The moral of this story: It does you no good to picket a legislator's house. It's not going to change their mind and it hurts your cause.

I am in no way involved with any of this, nor any particular interest in the issues involved. Carla is just propagandizing here, so these comments are directed at her craven comment. They have nothing at all to do at with the particulars of the issues, nor do they signal any approval or disapproval of the incident(s) obliquely alluded to, since we have nothing in evidence to discuss except what amounts to gossip built up around a few incomplete facts.

The court of public opinion is where legislators and their performance is properly tried and judged. In a representative mind, protests and such are not about changing legislators minds in the juvenile reflexive way Carla argues. They are about holding elected leaders up to scrutiny ("The whole world is watching!") so people can observe how they react and decide whether to replace them. On a personal level, most elected leaders have such big egos that on a personal level they just can't back down, even if when it is blatantly obvious they are wrong. The corrupting power interests to whom they really owe their re-election know that and depend on it.

Legislators who react petulantly and generally develop an "us against them" fortress mentality, more and more impotent and irresponsible. They diminish their stature as leaders until all they are seen as is just being concerned with being re-elected to preserve their personal status and to wield power poorly. They are increasingly seen as tools of the corrupting power interests who help them hold their power.

One just has to look at the utter paralysis in the face of the fundamental economic and social challenges we confront to appreciate just how much this is the case in Salem independent of party affiliation. One comes to understand the fights are so nasty because the personal political goals really are so petty. It's shocking how many elected leaders don't realize just how bad they look when they start making excuses, like blaming the initiative process and the expressed will of the people in the face of a climate of leadership failure, for their lack of competence and failure to accomplish anything for the people, even as very powerful interests always benefit quite nicely. It's a blatant admission of just how much they are not big enough or principled enough for the job.

When I read Carla's propagandistic paraphrase of Read's petulant comments here, (she couldn't be bothered to quote him directly, apparently and that irony is that may help or hurt him), it just reinforces an image of a small, scared, egotistical, incompetent politician in Salem. The representatives of the professional advocacy community who signed this gossipy letter come across as pathetic, fawning people, simply desperate to curry favor with these venal politicians because of the status-by-association they get from that. These are groups that most people don't know, and at best think are just part of the irrelevant political noise.

Of course, Carla is going to argue as she does here to hang onto her sad little role in preserving the broken, corrupted, power status quo. Holding an elected leader's personal character and leadership ability up to public scrutiny and judgement in any manner protected by the First Amendment is what representative government is all about: You know you've found the bad ones (and their pathetic co-dependent enablers) who need to be shown the door at the next election when it's the people's right to hold them accountable in the court of public opinion that they start wailing and defiantly pushing back at the most.

You know you've found the bad ones (and their pathetic co-dependent enablers) who need to be shown the door at the next election when it's the people's right to hold them accountable in the court of public opinion that they start wailing and defiantly pushing back at the most.

Yes, you know you've found a good legislator if they like having their homes picketed. Huh?

Personally, what I think's really effective is if you throw a legislator in water, if he or she floats, you know they're corrupt.

Ha! Frank's last comment made me laugh. :)

Mr. Cohev's comment goes right back to personal attacks on legislators. I would wager that he's never spent time getting to know Rep. Read -- or any legislator -- yet he has no difficulty letting the rest of us know the inner thought processes and personal motivations of "them". What an immature line of reasoning!

Mr. Cohev must have earned a degree in Psychological Profiling from Ashwood "University".

I'm afraid Mr. Cohev is representative of a large group of people who generally believe that corruption is simply when a lawmaker doesn't vote the way they demand. When in actuality, Rep. Read is one of the more thoughtful members of the Oregon House.

As I said, Carla's amateurish, propagandistic comments help reinforce an image of Read as just another small, scared, egotistical, incompetent politician in Salem.. It's irrelevant whether it changed his mind, since the minds of people like that seldom can be changed. It compounds a public image of legislative leadership who aren't even close to being up to the job. And it's that undeniable truth that just drives inconsequential, fawning people like Carla and Frank Carper to distraction.

And Carper you pathetic loser: You know you have a honorable and competent leader that inspires people if they don't get picketed in the first place because they are respected for the decency and wisdom of their leadership (not because they don't count or are jerks), but also when they react well to being picketed because they screwed up badly. Frankly, my personal experience is there are just a precious few elected officials of that quality of Salem, and they are found on both sides of the aisle.

I always find it interesting, and just a little disgusting, that people like Carla and Frank defend venal politicians with whom they agree as they make questionable decisions that can have a huge negative impact on the daily lives and economic futures of people they see as faceless pawns, on the basis that those venal politicians should never feel any politically and legally-valid discomforting reminder of that in their daily personal lives.

Picketing an elected official's home in a manner that conforms with the First Amendment can draw legitimate public scrutiny to the manner and place in which they live, so the voters can exercise their right to judge if those leaders are representative and acting in their interests when they make decisions that directly affect the manner and place in which others live.

Everybody should note that these two and the letter writers are not condemning legal political action directed at Read because of the quality values represented by his decisions and what that tells us about his character. These people are just pathetic sycophants condemning others to defend the prerogatives of power, each fully wanting to be seen as tools defending those prerogatives for their own selfish reasons. Those are two very different things. In fact, in the letter commended to us by Carla, the writers go so far as to lash out desperately against people for exercising their responsibility as voters to question the character of an elected official.

It's pretty clear to most folks what the reality is and it's just sad Carla, Frank Carper, the letter writers, and whoever else lines up on their side don't realize how bad they make themselves look.

Uh JHL, I know and have known far more elected officials than you seem to believe. My comments are based on the personal experience it is glaringly obvious that too man of these people are there because they have big egos, lust after the idea of being "the decider", have values flexible enough to allow them to cozy up with power interests who can help their careers, and in most cases have relatively parochial personal agendas they want to push. None of those are particularly good criteria for being a leader, although having the rare combination of a healthy ego and the ability to admit mistakes is a necessity.

And of course JHL is too dishonorable to have noticed that at the outset it was noted that the comment was not about Mr. Read or the incident at all, but about Carla and the letter writers' propaganda tactics. Those tactics interact with Mr. Read's decisions and poorly reported comments to reinforce a legitimate negative perception of Mr. Read's values. That's a problem for Mr. Read has to do deal with, or not, at his choosing, and for which the voters legitimately judge him.

The Carla's, JHL's, Carper's of the world and the rogues' gallery of letter writers are really just out to control how others may expose politicians like Mr. Read to scrutiny for the voters to judge. Their propagandistic argument as framed by them is against legal political activity which elected officials they want to ally with find problematic. Their goal is to criticize and delegitimize that activity for their own political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's a comment from Read's own bio, the imperious wording of which the more thoughtful of us might have not chosen:

"Tobias is excited about continuing his work building Oregon’s quality of life, and believes these assignments afford the opportunity to oversee Oregon’s progress with an eye on the long run."

Oversee: 1. to direct (work or workers); supervise; manage: He was hired to oversee the construction crews. 2. to see or observe secretly or unintentionally: We happened to oversee the burglar leaving the premises. He was overseen stealing the letters. 3. to survey or watch, as from a higher position. 4. to look over; examine; inspect.

Last I checked, the elected officials work for us and perhaps "overseeing" our progress is not quite their role. The issue here is again the choice of language, propagandistic quality, and the picture it presents of the elected leader's actual competence, values, ego, and supporters. I would expect someone who views themselves as an "overseer" to react rather imperiously to the public calling them into question and responding they are the "decider" who for sure is not going to respond to public opposition.

I think it's time for Win T. Cohev to run for state office so we can all decide together if he is a "small, scared, egotistical politician"- especially after he is personally picketed on his own property. Of course, that will never happen, as it appears he is quite satisfied to throw stones from his own glass house.

Uh Carla, true to form in this thread, you don't have the native ability to make a credible point, just lob smarmy, empty wisecracks in which you lack the guts to even provide an antecedent for your underhanded allusions. You play the petty, dishonest propaganda games of demagogues.

