blogs.kxly.com

While all of us struggle to pay bills, higher gas prices, and higher Avista bills in this struggling economy, Avista Utilities seems to be enjoying itself. The company today reported its 2nd quarter profit for this year is 69% higher than last, and its yearly profit this year so far is 72% higher than last.

All of this, while Avista is warning customers its going to ask for another natural gas rate hike later this year. Avista says it has to ask for the hike, to pass its costs onto customers. (Avista claims in its news release its net profit was primarily due to a rate increase it got approved at the beginning of this year)

Avista says another reason for the increase this year compared with last is because Avista delt with a net loss from Avista Energy last year. The company also claims its profits could have been higher, saying it has absorbed $7,400,000 in costs so far this year.

The question is, how can Avista with a straight-face, ask for a huge natural gas increase (which it plans to do this fall), when its obviously not limping along. Don’t get me wrong, I want companies to be successful and earn a profit. But when you’re talking about nearly doubling your year-to-year profits, that’s where I draw the line. I don’t want to take money from Avista, but I also don’t want the company telling me it needs more money, when in reality, it doesn’t.

What do you think?

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama must be able to tell the future. He’s already acting as if he’s won the presidency. Fresh off his tour to Europe (which seemed like a victory tour), Obama is leading in most national polls. But his lead is no where near safe. According to the Washingon Post, Obama and his Democratic colleagues, already believe he has won:

-Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about Washington, D.C. Tuesday in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities.

-He arrived at the House chamber early for a session with lawmakers, preferring to sit in the Cannon Caucus Room (where presidents wait to give their State of the Union address)

-While he was escorted to the room for his meeting, Capitol Police cleared the halls — just as they do for the actual president.

-While in that meeting, he reportedly told lawmakers ”This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” adding: “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

-He proclaimed today “the odds of us winning are very good.”

-He has reportedly told staffers to begin planning his transition to the White House.

-After meeting with the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, he had the arrogance to say, as if he were the President-Elect, “I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan.”

Obama’s apparent ego has become such a problem, reporters say he’s “acting like the Prom Queen.” Maybe someone forgot to tell President Obama there’s an election this November. Arrogance is never a good thing, but this is turning into more than that.

What do you think?

The Seattle City Council, which obviously thinks its smarter than anyone in the country, has passed a new law that will charge people 20-cents for every plastic & paper bag they take from grocery, drug or convenience stores. Seattle’s City Council members say the law is “completely voluntary,” because if people bring their own cloth bags to the store, they won’t be charged the extra fee. 

The Council also has passed a law banning restaurants from using Styrofoam containers.

The scary part about this law is three-fold. First, guess who gets that money? That’s right, Seattle’s city government. Second, stores have warned letting people bring their own bags into the store increases the risk of germs and diseases. Imagine a guy pulling out a dirty bag and throwing it on the conveyor belt in line, right in the same place you have to set your bread. And third, as Seattle-goes, often times so goes the state. So don’t be surprised to see this subject come up in the state legislature next year.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of all of these bans. What about you?

A new analysis from the Associated Press’ top reporters in Iraq. Very interesting read. The irony is the fact that Sen. McCain’s strategy worked, plays into Sen. Obama’s view that now is the time we can start withdrawing troops. Sen. McCain, too, has said the reason we’re able to talk about drawing down troops is because of the success. But mark my words, if we start withdrawing even before an ‘Obama Administration’ were to take office, Sen. Obama will get the credit, even though he probably shouldn’t.

Curious about your thoughts after you read it:

- - - - - - - - - -

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press WritersSat Jul 26, 10:45 PM ET

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future.

“Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it,” Crocker said. “It’s actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what’s left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on.”

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that “security is fragile” and that the improvements, while encouraging, are “not irreversible.”

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military’s hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls “nonkinetic” issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital’s most violent zones.

“We’re getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq,” says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it’s over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

“We’ve put out the forest fire. Now we’re dealing with pop-up fires.”

It’s not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

“Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today’s Baghdad,” he says.

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — Robert Burns is AP’s chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP’s chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

So much for fair ‘journalism.’ A recent review of federal records written up by Investors Business Daily has some stark numbers many in the media don’t want you to see. According to the article, the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans. The chart below shows the disparity: 

If you analyze contributions from entire media organizations, they add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul. To make matters even more embarrassing for the media- if you take out contributions given to Republicans Paul and Rudy Giuliani, the total is $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans. Only four members of the media have donated to John McCain.

The question is- does it really matter? I sure think it does. No question, everyone has their biases. If you’ve read my blog before, you probably know my bias. We have some people here in the newsroom who have admitted to donating to Senator Obama’s campaign. But I am unware of anyone in the newsroom who has given to Senator McCain’s.

What do you think? Do you care who ‘journalists’ or members of the ‘media’ donate to? Should people who work in the media donate to any political group?

The network newscasts were all abuzz this morning, repeatedly asking the question ‘what does it mean that John McCain said Iraq and Afghanistan share a border?’ They were trying to poke around the age question. Obviously, it was a verbal mistake, just like when McCain made a mistake labeling the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq, just like when he said Somalia when he intended to say Sudan. Mistakes happen when you’re talking 15 hours a day.

