the left-indoctrinated around these parts. It’s an ugly job, but someone’s got to do it.

More than anything else I witnessed last night, it was this frank admission on the part of the CR’s - that they have not fought in the war they support – that struck me, bringing into sharper focus for me the importance of each individual's contributions to a war effort. Having been an infantry soldier, I was for a long time given to believing that only those of us of the "we've put up, the rest of you shut up" set had a legitimate say in and contribution to war efforts. I was wrong.

This is exactly what many of the leftist/unreasonably-pacifist set will often claim, particularly against individuals like our CR's. But the leftists do not say so because they've been in my boots, but only because they perceive this attack as being an all-undercutting criticism of individuals and their support of our nation’s various wars, individuals who have not carried arms in defense of our nation. It is a cowardly ad hominem the leftists know to have some force because of the weight typically given to it by veterans.

That is exactly why I have consciously stopped endorsing that line of reasoning: it only has a hint of legitimacy so long as we warriors also endorse it, which is unfortunate as its most frequent users are those who would do us harm. Veterans – do not endorse this thinking; those who use it are at best not our friends, they are otherwise our enemies, and the notion itself is false!

When one considers everything that goes into winning a war, it is plainly obvious that there is more to it than beans and bullets. No army of any democratic nation will ever win any war in the absence of supporting ideals and individuals; the idea of doing such a thing is meaningless to us. We do not make war for the sake of war.

Overwhelming force is obviously necessary to win strictly as a matter of physics, but human beings are more than simple mechanisms of action and reaction. We require something to believe in to propel us forward; we require ideas. As such, it is our ideas that are truly powerful, for without them we might lack inspiration to do anything at all with our troops and weapons, much less anything else. We know this to be true because the human race has seen it again and again throughout history - if there is not heart in the fight, the fight will be lost.

Therefore the support of those who are not directly involved in this fight is not only welcome, it is necessary for victory! Conversely, those who oppose this war and who actively work against it, their works will contribute to defeat (particularly by emboldening an enemy who might otherwise be demoralized and defeated); defeat is the only other outcome possible if the outcome is not victory. Human beings, being possessed of free will, can choose what it is that they will individually endorse, so it is then worthwhile to examine what it is that individuals do endorse and why to see which endorsement is moral.

In this fight, we are faced with an avowed enemy who is out to destroy our way of life. They are openly hostile to the core values that our nation is founded upon, and they make no bones about not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers as they kill to achieve their objectives. We have been shown numerous times their willingness to kill innocent people, with the September 11th attacks being the most spectacular, and in other attacks they have carried out against our allies, such as the triple hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan on November 9th, 2005, which saw one of those bombs being detonated in the midst of a wedding reception. In the UK and in Spain, they have deliberately killed hundreds of civilians in separate train bombings. Kenya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, the Netherlands, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon… the list goes on.

To support the war on terror, and thus to support our troops, is to oppose these things, to be against the murderers who have set themselves against us. It is to place your personal endorsement on our core values of freedom and justice, to align yourself with the belief that the proper destiny of each person is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It acknowledges that our enemies will not confine themselves to mere words, but do actively seek to kill us, and that they must therefore be destroyed. This is why we fight.

To oppose the war is to endorse the evil committed by our enemies, if not overtly, then at least by a cowardly, passive permissibility, as what they do is without any excuse and can rightly only be condemned and eliminated. The evil acts committed by our enemies do not permit us the space to not act, since their evil is of such a type and degree that it is morally abominable to not fight and defeat them. They must be answered, and they must be made to answer to justice. If you will not do so, or at least agree that this is so, then you might as well be one of them. Weakly throwing in "I support the troops!" as a disclaimer does not redeem you.

With that, I’d like to close with a few words penned by John Stewart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse…A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Thank you for what you’re doing, CR’s. What you’ve done and what I’m sure you’ll all continue to do really does mean a lot to our veterans, both those currently in the field and those of us who have been.

To the protesters… you’re welcome.

Here's Your Outrage

Ami Veneziano of the WSU Young Democrats wrote earlier this week in the Daily Evergreen::

As I look across the nation, as I see people going about their business, students cramming for exams, seasons changing and life happening, I keep wondering where our outrage is...Students on this very campus complain about the skyrocketing costs of tuition and increasing fees for various campus amenities.

