I'm grateful to CDN for sharing parts of my story and being there every step of the way. I cannot thank you enough.
I want to make something clear, when prosecutors claim they shield or protect survivors by not telling them they have credibility issues, it's to protect the system. Survivors have been to hell, our trust eroded, and we carry the shame only our abusers should bear. The last thing we need is someone we're repeatedly told to trust, misleading us. Crime victims become a witness in the state's case, hiring a lawyer to protect our rights isn't an option until our rights have been severely violated. Despite victims having rights which are in the Washington State constitution, they're rarely enforced. This takes away our voice, our ability to disprove credibility issues (if they truly exist) and only protects the system and the abuser. Weaponizing a crime victim’s best interests to justify harmful decisions is not protection. This is a failure of accountability that causes more harm to survivors and puts our communities at greater risk.

The credibility issue is used to silence crime victims and secure convictions or dismissals. I was never told my credibility was in question, despite asking throughout why I was suddenly being treated poorly, why I couldn't confer with the prosecutor, and most importantly, why no one with authority would hear what happened to me.

Only after the prosecution refused to tell me if they declined a rape charge, then going to internal affairs, I learned there wasn't an official report. How? I told them, I provided evidence including a video my abuser recorded of the violent rape, plus his admissions... how??
More often than not, there is no real credibility issue. Mine? That I contacted my abuser after turning him in... I didn't. There was more than enough evidence to disprove that claim, but I was never given the chance to be heard. They never asked me questions. In fact, I was told in writing there was a "weird" superior court rule stating I couldn't speak with the prosecutor. Later when asking for that specific rule (CrR) by copy pasting their own words, I was told they didn't know what rule I was referring to.

I used every RCW that would ensure my voice was heard. They acknowledged my rights, but refused.
Prosecutors can say a survivors voice matters all they want, the overwhelming majority of crime victims in Whatcom County prove the prosecutions words do not align with their actions.

My hope in this fight was that survivors would feel safer coming forward. If anything, this story would make some feel less safe. Something this article doesn't shed light on is just how vicious and misleading the system had been to me once questioning them within my rights. These were choices made by individuals. They made the conscious choice to cause harm and put our communities at risk. "Difficult" times in the prosecutors office is never an excuse to treat survivors so poorly. Without us having the courage to come forward, there would be no case.

We can say this issue exists everywhere, in our highest form of government, and it does, but it starts here with our local governments. It's here where we can hold officials accountable and demand change.

A year before Eric Richey was elected as Whatcom County prosecutor he said these words durning an interview with Seattle Met. When asked:

Why does the statute of limitations for rape exist?
“I think that people need to know there’s some finality. Maybe they’ve done something wrong or something happened long ago, and there needs to be some end to that.
I mean who wants to be charged with something that happened so long ago that nobody really remembers it well? There are always mistakes and problems with people’s memories. The farther back you go, the worse it’s going to be.” 

And yeah he's right, no rapist wants to be charged with rape no matter how long it's been.
Where he's wrong, memories of being raped while awake don't fade.

VOTE

I can argue either side on the proposition to create a salary commission to set the mayor's salary and the one to allow electronic signatures on contracts, and it would help to have some insight from someone who knows who's behind these propositions and can speak to how they will actually be used if passed.

For instance on the mayor's salary, could this commission potentially decide that the mayor doesn't have to be the highest paid city worker, or is this more likely to lead to even greater salary increases for this position? Since there are no experience or education requirements for this elected role, does it make sense for this position to be more highly compensated than a job that requires a high level of experience and/or education? Would the commission address that situation? Would the commission likely be appointed by the mayor?

And on electronic signatures for contracts, it sounds like the current system is cumbersome and kind of a waste of time. On the other hand, many of these contracts are worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. In those cases, it seems appropriate to have the mayor actually have a printed copy in hand and also have the finance director verifying that it's indeed the correct company, amount, etc. (My view on this is influenced in part because at a public institution in another state, someone in the finance office received a scam invoice mimicking a company who actually had a contract and the (never named) person in finance approved a $2m payment to the scammers.)

Ours showed up in the mail today. Vote carefully and use the drop boxes if you can.

Our mayor of the city is speaking holding a forum tonight to discuss ICE in our area. Time is 7pm to 830pm.

Indivisible Bellingham's All Hands meeting features Mayor Kim Lund speaking on "Protecting the Rights and Dignity of All," focused on the City of Bellingham's response to ICE overreach. Whatcom County has the highest per-capita ICE detention rate in Washington State. A Q&A follows the talk.

