Archives for December 2006

I was just thinking….

The last big windstorm was known as the Inauguration Day Storm because it fell on the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated.

The worst windstorm ever in this region is known as the Columbus Day Storm because it happened on Columbus day in 1962.

Maybe we should call this one the Rummy Retirement Day Storm?

It’s rainy and windy in Seattle, and apparently that’s big news. Go figure.

UPDATE:
Yeah, well, I’m sitting in a Tully’s on Capitol Hill, charging my cell phone, my iBook and myself. I lost power about 2AM, apparently as did the entire SE area of Seattle. Didn’t hit a working light until a few blocks South of here.

All I can say is that the only time I’ve experienced sustained winds like that was a tail-end of a hurricane as a child. That was some windstorm.

After getting pummeled in races all over the Eastside, you’d think GOP clowns might wonder how they lost the confidence of suburban voters. While Republicans got horsewhipped on all sorts of issues, no issue united moderate suburban swing voters more than transportation.

A little background…

In ’05, the GOP lined up in favor of I-912, while Eastside cities voted against it. Sen. Luke Esser, citing his personal pledge to always send tax increases to a vote of the people, turned down a billion dollars for a new 520 bridge. In ’06, voters turned Luke Esser out on his ass. Bellevue Republicans like Jennifer Dunn tried to block a Federal grant for Sound Transit. Today, Bellevue city leaders are arguing over exactly how Sound Transit light rail should go through downtown Bellevue. The Eastside is trending Democratic because, in many cases the GOP is against the kind of “big government” suburban folks seem to want more of.

Where are GOP activists on transportation these days? Eric Earling is on the case, and he defends spending money on light rail because, well, people seem to want it:

The honest truth is a region composed of suburbs surrounding an urban center needs both transit options and significant spending on roads. Both are necessary for reasons of transportation planning and political demand.

Stefan is not convinced that supporting the RTID package is worth it if we get more “awful” light rail:

Exactly how is light rail “necessary”? And at what price is it still desirable? And since when is existence of “political demand” a good reason for voters and taxpayers to support a disastrous policy?

Anti-government types cannot fathom how folks would want to pay more sales tax for something that’s going to get them out of traffic. Perhaps light rail is a bad idea, but it seems to be a very popular bad idea.

In cities where light rail is built, folks are always skeptical. Why not just pour more money into buses? It’s cheaper! You hear folks say that. In Tacoma, their light rail line started as a bus line. During the first year light rail operated, the ridership had quintupled. Five times as many people rode rail as rode the bus! Buses don’t have that appeal, and they don’t go as fast, and they don’t spur development. There’s no wonder why Tacoma residents are demanding that the line be extended.

Even though Sound Transit’s initial light rail line isn’t finished, plans are being made for expansion east over I-90 to Bellevue and perhaps to Redmond. As a former Eastsider, I can tell you, folks out there are not quite as “gung-ho” on transit investment as your typical Seattle types. Don’t get me wrong, they like their Park & Rides, and they like those fancy commuter busses. Eastside leaders have done their homework and asked tough questions of Sound Transit. On the Eastside, folks of both political parties have come to the conclusion that light rail is something they want, and will benefit their cities well into the future.

Perhaps the most compelling argument I’ve seen for increased investment in transit comes from an unlikely source: conservative/libertarian columnist Paul Weyrich. Here are his thoughts on the issue.

I have written [articles] making the conservative case for rail transit, including streetcars. It seems the public agrees with us because while in State after State conservatives have won ballot initiatives in many of these same States transit initiatives also have won. The libertarians have made the case that money for public transit is a waste. They want more roads. That is a form of subsidized transportation as well. But they don’t see it that way because individuals can drive. However, in city after city which has adopted light rail an overflow crowd has elected to use it as opposed to driving.

Also, this amazing fact:

In 2004 the huge transit program in Denver, promising 118 miles of new rail lines, passed with support from Republican counties. The Democratic counties in the transit district voted no. Before any more propaganda is put forth by libertarians on the issue of support for public transit, folks ought to look at the facts. Who has voted for transit? And who is riding it once it is built? When those facts are evaluated the libertarian arguments go up in smoke. [Emphasis added]

If the GOP in friggin’ Denver can understand the benefits of light rail, why can’t these guys?

Sigh.

Last week, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Sound Transit could continue to collect its car-tabs tax, which had been repealed by a statewide vote of the people. Legally, the court was probably correct, but it was not fair to taxpayers.

The case was about Initiative 776, sponsored by Tim Eyman. This page did not support I-776, but in 2002, Washington’s voters did, and it became law.

I can only assume that the Seattle Times editorial board is fully aware that I-776 failed within the Sound Transit taxing district by an impressive 43% to 57% margin, so when the Times complains that the Supreme Court decision is “not fair to taxpayers,” I’m not exactly sure which taxpayers they’re talking about. Is it “not fair to taxpayers” in the Seattle and North King County subarea of Sound Transit who not only pay the bulk of the cost of the light rail project, but who voted against I-776 in even larger numbers? Or is it “not fair to taxpayers” in Eastern Washington who… um… don’t pay any tax in support of light rail and who didn’t even have a local MVET tax to begin with, but who nonetheless voted in favor of I-776, mostly as a big fuck you to Seattle?