Guess what, Ami? I have found some outrage for you in yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Somehow, this story did not make it into the Evergreen (gee, I wonder why):

The main concern is that the Senate budget is about $10 million lower than WSU officials say they need. The $10 million is spread throughout the budget, Ganders said, and the result will be that WSU will have to pay for salary increases for WSU faculty and staff out of tuition revenues.

"Historically, the state has paid for salaries," Ganders said. "What has happened for many years is that the amount of funding a student pays stays with the institution and what the institution does with that funding is invest in the students' education.

"What the Senate budget does is spends that money on salaries."

The Senate budget authorizes tuition increases of 7 percent per year, but assumes the revenue will fund state-mandated salary increases of 3.2 percent in the first year of the budget and 2 percent the following year.

"The Senate budget is of great concern to us because it would limit our flexibility to meet other needs," Boehmke said. "It would be a big drain on the university's budget."

Oh yeah, by the way, Democrats hold a whopping 65.3% majority (32-17) in the State Senate.

I'm expecting to see Veneziano act on her advice and lead a protest against the Democrats. But she did also write back in November:

The time has finally come.

After 12 years of Republican control, after enormous amounts of time spent by volunteers across the country with no greater desire than escorting Republicans to the door, it’s finally open.

Next Tuesday is the day. The revolution will begin.

Careful what you wish for.

Kent State or Bust

Ami Veneziano had another rant published in the Daily Evergreen today:

So much to think about, more to do

Veneziano says that despite all of the nation’s problems, apathy still plagues her generation’s willingness to help.

As I look across the nation, as I see people going about their business, students cramming for exams, seasons changing and life happening, I keep wondering where our outrage is.

Things are happening in the world today. People are dying from a variety of causes that can be fixed.

Wars without justification are being waged, while corporations, led by zealous lobbyists and money managers, are taking over our government. Racial tensions are again looming as minutemen gather on our borders – as well as on our own campus with demonstrations by the College Republicans – and the world is facing an environmental crisis of an unimaginable magnitude. A bumper sticker I’ve seen lately states, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” It seems that most of the nation has stopped listening. Even those in the slim minority who still approve of the Bush administration can see this world is hurting. Ignoring the problems, whatever you perceive them to be, just isn’t working.

Yet so many of us, especially in this generation, are unaware of all that is happening. We “20-somethings” complain about the price of gas, but don’t even try to think of a solution. Students on this very campus complain about the skyrocketing costs of tuition and increasing fees for various campus amenities. But they don’t recognize that by deciding not to vote last November, they sent a clear message to those who make the decisions: “We don’t care.” Many of my peers would rather hole up and ignore the rest of the world and focus on having fun, than realize the real problems we face.

I don’t understand why our generation doesn’t care.

Take a look at our history. America started as a nation of people so concerned about corruption and government problems that they left their homelands in search of a better way. Civic engagement and information were so important that the First Amendment to our Constitution directly deals with these rights in no uncertain terms.

It’s ironic that today few people care, yet we have more tools available than any generation before us. We can e-mail our government representatives at any time, day or night, and not have to search for a stamp. It’s absurdly easy to become involved and make a statement, if not a difference.

But we have become a nation of people too lazy to stop watching “American Idol” long enough to cast a vote in elections that matter.

When I look back on the past century, I see people who cared and worked hard to make a difference. Many previous generations were willing to do whatever it took for this country. From women’s suffrage, and an end to state-sanctioned discrimination, to protests over illegal wars and the impeachment of a corrupt president, earlier generations did their best to influence the direction of this country.

But I am still wondering what my generation will contribute. There are people out there trying to make a difference. Whether it’s through campus political groups on either side of the line, or secular and religious groups focused on helping everyone, there are people trying to make changes. The problem is, the number of members involved from our generation is small.

Too many of us are sitting around, complaining, unwilling to do anything about the nation’s problems. Too many of us would rather take the easy, uninformed road rather than deal with everything. There are lots of excuses for that, but no good reasons.

My father once told me, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” I’ve got to wonder how much longer our generation will be a problem.