Carla and the sycophantic letter writers are the bullies we are all familiar with on the playground. They just can't take it that someone stands up to their dull-witted, mean-spirited bullying, and then play the grandstanding victim to the crowd when someone stands up to them. They are doing their best to bully into silence people who, as far as they themselves present it, were legally engaged in their rights to speak out politically. They attacked their way of speaking, not what they had to say. And they simply assert without any cogent argument that they are superior and have the right to bully those who legally --- as far as they have presented the matter --- confront elected leaders for the official actions in a way those leaders can't hide from.

Carla of course hasn't done the work, and the letterwriters are far too cowardly to even state what might have been on any signs the picketers were carrying, and apparently the media has reported the news of what happened including comments from both sides so we can judge all sides for ourselves. Instead, we have the kind of bullying propagandistic whispering campaign, complete with an letter apologizing for the unstanding, that a politician who sees himself as an "overseer" can point to to gain sympathy from an uniformed crowd.

Mamabigdog, before you shoot off your mouth like JHL, you might at least consider the possibility some know how to influence the introduction and construction of bills in the legislature by focusing how the kind of people who crave for the spotlight as the "decider" do and don't think. (And how retaliations people may have experienced in reaction to their political activities would stack up against some as typically NW banal as being picketed,) That results in a lot more influence, and is appreciated by politicians who crave the positive spotlight for themselves, than being elected at a time when you find the majority accurately thinks that exactly what most politicians are about.

Carla, I totally agree with you that picketing a politician's house is "ridiculous BS no matter how you try to justify it". I'm just wondering where your outrage was when Hugo Chavez's homegirl Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink flag burning freak show were picketing outside of President Bush's home in Crawford? Or is it only in poor form to picket the homes of Democrats?

Code pink has never burned a flag.

There is a fair question about how underfunded public interests should offer some accountability for elected officials who cater primarily to corporate donors.

Yet you're the one attempting to justify the picketing of legislator's homes. Your smarmy beats my smarmy. And you need look no further than your own mirror for demagoguery.

No Carla, that's what you WISH I was arguing and want people to believe because you are engaged in propaganda and are incapable of rebutting arguments on their merit. Actually I think you're just kind of stupid because you seem to use a term like "smarmy" or "demagoguery" such that, in the memorable words of Inigo Montoya in the "Princess Bride" - "I do not think it means what you think it means". That is one of the propaganda games politicians and their tools play.

I am not defending picketing because, so long as it is done legally as sycophants like you and the letter writers seemed to have acceded, it's not even an issue to debate. It's their right to use their free expression rights to speak to power any way they want to.

You're not speaking to power, your speaking in defense of power, which is just the opposite. What I am doing is criticizing the deceit of your attempts to delegitimize and define the terms of acceptable speech to defend the prerogatives of power. Very different, but again I think people like you and the letterwriters are far too shallow and incompetent to join that debate. As evidence, people just have to note you have rebutted any of the argument, just thrown around terms that "I do not think mean what you think (they) mean". (Can anybody comment if this is par for the course for Carla?)

I don't criticize people for legally picketing a craven politician like Read for exactly the same reason that I didn't criticize Sheehan for picketing a craven politician like Bush. Funny thing is they both had exactly the same petulant reaction and their sleazeball supporters threw up the same sycophantic defense.

In fact I embrace the picketers' right to use their First Amendment rights as they see fit, not how I see fit. I didn't have a problem with the teabaggers picketing whoever and wherever they wanted to either even though I completely disagreed with them and felt they made asses of themselves on the basis of the content of their speech. More power to 'em all to the extent they legitimately make cowardly, selfish, "overseer" politicians (Read is a real gem) squirm in the public eye, and to expose the hypocrisy of their sleazy supporters like Carla and the fawning letter writers. (Sorry JJ, while you're right on point there is nothing lower than hypocrisy, but you're still a loser if your position on picketing is something you want people to take at face value.)

Principled partisans on both sides would do well to isolate, publicly humiliate, and ostracize those kind of selfish, shallow people from their ranks who are mainly out to control how we should view how others choose to legally exercise their civil rights. Representative democracy is far too important to let them trash it for their own ignorant, selfish reasons as they are hell bent on doing.

Not sure whether or not picketing should be off the tabe, assuming no one is threatened / property harmed, etc. Maybe it should be off the table, but I'm not sure. You very well might be right.

My question about holding Deocrats accounatable is a genuine one. My point is not to prolong a debate about some picketing, but to use this chance to open a conversation about how to encourage Democrats to champion progressive values.

Now that Democrats are in charge, the mission of the corporate lobby is to cultivate Democrats who will provide key votes with Republicans, kill things in committee, and shape the caucus conversation. A look at C&E's can be illuminating.

And there is a growing list of potential examples. Killing LNG regulation. Preempting regulation of Voice Over Internet Protocol as a favor to cable companies to the detriment of local governments. Solar company mega-giveaways eroding our renewable portfolio standard. Tax giveaways for the soccer stadium. Support for the 4 billion megabridge for Vancouver developers. Silently opposing campaign finance reform. Staying small on corporate tax reform. Sputtering on global warming legislation.

There needs to be a way to keep Democrats accountable when they hear the siren song of the business lobbyists. This is different than being "moderate," unless that word means more frequently choosing lobbyists over the public interest. Perhaps the way is running a primary, but that is a move to be seldom used.

One major service you can provide is letting the progressive community know more about where legislators are showing progressive courage, and when they are following the money. We needn't be dogmatic, but without some values-driven sunlight, the incentive is all in favor of selling out.

Most of all and genuinely, thanks for your service, Carla. You are truly an asset.

Took time to look more at Read's official bio. Pretty standard shallow political resume, undergrad Poli Sci and MBA, time spent doing standard political climbing in D.C. including working under Larry Summers (yea that Larry Summers).

Nothing there that contradicts his legislative record of being a pretty run-of-the-mill craven politician in a backwoods state. He has chosen to make his living selling overpriced status symbols to kids who deserve far better role models than that.

It's his right to be proud of whatever he wants to be proud of, and it's everybody else's right to judge him as harshly as they care to for that, something that Carla and the letter writers don't seem to accept. With that factual record, it's quite legitimate to publicly question the values he brings to the job and the values of those who defend him by attacking others for legitimate, legal exercise of their civil rights.

Cohev: aren't you just a little bit overwrought? "Propaganda"? Carla - did you realize you had been elevated to a level of such importance and influence?

Win, these legislators are paid dirt wages and work like dogs. Are you putting us on, or are you really in favor of picketing a state rep's home because you disagree with him on an issue?

If you are serious, doesn't that mean that every elected official could be picketed at home on every contested vote they take?

Thanks for the response. Here are some things to look out for going forward:

"Preempting regulation of Voice Over Internet Protocol as a favor to cable companies to the detriment of local governments. Solar company mega-giveaways eroding our renewable portfolio standard. Tax giveaways for the soccer stadium. Support for the 4 billion megabridge for Vancouver developers. Silently opposing campaign finance reform. Staying small on corporate tax reform. Sputtering on global warming legislation."

And probably more.

Win, these legislators are paid dirt wages and work like dogs. Are you putting us on, or are you really in favor of picketing a state rep's home because you disagree with him on an issue?

bradley, do you have a reading disability? What about:

I am not defending picketing because, so long as it is done legally as sycophants like you and the letter writers seemed to have acceded, it's not even an issue to debate. It's their right to use their free expression rights to speak to power any way they want to.

What I am doing is criticizing the deceit of your attempts to delegitimize and define the terms of acceptable speech to defend the prerogatives of power.

is not crystal clear? The rest of your comment is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with anything I said.

And by the way, if they don't like the job, no one is forcing them to take it. As that good Democrat Harry Truman said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". They have their own personal reasons for taking the job and some of them aren't necessarily noble, but have more to do with lusting for the status of "overseer". Why do people find that so hard to admit (since I think most of you privately know it's true)?

Win: picketing is harassment if you take it off the terrain of "public domain". I think it would be an interesting experiment to picket your house. You might come to understand that such tactics are guaranteed to put the victim on the defense. Carla, of course Win cannot "see his whack". He does not consider it whack and is dug in. No doubt this person can be seen marching outside of abortion clinics and, before the law said "thou shalt not touch", was one who enjoyed grabbing young girls' arms to take them for a Come To Jesus chat on a kerb. I've seen such in my young girlhood.

Whack. Yup.