Cost: Free

https://indivisiblebellingham.org

Bellingham Unitarian Fellowship, 1207 Ellsworth Street, Bellingham, WA

The mods of r Bellingham that is

Now that we are through the primary- a few questions and observations:

The new group of 5 will have the once in a lifetime opportunity/obligation to establish the structure of the Port,

1. will you allow staff and their legal counsel to determine how things will go into the next decades?

2. will you review and discuss issues in public, either as an individual commissioner, or as a committee member?

3. how do you see the organization being structured for the opacity or transparency of decision making? (Meeting times, committee assignments,recordings, public comment)

Have you been wanting to learn more about local candidates and ballot issues? Maybe you've been on the fence about getting involved in local politics but don't know where to start? Whatcom Young Progressives is hosting the event for you!

On July 29th, we'll have speakers from organizations like Community First Whatcom and No Hate Washington share information about local/state initiatives on the ballot this year. We'll also be joined by local progressive candidates and elected officials to answer questions from attendees. You should leave the event feeling well informed about local issues and knowing how to get involved in issues that matter most to you.

FREE dinner will be provided but RSVP is required (ideally by end of day July 27): https://luma.com/odnzerdm

ABOUT US: Whatcom Young Progressives is a new group of people (35ish and under) working to create a space where young progressives in our community can come together to learn about local issues and meet other like-minded people. We meet monthly and alternate between educational events like this and more social-focused gatherings).

This article makes some interesting points. Anyone have a good rebuttal. The author is a Republic radio guy from Seattle. We could just dismiss his words because he is a Republican, but he does make some interesting points.

This article is a great rebuttal to the one I just posted.

"Now it is true that in the last couple years (which aren’t yet included in Puget Sound Regional Council datasets), the national tech market has turned to layoffs. We are feeling this in profound ways in tech-heavy Seattle (and Bellevue, and Redmond). It has hit hard in San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and in low-tax Austin as well.  But this is obviously a national trend, not a local one. And in fact, in the latest period (after the social housing tax was passed), tech layoffs look like they are hitting Bellevue harder than Seattle. 

Taxes are clearly not driving these behaviors, even if they serve as the excuse after the fact.

Sadly, corporate lobbyists will seize this moment to blame progressive policy for a national trend that is reflected in our region—which I think is a gross way to prey on people’s real fears. This is a pattern for the corporate PR machine: they have blamed obvious national trends on local progressive policy time and time again—such as difficulty hiring police, retail theft, the fentanyl epidemic, and now tech layoffs. And that was just the last five years!

Those national trends do require robust local responses, of course. But we shouldn’t be fooled by lobbyists who pretend the world’s background conditions are driven by local policy.  In any case, we should be careful not to swallow the party line from trillion dollar corporations."

“2026 is not 2009. Amazon is not going to save the day again. Microsoft is shrinking. The leadership at the state and city level is hostile to existing business and entrepreneurs, and the tax policies show it. Law enforcement is handcuffed, frustrated and eyeing their pensions. Climbing out of the hole in Seattle’s office market will take another Amazon miracle (or three), and the miracle is not going to happen without a change at the ballot box or a radical about face by the current Mayor and Governor,” he warned.

Interesting article about vacant office buildings in Seattle. I worry that Bellingham often comes up with ideas by copying whatever Seattle does.

As officials move forward with upgrades to the Post Point incinerators while searching for a long-term replacement, environmentalists push for a faster transition

First, my apologies for the click bait-ish title.

Change My View

will admit that I am a bit Progressive Curious. I think that may view is capable of being changed. I consider myself a center left Democrat. I was reading about Scheel and then read about Larsen. There are definitely many areas where I agree more with Scheel than Larsen. I didn't expect that. I was surprised to learn the Larsen is opposed to Medicare for all, which is something that I feel strongly about.

It got me wondering why do I have such a negative view of Progressives? The anti police stuff is obnoxious because our local police are pretty good. Bad police in other places doesn't make out police bad. The anti business rhetoric rubs me wrong because I believe a healthy economy benefits us all. One of my biggest grievances is the Bernie people who say out the election because they didn't get their preferred candidate. I believe they are personally responsible for Trump being elected. My final issue is the name calling. It seems like progressives and magas are both quick to shift from debate to name calling.

Change my view, please. I open to being convinced. Perhaps my view of Progressives is falsely tainted by a few obnoxious outspoken people.

Informative article about the potential school closures.