With some time finally, I could review the latest uproar created by my criticism of local Democrats and their royal family.
It appears that our local blog mistress, Elisabeth, wants to characterize the whole thing a smear. "an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual or group's reputation, credibility, and character."
Nonetheless, at least Webster defines a "smear" as an "unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization."
But my dear friend, Ms. Britt, at first overlooks what would seem that necessary condition for a "smear." Where's the pejorative in a "smear" that is substantially true?
While Ms. Britt's army of anonymousistas obviously understand and believe more than they know, this deeply held faith appears to be blinding in its power. To wit, this whopper: "Kirsch wouldn't attack Dan or Lisa McShane, if he didn't fear their political influence or their ability to win a campaign."
In several instances now I have tried to make the case that the inability of local Democrats to elect candidates is in large part a function of their being taken over by insiders who have cultivated a tragic loyalty.
Subsequent to the insiders putting themselves before principles, what have they won? Their financial ties to Trillium, the Bay Foundation and other efforts undermined them and is central to the apathy crippling the liberal/progressive base in Whatcom county.
In hopes of winning the last mayoral race, the McShanes had such camp followers as Britt, Mitch Friedman and Seth Cool endorse BIAW operative, Bill Geyer against longtime Democrat and undeniable liberal Terry Borneman.
At the height of the falderal, Lisa McShane tried to secure the endorsement of the Whatcom Conservation Voters for Geyer, which drove a wedge into the local environmental community and was significant in creating the division the Dems now face.
Though the effort to reach out to the Building Industry and get their man onto the city council might have been half-hearted, more intended to elect Dan McShane than Mr. Geyer, the oft heralded McShane Machine elected neither. Nor did they help Ken Mann over the top against Sam Crawford. They did however give us Bob Kelly, who repaid the favor by resigning and giving the county regressives a sure majority recently.
And in the most recent county races, longtime friend, Laurie Caskey-Schreiber and Dan McShane himself were turned out and turned away respectively. Meanwhile Carl Weimer won reelection without hardly campaigning. And Mann endeavored to distinguish himself from the gang, which strategy was the difference this time round.
So, I am left to offer, it's their ability to negatively influence a campaign and lose elections that causes me to fear for the Democrats. I do believe if Democrats would adopt a democratic program, and forgo special interest politics and all the associated tri-angulation, they're our best hope, in the long run, to restore the republic.
My dear friend, Elisabeth, continues to opine, "Some one like Kirsch makes an unsubstantiated allegation. It's picked up in the blogs and mainstream media and the unsubstantiated rumor spreads like wildfire." Interesting. Who is smearing who here?
What is it Ms. Britt? Making an allegation or rumormongering? In football they'd call that an illegal substitution. A rumor is some kind of a statement for which no support is offered. To demean an argument you disagree with by calling it a rumor seems, actually, more like a smear.
What is the "allegation" in these recent articles? My thesis is local Democrats are apathetic and are not turning out to vote for candidates as expected. My explanation of this lack of enthusiasm is a lack of respect for politicians supported by party insiders. My example, Kelli Linville, was chosen because of her dramatic defeat in the recent primary.
I suggested (alleged) Linville used the political power she gained by forwarding the agenda of the BIAW, along with the Speaker, Mr. Chopp, to advance her career in the legislature and then used her enhanced power in a way that benefited her financially. I offered a concrete example. You might disagree with my conclusion, but can't say no substantiation was offered.
I described a series of events in which Linville, who would have us support her for her environmental work, instead did the work of the Building Industry lobby to circumvent laws that protected the environment; in particular laws concerning the rights to water that were preventing developers from taking water from current uses and depleting that resource while vesting sprawling developments statewide.
I attempt to support my views (allegations) with some history and facts. Are they to be simply dismissed as "unsubstantiated rumors."
I have personally watched this bunch of envirocrats trade away protection of Bellingham's water supply for political support from financially influential lobbies. It goes on statewide, and our representatives offer no more opposition elsewhere than they do here.
Since the passage of the Water Resources Act [RCW 90.54] in 1971, and the adoption of WAC 173-501-070, Lake Whatcom and Whatcom Creek, as well as surface and groundwater tributary to them, have been closed to new appropriation. Ecology has failed for more than 30 years to enforce the law based on the excuse that groundwater tributary to closed waters are not closed to new appropriation. This reasoning in direct conflict with the ruling of the court in Hubbard v. Dept of Ecology.
Failure to enforce the law has allowed three decades of development to go on in the watershed and cause the damage to the lake. Not only has Ecology ignored the law, so have our elected officials. Neither Kremen or Linville has demanded Ecology stop the abuses. They both curry the favor of development and building interests instead.
Linville even tried to help re-write the laws so developers could continue to abuse water rights.
Don't take my word for it. Go study the history of the Municipal Water Law. Now the situation is so bad it's more than just an environmental disaster, it will be an economic disaster for Bellingham and Whatcom county taxpayers.
Mr. McShane, as usual, wants to change the subject, and misrepresent my position. He writes that I want Linville to "pull money out of the state budget to fix Lake Whatcom." I have never suggested anything of the sort. I want Linville to quit opposing those who are trying to protect water resources statewide.
McShane says I want Ecology to deny exempt well use in the watershed based on Bellingham's water right. Another mistaken representation. I expect Ecology to stop allowing exempt wells in the watershed (and increased withdrawals from existing wells) because state law requires it; and that law has been upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court. And yes, I am appalled that Linville was willing to help in the effort to circumvent the rulings of the court.
McShane writes, "I do know that Mr. Kirsch is very rabid about protecting Lake Whatcom, I find it depressing that even he has fallen into the trap Bellingham has fallen into for decades and apparently remains in – wanting someone else to protect and fix our lake."
Wrong again. I am concerned with protecting our state's resources, and the public, from lobbies that would abuse them; particularly our water resources and the rivers, creeks and streams that once supported a valuable industry.
And I haven't even gotten to the question, who should fix the lake. I'm still on, why don't we stop wrecking it.
Why do politicians like McShane want to dismiss the whole thing as mere "interpretation" of the law. Given the opportunity, why do elected officials like McShane, or Linville, or Kremen look for reasons to do nothing?
It's not just who wins and who loses elections. It's what these politicians do to win and avoid losing that's killing us. I implore the Democrats to look at the people they've elected and ask why they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Apathy? The reason people don't vote is they've resigned themselves to a situation where there's no one to vote for; just a bunch of Republocrats and Demicans.
But of course these are nothing more than unsubstantiated ramblings and rumors. Pay no attention. Nothing to consider here. Listen to puerile remarks from a bunch of anonymous bloggers instead; the best and the brightest of the late republic. Hey, I'm just the messenger. So shoot me!