But looking at the media’s reaction, you wouldn’t think these were just mistakes. The headlines have been brutal:

“McCain gaffes pile up” - CBS

“McCain masters Bush-speak” - World Net Daily

“McCain’s verbal gaffes putting age at forefront” - San Diego Union-Tribune

The last headline makes it clear why McCain, and not Obama, is getting so much scrutiny on gaffes. The media likes to remind people how “old and confused” McCain must be.

They fail to point out the numerous gaffes made by Senator Obama, like when he claimed he had been to all 57 states, or claimed he was on the Senate Banking Committee (when he isn’t) or claimed “Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s,” or claimed that more Arab translators were needed in Afghanistan (even though they don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan).

The fact of the matter is, these gaffes happen on both sides. While they are great to poke fun at, that’s all they should be. Now, if Senator McCain walked into an interview wearing diapers, or forgot his name in an interview, or forgot where he was at, then I could see the need for the age question to arise. But each candidate is going to make mistakes. After all of Senator Obama’s gaffes, when will the media start to use the ’code words’ they are using on Senator McCain and call him ‘confused’ or accuse him of ‘losing his bearings?’

Furthermore, McCain is more likely to make the gaffes, because he very rarely speaks from a teleprompter. He is always doing town hall Q&A sessions. Obama, on the other hand, almost always speaks from a teleprompter, thus limiting gaffes. That’s why the Presidential debates this fall are going to be so interesting to watch.

What do you think? Do you care about the gaffes each candidate makes?

The United States Geological Survey announced today the Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil- enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years. One-third of that supply is in the Alaskan territory, according to the USGS. The 90 billion barrels of oil expected to be in the Arctic could meet current world oil demand of 86.4 million barrels a day for almost three years.

This is good and bad news. The good news is the more oil we have, the lower the cost will be. Its simple supply and demand. The bad news is current U.S. law doesn’t allow us to go after this oil, and Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress have rejected any attempt to either drill in Alaska, or off-shore.

Furthermore, this find accounts for 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas- which Avista says is getting more expensive because of higher demand. But again, we are not allowed to go after it.

While oil isn’t the long-term solution, it is certainly the short term solution to lower prices. Hopefully Congress will open its eyes and see that.

What do you think?

Barack Obama has been accompanied by hundreds of journalists on his trip overseas. Even the big three network anchors are tagging along for exclusive interviews with the Democratic Presidential candidate.

When John McCain arrived in New Hampshire last night for a campaign visit, one member of the media was there. One.

That prompted this ad by the McCain campaign:

Funny huh? What do you think?

Democratic leaders in the Washington state Legislature have decided to reject an investigation into the connection between Governor Christine Gregoire and tribal gambling compacts.

If you’ve been watching TV, you’ve no-doubt seen the attack ads against Gregoire on this topic.

According to the Seattle P-I, Republican leaders requested the inquiry last month after a story in the newspaper raised questions about details of the compacts and tribal campaign contributions to Democrats and Gregoire. “As governor, Gregoire negotiated tribal compacts that have allowed expansion of gambling in Washington and reversed her position on revenue sharing, which she now opposes.”

In the newspaper, House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, said an inquiry would be counterproductive.

“The House does not agree with the Republican leadership’s request for what seems to be a blatant attempt to further a political campaign agenda,” he said in a statement.

“These kinds of tactics, designed to divide the people of Washington state rather than unite us, are not what the legislative process should be focused on.”

Really now? While there may not be a beneficial reason to open such an inquiry, to say this isn’t what the legislative process is all about is laughable. What is the Washington legislative process about?

Is it about opening a legislative debate on impeaching the President, which the legislature has NO say in whatsoever?

Is the legislative process about trying to force a national change in the Electoral College system?

Is it about trying to secure a new Arena for the Seattle Supersonics?

Is it about trying to ban plastic bags?

Is it about banning the kind of dishwashing detergent people in Washington can use?

Is it about naming a frog the official state amphibian?

The legislature tackled all of these issues in its last session. So its pretty laughable when the Speaker of the House, in essence, claims the legislature has better things to do.

What do you think?

President Bush on Monday lifted the executive ban on oil drilling of the East and West coasts of the United States. At the same time, he called on Congress to do the same and lift the ban as well - which they must do or no off-short drilling can be done. The President kept up the pressure on Tuesday with another news conference, saying the same thing. And guess what has happened since then? Oil dropped - dramatically. Oil futures for August have plunged $9.26 (6.3%). Money guru Jim Kramer says “traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.”

That’s exactly what the President said today. Its about psychology and the argument not to drill is one the Democrats are slowly losing. The Senate’s #2 Democrat, Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said he would be open to it and others are following suit. In fact, there is a bill that would lift the ban trying to make it through the house, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to not let it see the light of day.  Instead, the Democrats want to take oil out of the Strategic Oil Reserve.  And they keep blaming the President for not doing anything. But that may not work. There’s a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium, which expires at the end of September.

Polls have shown the majority of the American people now support drilling. If just mentioning drilling drops the price by 6% in two days, imagine what actually drilling might do. A new report says California could start producing new oil within one year if the oil drilling ban was lifted. Its what we need to do.

Keep building those fuel-efficient cars, keep coming up with ways to get us off oil, but for the sake of all of us who right now have cars that use oil, lets start drilling!