It's ineffective, stupid and wrong. And yes, you are defending it and have been this whole thread.

Carla, pout and rave wildly as you may, it doesn't change the truth that you cannot point to any statement that defends anything except people's right to exercise their civil rights because it simply isn't there. You know the only comment of mine you can find here is a reasoned argument that exposes your sad defense of the prerogatives of power. You, rw, and the low-class letter writers don't have the integrity or guts to confine yourselves to the merits of each sides position in the matter in dispute. You instead try to make the issue how those challenging Read express themselves in a desperate, disgusting attempt to reframe the matter away from the substance.

rw, just how deranged are you that you lash out with wild accusations on the basis of absolutely no knowledge? You obviously don't have a credible thought in your empty head, so in your ignorant frustration you just pull stuff out of you backside and fling it.

JJ called rw and Carla's bluff when he asked if Carla condemned Sheehan and she hasn't answered.. So I'll put JJ"s question to both of you miserable losers once again: You have just unambiguously said picketing a craven politician's home is, without qualification, ineffective, stupid, and wrong. Do you unambiguously and without qualification equally condemn Cindy Sheehan as ineffective, stupid, and wrong for legally picketing out in front of another craven politician's home?

At least JJ has the courage of his/her conviction to be consistent and condemn all such picketing. I equally have the courage my conviction: I say Sheehan is not wrong for picketing, just as I say those who apparently legally picketed Read are not wrong (if your own poor reporting of the affair can be taken at face value). So have the integrity of your own claimed convictions and tell us what they are with regard to Sheehan.

With unprincipled defenders like rw and Carla, "overseer" Read certainly doesn't need any political detractors.

Val, soccer mom, in line with the stereotype of an arrogant, selfish, self-entitled jerk with which you have willingly associated yourself, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the picketing in question crossed the line into harassment or intimidation.

The courts have clearly ruled picketing a politician's home in itself is not harassment or intimidation behavior crosses certain lines. Here's news flash for you missy: Offending an obnoxious soccer mom's obnoxious, self-centered worldview (to wit: extremist groups and wacktivists) ain't one of them. So can you provide more factual evidence of genuine harassment and intimidation that Carla and the letter writers have not provided (noting of course Carla's unequivocal position doesn't hinge on said unprovided evidence) supporting your assertion, or are you just another jerk pulling it out of your miserable backside?

I'll ask you JJ"s question even though I am 180 degrees opposite from JJ's position: Do you unambiguously and without qualification condemn Cindy Sheehan as ineffective, stupid, and wrong for legally picketing out in front of another craven politician's home?

Cohev: I have as much right as you to be incoherent and ad hominem boring. I just thought you were having SO much fun pointing guns at Carla I'd try it myself. It felt great! I see why you do it! I'ts fun and exciting to blast at others adn to also utter inanities at the top of my lungs on a blog. I still think you should join some of our other one-trick ponies here with your rageful certainties that mean the privacy and human rights of others are sure to be abridged if YOU disagree with them... there's still time for you far right and extremist left folks to recognize your dehumanizing similarities and a way to reeeeeeeeeeeeeech acrozzzzzz that aisle!

:)... enjoy yer day. And leave Carla alone. I was thinking the same thing about Sheehan. She is a fucking circus sideshow. Why didn't she take it to Congress? More effective location for her sideshow, and best place for the cameras to document her tormented rage and loss. THERE she might have found a place to actually make a difference.

Kari et al,

To compare Cindy Sheehan with these picketers is quite the leap. I don't know any of these protesters but I do know Cindy and she is not "stupid." I doubt anyone on this board can imagine what she went through in losing her son in what we now know was a war based on lies.

The Camp Casey episode arose from Cindy's attendance at the 2005 Veterans For Peace national convention held in Dallas. When it was learned that Bush was going on a five week vacation just down the road from the convention, she and members of VFP traveled to Crawford to ask "...just what was the noble cause Casey died for?" I think we all would like to know the answer to that question.

Camp Casey was perhaps the only anti-war protest that actually got any coverage from the sycophants of the press who abetted the President in cheer leading for the war. Was it effective? Who knows, but at least she was willing to call out the murderers in the White House. She was definitely more effective than anyone sitting on their ass ranting anonymously on some blog

When you are a Gold Star mother or father, you get a pass from me no matter what side of the war debate you are on.

And just so I am not anonymous, I am;

Grant E. Remington President Veterans For Peace Chapter 72 US Army 1967-70 Bien Hoa, Republic of Vietnam 1968-69

... and I am MOST deliciously deranged. NEver better, thank you.

:)

Kari: "Jumped the shark"? Yum. Where'd that come from?

Grant - notice I acknowledge her rage and loss, loss that was criminal. However - too bad that entourage did not go where it would make the most difference. I am glad she did not lay down and go "Yes sir" like so many other families. She let her son have his story, and she has hers. He "died doing what the rest of the people won't do [as if this is the only choice - someone dies to keep us safe, since we won't do the work for ourselves, goes the thinking]] and her own story, a mother who lost her great beloved on the back of criminal fat liars' doings. If anyone deserved public humiliation at any turn possible, it is that sad defective, Bush.

I get that. Yet: it's that slippery slope thing. You get people then picketing some minor political figure's house... and people like our friend up above thinking this is teh most effective and correct way to get the business of discourse done. A more-effective venue was available after she got that attention rolling.

In one way it's not a complicated issue - but in another it could be. Cohev seems lacking in the ability to perceive degrees.

Kari and rw, you even surprised me with the mean-spiritedness of your comments towards Sheehan specifically, and your arrogant attitude towards the rights of others to exercise their civil rights generally. Breathtaking actually. Blue Oregon is a real cesspool of wingnuttery and an embarrassing false caricature of what I think most people believe it means to be "blue" or progressive.

And rw, taking Carla and the petty letter writers accounts at face value, it's not up to a self-important pig like you to decide for the picketers how their civil rights are best exercised to challenge some dug-in COMMITTEE CHAIR in the Oregon legislature, who has a key role in the passage of legislation that will have long-term, far-ranging consequences.

Why don't you confine yourself to the substance of the matter at issue. Are you too stupid to be able to talk about the substance? Do you even know the details of issue, much less the particulars of the event? I don't know the details of either, which is why I've confined myself to exposing how the rogues gallery we've seen here are just propagandists out to marginalize others to defend the prerogatives of power. Not very "blue" or "progressive" when we see the facts are laid out so starkly, are there?

For those who think these legislators are just meek and mild folks, with normal size egos, just doing their humble best they can, here's a quote about the role of committee chairs from the constituent newsletter of another of these imperious bags of hot air that speaks for itself:

All of this work was critical because bills may not be amended on either the House or the Senate floor. And at any time I, as chair of the committee, can kill any bill simply by refusing to open a hearing or a work session on it. Most bills that are proposed die simply because the chair of the committee to which the bill was assigned refuses to hear it or refuses to open a work session on the bill after a hearing.

I wonder if rw, in asserting his or her right to decide whether others are properly using their civil rights (because they don't share his or her personal scale of degrees and who and who isn't a "minor legislator"), actually even knows how autocratic the Oregon legislature really is, regardless of which party holds power?

I feel we need to assure people across the political spectrum, people with the presumptuous attitudes towards the civil rights of others (including Cindy Sheehan) such as you read here, the obnoxious letterwriters, and a whole coterie of elected leaders like "overseer" Read in Salem and DC are viewed with embarrassment by just about everybody I know on the "blue" side of the political spectrum. They are NOT representative, just as many on the "red" side are embarrassed by the self-serving clowns on their side that these clowns try to claim are representative of the "red" side are not.

Win says: "Uh JHL, I know and have known far more elected officials than you seem to believe."

I meant in a non-stalker kind of way. I don't think peering into their living room window from the street and harassing their families counts as "knowing" them.

I would think of something else glib to say, but the way you write multiple poorly-organized novels as comments after each of Carla's responses shows me that she's got your imaginary rationalizations well-parried.

If you believed yourself, you'd post your own info.

RW: "Jumping the Shark" is from the production of Happy Days. It's when, in a last ditch effort to get extra mileage out of something, an entity (in that case the TV show) does something completely outrageous and hopes to parlay that attention into relevance. (See the episode where Fonzie water-skiied over a shark.)