I-776 was a statewide initiative that promised to kill Sound Transit’s light rail project, but which overwhelmingly failed amongst those voters who actually paid the voter-approved local MVET tax it repealed. So how could one possibly describe the court’s decision as “not fair to taxpayers,” assuming one defines “taxpayers” as the voters who actually, um… pay taxes?

Hmm. Or to put it another way for the benefit of the Seattle Times editorial board: I-776 was soundly rejected by those voters who actually paid the tax it repealed, and any suggestion to the contrary would be misleading.

It is one thing to mislead your readers about, say, the Swedish tax system or a political candidate. But it’s another thing to mislead your readers about themselves.

Seems up here in the dark, rainy Pacific Northwest, we had a little stink on our hands that’s made national news, especially among those phony “War On Christmas” types who can never keep their facts, or religions, straight.

You see, over at Sea-Tac International Hyphenated Airport, they put up the usual, you know, Christmas trees. And some rabbi threatened to sue if they didn’t also put up a display of a Menorah to commemorate Hanukkah. Just like they put up at the City of Seattle and any number of other government-owned properties in the region. So what did the Hyphenated Airport brain trust do? Against the pleadings of the rabbi and his lawyer, the airport took the trees down instead.

And then, if you’ll pardon the Satanic reference, all Hell broke loose. That includes Bill O’Reilly, pronged tail and all.

The upshot now is that the airport has redecked its halls with trees, the rabbi says the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion (and he won’t sue), and some panel will meet — after the holidays, naturally –- to discussion among themselves how to be more inclusive.

And the Hell of it is (there’s that word again), the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol. It predates the birth of Christ by a couple thousand years. As does the yule log, mistletoe, gift giving, the works. That whole just-after-the-longest-night rebirth of life thing. I’m even betting the fat guy with the reindeer and sleigh didn’t come from old Judea, either.

Most of what we know as Christmas, in other words, originated with the pagans (and, in some cases, the Romans), and was appropriated by Christians to celebrate the birth of Christ at the one time of year He couldn’t possibly have been born. The Bible is imprecise on this point, but we do know the shepherds were out tending their flocks — which doesn’t happen in the dead of winter. Desert winter nights are cc-c-o-l-d.

So, speaking on behalf of all Neo-Pagan and Wiccan types out there, perhaps I should threaten to sue Sea-Tac to include our religion, too –- but that’s no good, because they’re already using our symbol! Christians attacked us! (And isn’t that the way of the world?) More precisely, Christians attacked Christmas. But they were just the first of a long list.

Yeah, Christians have attacked Christmas. So have capitalist greed, insane consumerism, and the seeming lack of familiarity of many Christians with the basic tenets of their namesake, aka The Prince of Peace. Don’t believe me? Try combining, with a straight face, Bill O’Reilly’s name with any of the following phrases: Forgiveness. Turning the Other Cheek. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth. Go ahead. I double-dare you. Lose and you have to watch his show, and vice versa: if you have to watch his show, you lose.

Or, as Gandhi said, “The only people in the world who don’t know Christ was a pacifist are Christians.”

(I should add that some of my best friends are Christians, and the ones I know that do try to follow their faith are wonderful, inspiring people. And, in my experience, a minority.)

And so we get tempests in treepots like this year’s airport fiasco. The reports are already swirling wildly that the rabbi demanded the trees be removed (he didn’t), that the Jews and the godless secularists at the ACLU are in cahoots (we should be so lucky), and that the liberals in Hollywood, hearing the word “war,” are scouting for a movie treatment (probably true). This preposterous nonsense is sort of like the run-up to the Iraq War, and, oddly enough, is being propagated by many of the same people. It’s fiction, based sorta loosely on what might once have been a fact, being harnessed in the service of a preordained and flatly ridiculous conclusion.

It’s a bunch of rich white guys, the folks screwing 90% of America, trying to create a fake controversy so they can stand with (as opposed to on) the little folks. What war on a holiday? By whom? How can the 80 percent of this country that calls itself Christian be under serious attack, let alone the threat of annihilation, by anyone, unless it’s some idiot who talks to and hears from God constantly and has his finger on the nuclear button?

Oh.

Seriously, Christianity under attack by Jews, the ACLU, secular humanists and godless atheists? That’s like saying Burkina Faso is about to wipe out every member of the U.N. Security Council.

And, granted, such an attack would be the religious equivalent of Gallipoli. Where do I sign up? I want my trees back. While you’re at it, stop using the maypole, too. Go make your own springtime life-is-never-ending holiday. Call it “Easter.”

Circumcision not only cuts off your foreskin, it also cuts in half your risk of contracting HIV:

Two major studies released Wednesday confirmed that circumcision can dramatically slow the spread of HIV among African men, suggesting that widely offering the procedure could prevent millions of deaths in countries most seriously affected by AIDS, researchers said.