In the interest of full disclsoure and transparency (since the Evergreen won't disclose anything and refuses to be transparent,) Veneziano is the treasurer for the WSU Young Democrats. More than anything else, her column should be viewed as recruiting propaganda for the YDs.

But I do have a simple answer to her question.

A Spring 2006 Harvard Institute of Politics survey found that 57 percent of college students say they are liberal or lean liberal, compared to 31 percent who are conservative or lean conservative.

That puts the majority of WSU students' political beliefs in line with their professors, the Washington State Legislature, the Governor of Washington, the U.S. Senators from Washington, the U.S. Congress, Hollywood, and the media.

Generally speaking, when you protest something, you represent a minority opinion. Otherwise, why bother? There is no "making a difference" when everything is already going your way. Might as well watch "American Idol." It's not laziness, it's support of the status quo.

Personally, I keep wondering where the outrage is over a dozen or so blowhards being able to hold up 400 new jobs and a million dollars a year in tax revenue for Pullman. That's a heck of a lot more lot more local than the Iraq War or New Orleans. You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one....

Let's look at some of the issues Ms. Veneziano mentions:

War - The liberal media has successfully destroyed any remaining vestiges of patriotism that were created following September 11. Polls show Americans ready to bail out of Iraq and the Democratic-led Congress is already picking out the right shade of white for the flag. A majority of Americans also feel that a Democrat will win the White House next year, and a President Clinton or President Obama will get out of Iraq very quickly, no matter how many bodies we have to stumble over to do it. No one is interested in how to win or fixing mistakes that have been made any longer. Why bother protesting?

Corporations - Even the "greedy bastards" of corporate America have been infected with political correctness. In the past year or so, we've seen Wal-Mart, the Great Satan of Capitalism, go green, start selling organic food, have Al Gore host a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Bentonville, support gay rights, and advocate for both a higher minimum wage and universal health care. Don't worry though, the valiant dons of PARD will protect Pullman from the ravages of free enterprise.

Racial Tensions - Race relations are not perfect and there is always room for improvement. But the states of Maryland and Virginia just both apologized for slavery even though the last person to own slaves died about a century ago. And there is a realistic chance of an American of African descent to become President next year.

Immigration - Nothing for the liberals to worry about here. The border is still wide open, with free medical care and education to all who manage to make it across.

Global Warming - The media and Hollywood have gotten a majority of Americans to buy into the hysteria, from little school children all the way up. The public is primed for all sorts of extremist taxation and social engineering from the radical environmentalists.

Gas Prices - Let's not forget who has raised the Washington gas tax THREE times in the last few years to give us one of the highest gas taxes in the country AND opposed citizen efforts to repeal the latest gas tax increases. That's right, Ms. Veneziano's Democrats.

Tuition and Fees - Again remember what party has been in control in Olympia for the past two decades. It was REPUBLICAN State Senator Mark Schoesler that tried this year to cap tutition increases.

So, it is the liberal Democrats that are part of the problem, but liberal students don't get involved because as far as they are concerned, they are already part of the solution.

Why not give the College Republicans props for at least not being apathetic, whether Venenziano agrees with their viewpoint or not? They are a minority group fighting for their rights and the causes they care about. And for their efforts, they have been given a raft of s#!t.

Instead, she lumps them in with "greedy corporations." Clearly, Veneziano is not interested in student apathy as much as she is in student conformity. In her mind, all students must practice the ritualistic selective outrages of the Church of Political Correctness as she does or else be labeled "apathetic." I guess she won't be happy until the liberal hegemony is complete and there is no dissent or opposing viewpoints.

Our young Generation X and Y liberals seem to long for the heady days of Kent State, when a whiff of tear gas was in the air on campus. They judge everything through the psychedelic hues of the Sixties, known only to them through VH-1 and professorial flashbacks of glory days. They forget that it was self-interest, not altruism that motivated many anti-war protesters back then. In 1970, there was a very real chance that a young man who flunked out of school would end up in Vietnam. Today, with no draft, there is only geriatric posturing from Jane Fonda and Company.

The bottom line is that liberals are uncomfortable being in power. And nothing's more unseemly than a poor winner.