It's been a while since I checked into Blue Oregon. I thought I would read something about LNG, because I have been surfing national news mostly. Dozens of comments later, I know nothing about it. I know Cohev wants his right to picket a man's house and Carla thinks he should get the asshat award. Very useful information. Thanks for adding so much to the debate.

IMHO, if you want to make a public statement, you make it in public, not some suburban cul de sac away from the crowds. The maneuver is more about harassment and intimidation then expression. Is it legal? Yes, as far as it went. Does anyone really respect this kind of behavior? Seriously? No. It reflects a desperate person going after the official rather then challenging the issue. It suggests to me the protest really has no merit, nor much popular support. But as I said, after reading this, I really have not learned specifically what the issue is.

I meant in a non-stalker kind of way. I don't think peering into their living room window from the street and harassing their families counts as "knowing" them.

Keep up basing your argument on nutty fantasies because you have nothing on which to make a real argument. Really helps your case. (Never directly picketed an elected official, have always talked to the ones with genuine leadership qualities personally about problems in their legislation or public statements, and done what I could to marginalize the imperious clowns after discovering which is which.) JHL continues to illustrate how much Blue Oregon really is just the haunt of crazed groupies of certain public figures, not a serious outlet of progressive or "blue" thought and activism.

If you believed yourself, you'd post your own info.

This is a thread Carla started by essentially furthering a whispering campaign, about groupies who are desperate to be acknowledged by those they fawn over:

The moral of this story: It does you no good to picket a legislator's house. It's not going to change their mind and it hurts your cause.

I've confined myself as is appropriate to addressing the attitude she and some have expressed defending the prerogatives of power (at least the power of the object of their groupiehood.) Taking what Carla said at face value, no info needed with regard to the expression of civil rights than the First Amendment and I'm sure you can Google that. The angry, slobbering, wild-eyed comments in response from said shrieking groupies speak for themselves.

Can anybody fill out the actual facts of the events referenced in this disreputable gossip campaign Carla and the fawning letter writers have been waging? Google/News does not seem to turn up a single report of this incident or letter that so outrages them. Just the echo chamber of Carla's blog post and just a few comments elsewhere from some of the other likely suspects that essentially repeat the vague story.

Cohev you nut. I SAID Sheehan did something tolerable good at getting media attention, but TIMING is everythi8ng and you have to know when to move your venue. This is my last visit to thius thread. YOU, sir, are a terrible waste of time. [laughing]

You are just all over the board with your sweeet outrage. I love it. I have not felt such a devil since, well, since I broke up some marriage somewhere or something. :)

Win says: "Keep up basing your argument on nutty fantasies because you have nothing on which to make a real argument."

Oh, I get it: You were born without a sense of humor. My apologies... I hadn't realized.

Also said: "and done what I could to marginalize the imperious clowns after discovering which is which."

(Talking in my best psychiatrist voice:) Mmm hmm... Do the voices tell you which people are imperious clowns? Are they here now?

(A bit more serious:) So I get it! YOU, and ONLY YOU, can identify WHICH legislators are noble beacons of the One True Platform and which deserve to have their families harassed in the name of Democratic scrutiny.

That's an impressive position to be in. You get dental with that?

Cohev is really unfortunately stupid. And, I gather, anonymous (so, perhaps, no one can picket his house?). Peoples' homes -- whether politicians, or gynecologists -- are targeted by protestors as a not-so-veiled "we know where you live" approach. It has nothing to do with free speech.

Whiny Tothepointofbeing (In)Coherent

Uh Carla, do you have any ability to do anything except swing wildly when you are exposed. Throwing out disparaging irrelevant labels is completely of a piece with your low-brow whispering campaign trick. In your wikipedia cite the completely irrelevant definition you throw out is:

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created by a user with one point of view, but acts as though the puppet has an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad and generate negative sentiment towards that view.

What is the point of view you wildly claim (desperately wish?) I have that in any way differs from the expressed point of view?

Such sockpuppets will typically advance foolish straw man arguments that their puppeteers can then easily refute.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Apparently not since there is no strawman argument to be found in what was written. The focus was on the values you expressed, your dumb statement being evidence of those, which most assuredly not a strawman argument. You just want people to believe that because you, like others, have been exposed for the ugly, pathetic little sycophant/

They often act in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner. The effect is to discredit more rational arguments for the same side

Again point to what you claim is unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted in any argument you just don't like because it shows how ugly, self-centered, and mean-spirited you are. You participated in agossipy whispering campaign and you got called out.

By the way, you haven't answered JJ's question: Do you unambiguously and without qualification assert Sheehan ineffective, stupid and wrong for picketing the former prez? Your just an evasion artist.

Posted by: rw | Apr 27, 2009 10:52:09 AM

I SAID Sheehan did something tolerable good at getting media attention, but TIMING is everythi8ng and you have to know when to move your venue.

What rw first said until called on it and started to dance:

Posted by: rw | Apr 27, 2009 6:33:52 AM:

I was thinking the same thing about Sheehan. She is a fucking circus sideshow. Why didn't she take it to Congress? More effective location for her sideshow, and best place for the cameras to document her tormented rage and loss. THERE she might have found a place to actually make a difference.

People can draw there own conclusions how this answers JJ's question.

Nice folks Carla, rw, and the rest. Sure seem like a bunch of shallow groupies to power who just can't stand it that people see them for what they are.

To Read and all the folks who think that elected "officials" are so special that concerned, peaceful Oregonians can't "visit" the public streets where they live, chew on this:

The point of the "visit" from two NO LNG/NO PIPELINE protesters, on a public street, exercising FREE SPEECH and the right to peaceful assembly, was to point out the loss of PRIVACY of Oregonians in the path of huge, horrific, gas to California projects for the profit of NW Natural shareholders (and apparently for the benefit of "leaders" like Read, Rep Brad Witt, Speaker of the House Dave Hunt, and a host of other elected officials who have all taken "campaign" money from Bradwood Landing's Texas fossil fuel speculators and other NOT for the benefit of Oregon "energy" projects).

Oregonians in the path of giant BLAST ZONE projects have had no PRIVACY FOR TWO YEARS - AND WILL HAVE NO PRIVACY FOR THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS IF THE PIPELINE SPECULATORS HAVE THEIR WAY. And what does Read choose to do with "his" power when "his" committee "hears" the people: He decrees that there can't be a "circus" and makes behind the scenes deals about who may testify - and then doesn't bother to honor the "deal"!

Read allowed Joe Desmond, the oily lobbyist for Bradwood Landing, to hog the stage for over 30 minutes - and then Read soon "ran out of time" to hear the pre-arranged speakers who wished to promote HB 2015, the LNG Protection Bill.

So, Oregonians, what "voice" do we have left if it is too big a "sin" to PEACEFULLY make our cause know any legal way possible? I sat through 3 of Read's dog and pony show "hearings" and BIAS is the only word that comes to mind.

I am an old, grey haired, life long Democrat and I value PEACE AND PRIVACY. "Progressive" does not have a place in any description of the actions of Read and Witt regarding bills to protect Oregonians from the onslaught of GIANT FOR PROFIT FEDERAL EMINENT DOMAIN GAS PIPELINES and other ill-conceived, backward energy projects.

Read/Witt appear to be bought and sold by the "energy" speculators. Witt/Read are falling all over themselves to grease the wheels for out of state multi-national energy speculators to the detriment of our environment and our personal lives.

My motto is: If "my" party wants to help deny my friends and neighbors PRIVACY at their homes and farms, and deny them a fair voice in Salem, then I will work to let the "leaders" know what it is like to lose their PRIVACY. No PRIVACY FOR ME, NO PRIVACY FOR ANYONE.

Take a moment an imagine you and your family living for the next FIFTY YEARS with a THIRTY SIX INCH DIAMETER pipeline,filled with high pressure, non-odorized natural gas, capable of a 1,500+ foot BLAST ZONE, built on an earthquake fault, running next to your home, threatening your safety and your privacy!

Your "deal" includes trespass for "inspections" and overflights for ever after, and the "fun", as a private individual, of dealing with FERC/giant corporations as you attempt get a "fair deal" for that huge loss! But - guess what! - the records are closed on all past pipeline eminent domain "deals" so you'll never know if you got a good "deal"!

No one I know thinks a "good deal" is possible with these "projects" - and Read/Witt are busy "making the process" go faster: check out HB 3058, promoted by Witt, pushed ahead by Read, which will allow permitting to begin before legal access is obtained!

Walk a moment in our shoes and stop shedding tears for "poor" Tobias Read! Walk in our shoes, then you might understand what REAL LOSS OF PRIVACY IS ALL ABOUT.

Win T. Chohev,

Can you say anything, in like, one paragraph?

Rambling, prolonged, lengthy, tedious, diffuse, tiresome, wordy, long-drawn-out, garrulous, discursive, repetitious, overlong, verbose, prolix. That about sums up your responses.

You're obnoxious drivel is tiring.

The moral of this story: It does you no good to picket a legislator's house. It's not going to change their mind and it hurts your cause.

or their workplace, or what they read and hear, or their constituents. In fact, speaking up does no good whatsoever! Unless, of course, you can get paid for it. Bully to you.

The nanny state sez, "thou shalt never cause discomfort". Unless you're torturing a goddamned terrorist, of course. Facts often cause discomfort. Caveat facta! It's like my coworker that sued a client for asking her if she was Greek. The fact that she is has nothing to do with the matter; it caused her discomfort. She can recover!

The argument used to go, "you wouldn't want someone doing that to your home". And the rejoinder was, "well, I'm not doing 'fill-in-the-blank' reprehensible business". But that's no longer valid, is it? We may not be Enron execs or Dick Cheney, but we can all do our little bit- and do- to perpetrate a culture of fraud.

Posted by: Win T. Cohev | Apr 27, 2009 1:34:08 PM - Do you know what a strawman argument is? Apparently not since there is no strawman argument to be found in what was written. You mean like this one? Posted by: Win T. Cohev | Apr 27, 2009 7:53:07 AM - ...which is why I've confined myself to exposing how the rogues gallery we've seen here are just propagandists out to marginalize others to defend the prerogatives of power.

Uh Kevin, ignoramus, that is not a strawman argument: A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's position and discredit that misrepresentation.

I accept Carla's position, I even directly quoted it rather than paraphrase it specifically so there was no possible question of a strawman argument:

The moral of this story: It does you no good to picket a legislator's house. It's not going to change their mind and it hurts your cause.

and

It's ineffective, stupid and wrong.

My comments are an examination of the bankrupt, decidedly "unblue" values her position and those of the sycophantic letter writers have expressed. Clearly a smug, self-important, ignoramus like Kevin is completely incapable of grasping the vast difference.

What's really rich is how these people are stooging for a venal politician, who peddles overpriced crap as status symbols to kids, and who himself is stooging for a couple of self-serving business people. Wow, what a bunch of role models for our future.

Off-topic comment deleted--Editor

Win T. Chohev,

Can you say anything, in like, one paragraph?

Jason,

Uh, like, are you capable of thought about issues with depth beyond sound bite?

Like, probably not, whatever. Moron.

Uh, "oregonfirst," it looks like with Ron Paul's failed bid for the White House, you've taken up LNG blogging? YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN ALL CAPS!

There are a lot of issues with LNG, which deserve (and have received) a lot of attention in all kinds of press and forums for public debate. The idea that what you view as a limitation in one legislative hearing is a way of hiding to make deals behind the scenes, is crazy. The LNG debate has been extensive, and property owners have made their voices heard over and over again.

More to your point however, while there are plenty of reasons to oppose LNG piplines, the privacy of people whose property will be bought or condemned is not really one. Most people have all kinds of utility easements on their property, and even more have (gasp!) roadways or road easements on their property. Welcome to the public sphere. Some people have forest park in their backyard, others have high-tension power lines. There's an obvious inequity there, but that's life, which is not a conspiracy.

Cindy SHeehan was NECESSARY to make America aware that many families did NOT gladly give up their flesh and blood to that terrible lie. HOWEVER: there is a point at which, now that you have our attention, you can further empower your point by shifting when it is time. At a certain point, she was just another roadside attraction (sorry to the author). I do not think, Carla, it's very broad minded of you to castigate all on the fringes for being crazy (was that you who did that? Not sure at this point with the mess this thread is in!!!!), for we need them ALL. HOwever, I can say that she far outlasted and outlived any effect.

When I step up to do something that becomes public, I try to listen inside for when it's time to stop or change up, and why. Otherwise, a brilliant moment of expression becomes merely schtick. I think what you and Kari really mean (I hope!) is that she BECAME schtick.

And never did seem to notice this.

Cindy S's effectiveness is introducing mess to the talk here, as it relates not very much to the legality of staking out someone's private residence. I recall that the anti-abortion people had their Nuremberg files. How acceptable was THAT? We DO have to try to come to universals, to constants that can be applied across the spectrum of hotly held positions.

The picketers @ rep. read's home were exercising their first amendment rights. Will no one in elected office defend that? Salem liberals who pimp for foreign fossil fuel should not be surprised when a non partisan, non ideological resistance emerges. Hb3058 is a gift to Texans and their partners "on the dark side". That's right, the "we don't torture" crew engineered the energy bill which brings LNG to our shores. Fervently hope that Carla's coverage of picketing will not produce "copycats".

.

Posted by: Win T. Cohev | Apr 27, 2009 3:44:30 PM - A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's position and discredit that misrepresentation. Yep. Which is exactly what you did. Nowhere in this blog entry or any other, here or at any of her previous gigs, has Carla characterized an individual legislator's home as "the prerogatives of power."

Are you really that stupid that you are hell bent on proving you are that stupid by continuing to demonstrate you don't really understand what a strawman argument is? Try to let this through the fog in your brain: I don't dispute the morally bankrupt arguments of people like Carla and the letter writers, much less misrepresent them. You can't refute baseless, irrational, arrogant opinions and attitudes.

I disparage their sycophantic values as evidenced by their whispering campaign and their own judgmental words like it is ineffective, stupid and WRONG (Carla) to picket outside the home of an imperious legislator, and disparaging the character of representatives and staff is WRONG (the scummy letter writers).

My criticism could only be if they had stated and defended their actual values that give rise to these statements. I'm confident most people would find those values to be pretty odious or worse, laughable, if these people actually did that.

And by the way, your statement lamely defending Carla is just plain gibberish. A "prerogative of power" is a right or a privilege, and even you do not seem dumb enough to think I was saying Carla is arguing a legislator is entitled to a free house by virtue of being elected.

In their judgmental statements, Carla and the trashy letter writers clearly are defending the prerogative of power that it is "WRONG" to discomfort an self-important elected official by picketing in front of his house, even as he imperiously makes decisions that will have far worse negative effects on people for whom he demonstrates little genuine concern or respect.

Like Carla and a couple of the other commenters here, you might want to hold back on showing off your reading skills and understanding of logical argument until you have worked on them a little bit more.

Cohev. Time's up: come out of that bathroom stall so someone else can use it.

Wow. Talk about a case of the angries! I hate it when psychos hijack a perfectly good thread.

But that does seem to be happening more and more often around here. What's up with that?

PacNWJay: are you new here? That is how this site has always been. Hijack! It's just that new assassins come and go. :)

"Why would our State Representative Dave Hunt push a bill to fast track LNG pipelines and interstate transmission lines?" Check out the local newspaper in Rep. Hunt's district to find out.

To restore investor confidence in Oregon LNG exploitation Northernstar will finance and build the Alberto Gonzales detention center for first amendment miscreants. "Judge" Gonzales has been looking for full time work. Northernstar will pay for his move. leaders at the plantation house in Salem say this is just a down payment on the LNG gravy train. So when Dave Hunt says "don't mess with Texas" we know what he's talking about.

Kevin, changing a couple of words is not valid in this case because you are just making an appeal to emotion, there is still no strawman there. And by the way, you are engaged in strawman yourself when you present this as "invading an individual's life":

1) Kevin deceives by using the term "invade" because what happened, as far as we know is a protest on public property and a public official's private life end's in the public space. Which is the street in front his or her house whether he like it or not: Turning a public street into a politician's private preserve is not a "prerogative of power", at least it's not supposed to be in America, despite what ignoramuses like Kevin now seem to believe because it would be the only argument they would have if it were true.

2) Kevin deceives by equating a decision-making politician engaged in making public policy decisions that affect everyone (disproportionately by the way), with an individual doing nothing or a doctor engaged in private medical relationship with patients.

Kevin has in fact given us an example of something that has most of the features of a true but chaotic strawman argument. He clearly is so stupid that he is wiling to obliviously keep on demonstrating how stupid he is.

Of course, his over-the-top sleazy attempt to compare what was argued here with "jack-booted PEERs on the right" is also an attempt to appeal to irrational emotion when he doesn't have a well-developed thought in his head. It shows for what he is: A frustrated, ignorant, bratty child who just isn't getting his way because it is childish.

Kevin provides a disgusting example of what it means to NOT be "blue", Democratic, progressive, liberal. Or even just a decent person if his comment is representative.

Here we see the nut of Carla's impoverished character:

But I'd hesitate to say she failed to influence or crystallize the war for ANYONE. Again, not the point. The point is to enact a policy change.

Carla confuses opinion with thesis: This is certainly her opinion, as meaningless as it is. To be a thesis, she would have to define policy change and metrics by which we could judge how effective Sheehan was or wasn't. Of course, we know Sheehan did affect the national dialogue and from all I've read that was Sheehan's primary goal, so Carla is left with no thesis.

What happened is that the corrupt Democratic Party that was so intentionally impotent on behalf of average people from 2000-2008, and that the sycophants like Carla and the letter writers are actually co-dependent with, got scared and started to engage in the same kind of propagandistic undermining we see these people doing here. The drive-by media had their next tabloid story courtesy of the not-really-blue, and that was that.

The real point is that Carla also directly expressed the value judgement WRONG as did the letter writers. That has nothing to do with a thesis whether it was "effective". I'd bet few now care what a bratty little girl like Carla thinks is effective, and can see all she is trying to do now is whine her way into distracting people into giving her a pass on her bad behavior by dismissing her as having immaturely argued those she doesn't like are WRONG because they are ineffective in her narrow, judgemental, opinion.

I see overreaction on both sides of this issue.

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded from involvement in legislative politics, but it's not unusual for a hearing to be run in a less than even-handed fashion. Lobbyists for well-healed interests have a way of transforming events.

On the other hand, picketing a legislators house seems well within the bounds of permissible political expression. Having run a few legislative campaigns, I can't imagine this being more upsetting than political opponents distributing lies to thousands of area mailboxes.

As to effectiveness - that remains to be seen. In the 1980's I helped form a grassroots group in NoPo to deal with industries that stunk up the place. We were effectively ignored until a Saturday morning picket outside the home of the head of DEQ. Soon after, we were having regular meetings with DEQ, which set up a program to allow citizen monitoring and strengthened enforcement efforts.

So, I would not say that picketing an official's home is bound to be ineffective. It certainly is less rude than the use of big campaign contributions to buy political favor.

Re: "Another letter of apology was also sent to Read from the author of the offending letter."

If the above refers to the e-mail I sent 'Bias & Co. after that farce of a "hearing" on April 9, it is a lie. I have not -- and never will -- apologize to anyone for exercising my right to free speech, peaceful assembly and petitioning government officials for redress of grievances. To say that I have done so is not only false, but turns reality on its head: It is they who owe me -- and all Oregon citizens -- an abject apology. Now you, Carla, also owe me one. I'd like it to be as public as possible. You should post it on the Blue Oregon Website. As for your assertion that, "It does you no good to picket a legislator's house." That, too, is false. Demonstrating in front of Read's house did me a LOT of good. It felt really great -- nice sunny day, trees and shrubs in bloom, kids playing basketball, young mothers out with their little ones in strollers; passing out my flier, having interesting conversations with several residents about Read's disgraceful conduct during the April 9 and 16 "hearings," his taking money from Bradwood Landing LLC and other LNG/pipeline interests, etc. As for, "It's not going to change their (sic) mind;" attempting to change Read's mind is not why I wrote my e-mail, dubbed him 'Bias or picketed his house. I took all those actions precisely because he had demonstrated by his arrogance, disdain and rudeness toward the LNG/pipelines opponents and his favoritism toward the LNG/pipeline shills that he is prejudiced. Fat chance he's going to change his mind -- or his vote. Do some more groveling and try to prove me wrong. That was exactly the point of my actions: to show how solidly the fat cats and good ol' boys have rigged the legislative process against the concerned land owners and environmentalists in this fight. 'Bias and these other gasbags are not going to change their minds. There are billions of dollars and literally boatloads of power at stake. They are extremely well funded, organized and connected. The only chance we have of successfully countering their spectacularly stupid scheme is to shine a bright light on their scurrilous backroom dealing and expose their dog-and-pony shows for exactly what they are. Much of what they're trying to do has been under the radar -- which is just how they want it to be, need it to be, in order for them to pull it off. That has to change. So far there's very little public awareness of how dangerous what they're trying to foist on Oregon and its citizens is and how devastating to rivers, streams, fish, wildlife, farms, the Mt. Hood National Forest, private property rights, old-growth timber, threatened and endangered species, sacred and archeologically important tribal sites -- and so much more we value -- it would be. You say, "...it hurts your cause." I challenge you to back that up with any evidence other than some legislator's fit of pique. Let them pout and whine and stamp their little feet. Means nothing. What does mean something -- a lot, in fact -- are the many people who are fighting Bradwood Landing, Palomar and other LNG/pipeline threats who have not only applauded what I wrote and did, but have told me they want more -- not less -- of the same. Good for them. I hope they, too, stop being "nice" and start coloring outside the lines -- or rather, drawing new lines. This is, after all, still a democracy. But we have to work hard to keep it.
I woke up one night after the "hearings" on HB 3058 and HB 2015 with a thought in mind, a kind of epiphany: THEIR INSISTENCE ON OUR POLITENESS IS A WEAPON THEY WIELD TO HELP THEM WIN. But it is they who are truly impolite! It is not polite to poach public and privately owned property (or aid and abet the poachers) for corporate gain. It is not polite to push off on Oregonians a scam that Californians have rejected, in order to sell gas to California. It is not polite to further entangle America in dependence on foreign sources of petrofuel. It is not polite to increase the already significant carbon footprint of natural gas by 30 or 40 percent by adding high expenditures of energy for condensing, shipping, regasifying and otherwise wastefully processing and transporting this fuel. It is not polite to falsely promote LNG as a "bridge" to renewable energy, when it is not a bridge, but a barrier. It is not polite to take thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the pirates who stand to benefit from this pillage, nor to do their bidding for their money and/or because of an ideological alliance with them. While I'm at it, it is not polite to characterize and criticize writing you admittedly haven't read, ("I don't have a copy of that letter, but I understand that it was harsh and inappropriate,") to promulgate that uninformed opinion and to add and/or include lies in it. Finally, it is not polite to gripe and gossip behind someone's back. That's grade-school playground stuff. If you -- or anyone -- objects to what I wrote or did, that's fine. You have a right to your opinion and to express it in any way you see fit -- as I do, mine. I would hope, however, that you might muster enough integrity to make certain your allegations are accurate and enough spine to bring them directly to me. Having said that, I want to make something crystal clear: All this hoo-haw really isn't and shouldn't be about me. It's about some people being too timid to risk actually winning this struggle and about the evil goals and filthy tactics of the greedheads opposing us in it. Divide and conquer is one of those tactics. I'm sure 'Bias & Co. would love to see us disintegrate into factionalism and internecine recrimination. Let's thwart them, and direct our energies -- however they are put to use -- where they need to be focused: toward defeating the petroprofiteers and their stooges, including exposing them for what they are; upfront and in their faces. So, after all that, it ought now be perfectly understood by everyone: I did not and will not apologize for my e-mail letter/flier castigating 'Bias & Co., nor for picketing in front of his house. If anyone wants to do it again, just let me know. I'll bring the chips and dip. In all this, there's something that puzzles me and that no one -- not even the most self-righteous of the tongue-waggers and scolds, has explained: Just how and why is writing a letter to a public official or picketing outside his home "inappropriate?" If that is "inappropriate," tell me then how "appropriate" it is to fawn on those who would degrade our environment, seize our lands and trample our rights -- and who take money for their bootlicking? Incidentally, that bit about, "Read later found their materials at his door;" this smacks of another lie. At no time did I --nor did I see anyone else -- set foot on that pipsqueak's property, much less put anything "at his door." (Not that there would have been anything wrong with doing that if someone had.) There were several fliers handed out, include some placed in newspaper boxes in front of Read's house and his neighbors' homes. The picketing, which lasted 45 minutes and was entirely peaceful and orderly, was confined to the public street in front of Read's house. It did not appear anyone was home there. If 'Bias was home, he may have been hiding. No one came out of this house to talk, although several of his neighbors and other passersby asked questions, engaged in discussion and were interested in what was going on and what I had to say.

Oh, and by the way, re: "Much of the environmental community in Oregon sent a letter to Read, Nolan and Hunt condemning the letter and the targeting of Read's home." How about sharing a copy with me?

-Steven Amick, writer and activist Beavercreek

Member, Clackamas County/Oregon Citizens Against Pipelines Director, Friends of the Clackamas River Clackamas County Coordinator, Progressive Action Community Team

Ripped right from today's headlines, the demonstration why it doesn't matter if somebody calls themselves a "D" or an "R". It's their character and values that matter, and that voters have a right to examine and impugn when found wanting:

Specter switching parties, Dems will gain filibuster proof Senate http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/28/specter-switching-parties-dems-will-gain-filibuster-proof-senate/#tab=home&url=home.php

Unlike Senator Jeffords switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatically 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on employee free choice card check will not change.

His first policy comment right in his announcement continues the perception that all Spector is about is being at the center of power and position, just like the right wing. And just like we see in the arguments of people like Carla, Kari, Kevin, the sleazy letter writers, Read and way too many of them on both sides of the aisle in Salem (and DC). They shriek:

It is inefficient, stupid, and WRONG (Carla) for average folks to protest an "overseer" like Read wherever they publicly, legally, chose to.

And, disparaging the character of representatives and staff is WRONG (the sleazy letter writers).

Politics is about nothing else except the character of our elected officials and holding that character up for public examination however the public wants to do it. None of these people are forced to take the job, they need to leave and not let the door hit 'em on the way out if they don't like the obligations that come with it.

You got to love the post-millennial intellectual collapse of a supposedly "blue" blog and sold-out activist groups hysterically condemning (WRONG! WRONG!) how average folks chose to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak truth to power. Without actually providing any first hand facts of what was actually written in some supposed letter, scrawled on the picket signs (were there even signs?), or otherwise said in this case, no less.

Well, actually, I think they are just pretty representative of a whole pathetic phenomena of self-serving, sycophantic posers.

"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land, and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, 'thus far and no farther.' If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, "If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behavior.'" - Edward Abbey

None of this impotence was "intentional" on the part of the Democrats. It was "intentional" on the part of the voters.

Another tactic of the sycophants. (Steve, by the way, of course has been involved in Democratic Party politics, something he didn't mention here.)

Steve, here's the truth: Right now Democrats are whining they can't get anything done because they don't have filibuster proof majority. Well somehow people like you and the the rest of those whiners want people to forget that for most of that same time Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority either.

On something as bad as torture we now have Pelosi doing all kinds of verbal gymnastics parsing words (I guess she learned that from Clinton) to avoid responsibility for her abject failure. And like clockwork, we have Ron Wyden popping up now as he is running for re-election even though for 8+ years he didn't use the power the Democrats keep reminding us that each single Senator has to stop legislation (the "hold") as their excuse for their failure.

Don't blame the voters Steve. Blame the kind of excuse-making elected leaders and apologists like yourself who have failed to demonstrate the quality of character that inspires voters. (And don't make a further butt of yourself presuming what party participation someone has or hasn't done over their lifetime.)

Steven, mabe you could let some of us know when you won't be home and we can respond to your percieved "arrogance" by peacefully asserting our First Amendment rights in front of your home?

I mean, you obviously feel that such action is a proper and useful way to advance a discussion, so let's get to it!

Sorry Steve Maurer, that comment was for Steven Amick.

Most of Oregon's "energy war" boils down to a propaganda war: those with the bucks - the multi-national energy speculators, "our" NW Nasty, and the unions - BUY the media and BUY the legislature.

Naive "just" citizens thought they might at least get the usual 2 minutes in front of "their" legislature to talk about "their" concerns if they took the time to haul themselves down to "their" Capitol. According to Carla, that's the "appropriate" place to go and that's where we went first.

Wrong! No time available at BIAS/WITTLESS/HUNT LNG railroad in Salem.

Is the moral of the story that in "our" state the squeaky wheel gets the grease? Is peaceful public protest the only way for "just citizens" to rise above the years of behind the scenes BIG BUCKS energy speculation propaganda?

Thanks to the Oregonian for today's coverage of the BIAS READ outrage! Thanks so much to BlueOregon for pumping it up! I salute you all, especially the "wise" Democrat apologists (like Carla!) for lecturing "just citizens" about the "special" unwritten "rules" of "appropriate" conduct.

Shoot a few million $$$$$ my way and I can stop protesting and start buying votes just like the unions and the corporations.

Oregonfirst, take a look at what's going on in the Metolius if you need an example of citizen involvement getting results against big-money interests.

Except the activists there got taken seriously because they didn't resort (excuse the pun) to shrill, accusatorial tactics that immediately identified them as a fringe group.

I think the relevant question is: how did Read, with his big-business-friendly stands on questions of environmental sustainability, manage to wrangle the chairmanship of the House Sustainability Committee? (I guess Dave Hunt appointed him).

(Not only is Read a lapdog for the LNG interests, but also his main priority as regards the Governor's feed-in tariffs pilot project to promote carbon-free energy generation has been to promote the interests of Pacific Power and PGE to see that they maintain their profitability).

Is this the best the Democratic Party can do with a pick as chairman of Sustainability?

Kevin,

The ends do not justify the means as a general rule. Picketing outside the home of a public servant in a non-violent, non-destructive manner in order to call attention to a perceived mishandling of an important issue is clearly justified in my mind.

Whether Rep. Reed deserved to be picketed is a separate question. I don't know enough about the hearing in question to make that determination. Apparently Steve Amick, who I believe to be a reasonable person, believed he knew enough.

If you disagree with me strongly on this, I invite you to picket outside my home to protest my position.

But clearly, Win, I'm not going to change the mind of an emotional reasoner like yourself. You don't want to help people. You want to express your juvenile alienation by writing sanctimonious insults about everyone else who actually makes things better - while you yourself do absolutely nothing.

Frankly Maurer, I fail to see what you personally and at lot of our low-brow elected Democratic leadership have done to actually make the things that matter better. We have a lot of people pushing pet projects, but on the big issues very little because these clowns aren't up to the job (A $5000 maximum corporate tax is played by the majority as just really pushing the envelope, right up there with communism, while they say they are going to have to come together and figure out how much they are going to have to cut the school day and school year?).

It's idiotic comments like this that show how actually making things better is not really the goal here: Even a BAD Democrat is better than a GOOD Republican. No BAD is BAD, and I don't care what party they prostitute themselves to to get elected. And when the majority of Democrats elected are BAD Democrats, you gete a VERY BAD result. A result that is as BAD as when BAD Republicans are elected.

One of the biggest dangers to real progress GOOD Democrats understand well is how people are lulled into believing "everything will be OK just because a Democrat was elected". Mr. Rep. "Overseer" Read provides a prime example of how nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the Party is now left with opportunists and incompetents with petty selfish agendas because they aren't capable of anything more. The GOOD Democrats, as measured by their values, know that the fight they have to wage with the BAD Democrats in their own party is as bad, just on different lines, as fighting BAD Republicans. They just also have a bunch of sycophantic asses like the letter writers and a lot of the bloggers undermining them and publicly berating them to go along and get along who shriek "a BAD Democrat is better than a GOOD Republican."

I'll also remind everyone of the autocratic power of committee chairs in the Oregon legislature cited earlier as further illustration of why a bunch of BAD Democrats whose only goal is to stay in power as long as they possibly can, like a bunch of similarly motivated BAD Republicans, just leads to a VERY BAD result.

People elected Democrats this time in large part because they were voting against Republicans. Democrats at the state and national level, like we see with "overseers" like Read (frankly I think he's just an in-the-closet Republican, just not a neocon or a right-wing radical, myself), are doing little to turn that rare opportunity the voters gave them into genuinely earning the trust of voters. If this economic mess really turns into a prolonged retraction of the American dream, as it appears it might, Democrats are going to find a suddenly resurgent and redirected Republican Party winning elections.

We need more good, competent, principled leaders, not BAD Democrats or BAD Republicans who are just out to get elected. Unfortunately, I suspect self-serving BAD Democrats and BAD Republicans will gang up even more against the people out of their mutual selfish interest in holding onto their own personal power and dividing the loot. If this thread is any guide, the groupies who have expressed their impoverished values here and the fawning letter writers (WRONG! WRONG!) will be all too excited to personally throw a punch or two in that gang beatdown of the people, just like desperate joiners always will.

Re: HB 3058 This just in from Rising Tide:

Rep. Paul Holvey, the swing vote on LNG Fast-track bill voted AGAINST this nasty bill! Woohoo! The bill didn't have the votes to pass, but instead of being dead, the bill moves to the Rules Committee, where we will once again face a challenge to defeat it. Columbia Riverkeeper is very stoked that we swayed Holvey, and someone on the committee said that HB 3058 is "badly wounded." But we'll need to keep the pressure on to ultimately defeat this bill.

Maurer:

And again, that's because you really don't want to do anything to help. Volunteering in politics is hard.

How could you possibly know how much time I may have spent working as a volunteer for a candidate or issue campaign? Your argument rests on an blatant assertion you can't possibly know to be true (Aren't you just a little concerned you could be SO wrong it would make you a laughing stock?)

And knock off the childish "purity troll" knee-jerk bull. You can't point to anything even remotely like that in what I wrote. Tthe real "purity trolls" amongst the sycophantic sideshow here are the ones who make the test of legitimacy whether someone agrees with your inane statement "A BAD Democrat is better than a GOOD Republican". And who whine it is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! to protest or question the character of Democrats like Read, in ways those purity trolls don't condone.

I'll sign up for the three ayem shift at Chez Civiletti. J'accuse! J'accuse!

Isn't it fun to stoke the Cohev? This is godawful easy fun.

Terkel says that Watters (the producer) besides going after her on vacation, also staked out her apartment.

That would be the same thing.

Uh, no Carla, no matter how you stamp and hold your breath and scream and simply insist otherwise contrary to all facts, it wouldn't.

Just to buttress TJ's indisputably valid point on the facts and interpretation. Last I checked Terkel is a private citizen engaged in private activities, not an elected official being protested in his role as an elected official.

Even the legal territory with regard to the expectation of privacy is not the same for individuals in these two categories. Do some research on that issue missy and get back to us on it. (We won't be waiting because we already know the answer.)

And of course, the goal of the protests is pure POLITICAL EXPRESSION, O'Reilly's unhinged wingnut is doing his paid gig, with political expression being just one of multiple agendas. Courts consider that sort of thing, even if deluded bloggers for a propaganda site, think they are smarter than that.

Do you actually ever have anything resembling a critical, well-formed, grounded-in-reality thought?

Carla,

When did picketting become a stunt? Is it a stunt to picket the White House, where, afterall, the president lives with his family?

That should be "picketing".

Thomas: I wonder if the picketers exhausted all means first? I hear you, and do believe that such tactics are of use when one is stonewalled to the nth degree of frustration. But it should not be the tactic of first choice. Cindy Sheehan took her anguish to the streets to break the stolid and cowardly faux patriotism of the times; and then stayed beyond that stage which is called articulate (the definition of "effective", in my view).

I've been enjoying baiting Cohev, mostly. However, both sides are in flavorful reaction: not all picketers are loonies and out of bounds for the joy of it; nor are all picketers at all batting down the baseline effectively.

Pretty much nobody is gonna touch you b/c of your bonafides.

I still call dibs on the three ayem picket of your little shed. I croon a mean and sleepless lullaby when in high dudgeon.

We now go into the splitting of nuances as to how much of a public servant must you be before you are subject stalking/picketing; and what is deemed private desmesnes and public, therefore the difference between stalking/picketing.

It's ok to picket GWB, not ok to picket an abortion clinic. It's ok to picket the White House and not ok to picket the DEQ chief or the fellow under discussion. I also do not know enough about what caused a small knot of angry protesters to form up outside his home: this is a principles-based discussion, perhaps, given the fact that none of us are really saying we know for ourselves what the protest was about.

PRetty good shit stirring for a sock puppet (they put socks on children's hands to stop them from ummmmm... well, you know).

Carla! You just went completely ad hominem. Against a helpless sock gnat. Pick on someone your own size. Whack on Civiletti or someone else doughty and cerebral. Shame!

The only interesting thing about this increasingly tedious string of postings is who "Win T. Cohev" actually is. All we really know is that this person -- assuming it is not a spambot -- is a pattern offender of the personal-attack-wounded-response cycle of online nonsense.

Yep. Tedious days ago. That's when one slips into absolutely ridiculous blatherings just to make the air in the room move.

:)

I wonder what the WRONG! WRONG! crowd has to say about this protest in front of Obama's private residence (he doesn't own it, but a portion of the WH has that legal status):

Activists to protest torture, Guantanamo outside White House
href="http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/29/
activists-to-protest-torture-guantanamo-outside-white-house/

Doesn't it seem like "Win T. Cohev" and "oregonfirst" comments sounds and look a lot like Steven Amick's? Thankfully, I doubt many people will be showing up on Viola Welch Road to talk to Mr. Amick, even though it would prove a good point.

Ah, but Civiletti thinks that Amick is a reliable and trustworthy/reasonable key informant. Would Amick post under a nom de rant if he were such a salutory soul?

Dear "our" Reps Bias Greed, Bradwood Wittless, Shifty Schaufler, and Hunting for Handouts Dave,

A lot of ideas are flying around the internet today about how to expose the SPECIAL INTEREST BIAS and GREED that has so obviously poisoned "our" Reps.

The best by far is an idea about tee shirts displaying a name (like yours!) with logos of all the SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT OWN YOUR VOTES - and a big chart with the list of the BUCKS you have taken that have led to your "studied" decisions" about putting the needs of foreign fossil fuel speculators ahead of the needs of Oregonians.

It would be like one of those "goal" donation charts - you can set the top "goal" and we'll display how successful you are!

I wish I could take credit for this idea, but sadly I can not! The network of outraged Oregonians is very large and very creative so the ball gets passed around a lot. We have time on our hands since we don't have to spend our lives plotting behind the backs of citizens, our voices aren't needed or valued in Salem and we aren't busy keeping our black suits pressed!

In the interest of expediency and so that we can reach all Oregonians WITHOUT INVADING YOUR "PRIVACY", how about just sending us a list of all those dirty dollars that are "guiding" you? Then we don't have to dig through all those tedious public records.

We realize we might need to find some extra, extra, extra large people and extra, extra, extra large shirts to be able to fit all those logos and all the $$$$$$$$$$$$ signs onto one shirt. (Dave's might require Siamese twins since I hear his money pile is HUGE).

Hurry up providing this info so we don't have to keep showing up all over Oregon neighborhoods with signs and handouts. We can just post our extra, extra, extra large people all over Oregon to fight the BIG MONEY PROPAGANDA MACHINES that have invaded what is left of your "brains".

Looking forward to the lists, let's get the shirts printed soon, way before next election cycle, so we can all show up with the FACTS on our BACKS at voter forums!

You might even look good - kind of like a NASCAR driver, all macho, with corporate/union logos and dollar signs covering your whole body! Hell, we might need custom legislative JUMP SUITS to find enough room for all the names that own you!

I think you would wise to float a special interest bill quickly to stop the disclosure of all the special interest $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ you took - then you might be able to cut us off at the starting gate!

Geez, grow up!

Posted by: Eschatological Tumescence | Apr 27, 2009 3:46:35 PM

Looking at this thread, that is quite some accomplishment. Or bias.

Philosophical/Hairsplitting Woodies unite!