The studies, in Kenya and Uganda, found that circumcised men are about 50 percent less likely to contract HIV than those who are not, a result that echoed similar research last year from South Africa. In all three studies, the results were so persuasive that researchers stopped their experiments several months early and offered circumcisions to all of the subjects, deeming it unethical to withhold a procedure that might prevent an often-fatal disease.

In related news, recent studies show that Jews are over one thousand times less likely to be killed or injured due to Christmas tree fires. So there.

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson has apparently suffered a stroke:

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., was hospitalized today, according to his Washington office.

He suffered from a possible stroke, and was taken to George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C..

Of course this is first and foremost a personal tragedy for Sen. Johnson and his family. But should the worst unfold, and he is unable to fulfill his term, Republican Gov. Mike Rounds would appoint a replacement to serve until the next general election in 2008. That would give control of the US Senate to the GOP, with VP Dick Cheney breaking a 50-50 tie.

No doubt, given such a scenario, the Republicans would claim a mandate and rule accordingly.

UPDATE:
CBS News now says the senator was hospitalized due to an “undiagnosed illness“:

Johnson, who turns 60 on Dec. 28, was admitted to George Washington University Hospital with an undiagnosed illness, said a spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher.

She said, however, the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack. His office had said earlier it was a possible stroke.

Let’s hope that’s good news.

Back in January Dave Reichert’s campaign manager publicly gloated over having reached the $1.1 million mark, bragging to reporters that “a war chest of this size will put this race out of reach.”

Well, um, it didn’t exactly turn out that way. The final numbers have now been posted to Political Money Line, and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner — who entered the race as an unknown political novice — ended up outraising Reichert $3,080,275 to $2,989,379. Yes, she lost at the polls, but she made it closer than anybody but the most optimistic blogger had any reason to expect at the time. The race was never out of reach, and it forced the GOP to devote resources to Reichert that would have otherwise been spent defending vulnerable Republicans elsewhere. There is no doubt that Burner’s insurgent campaign contributed to the Democrats seizing control of the House.

With her impressive campaign and fundraising prowess, Burner has virtually assured herself an unopposed shot at the Democratic nomination in 2008, should she choose to seek it. And Reichert has assured himself a busy two years scrambling to raise enough cash to defend a seat in a district that is steadily trending blue. In 2006, Reichert benefited from a 2-to-1 advantage in PAC money (over $1.1 million,) but as a junior member of the minority that easy money might not be so easy.

It’s hard to beat an incumbent whatever the circumstances, and conventional wisdom says that Reichert’s reelection should make it tougher yet. But this will be a tough two years for Reichert. Rumor has it he’s losing several key staffers, and he won’t be able to rely on all the advantages that come from caucusing with the majority. The 8th CD will eventually go Democratic. My guess is that this switch will occur on Reichert’s watch.

You’ll never guess who volunteered to help put back up those Christmas trees.

At least we’re winning the drug war, right? Inmates are sneaking into prison to buy drugs. Fantastic.

Sen. Gordon Smith is no moderate. Even Lincoln Chafee agrees. Serously folks, what’s up with Smith has his sudden disgust with the President’s Iraq policy? When you see your fellow GOP Senators get sent to the woodshed en masse, it makes you want to flip-flop like a mofo, huh?

And you thought my viaduct idea was goofy.

This is hilarious. President Bush goes to court against… blind people.

Twas the first day of Congress…

Election Day is so last month, but that isn’t stopping Democrats. Unbelievable!

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Join us for some holiday cheer and hoppy beer as we devilishly plot our next strike in the War on Christmas. (I propose adding polonium to the eggnog.)

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. Here’s a full run down of WA’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	December 27
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	December 14
Mercer Island:	Roanoke Tavern, 1825 72nd Ave SE	(Starting January) Second and fourth Wednesday of each month, 6:00-8:00 pm	January 10
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	December 13
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	December 18
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	December 12
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	December 13
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	December 13
Tri-Cities:	O’Callahans – Shilo Inn, 50 Comstock, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	December 12
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	December 12
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	January 5

(And apparently there’s also an unaffiliated liberal drinking group in Olympia that meets every Monday at 7PM at the Brotherhood Lounge, 119 N. Capital Way.)

Dwight Pelz is the chair of the Washington State Democratic Party. He used to be a state senator and a King County councilman. In 2004, he was one of the most prominent backers of Howard Dean in this state. He was elected to his current position this January, and, from what I’ve gathered, he’s up for reelection early next year. We’ve all heard the leadership shake-up rumors over in GOP headquarters, with Luke “The Pig Fucker” Esser considering challenging current chair Diane “Tubeless” Tebelius. Even though Dwight led the Democrats to an earth-shattering, mind-blowing victory in ’06, with the GOP getting a royal ass-kicking, some are questioning Dwight’s conduct post-victory. Some are even questioning Dwight’s leadership.

If you knew Dwight like I do, you’d know the REAL story…

Here are… The Dwight Pelz Facts!!

1. Dwight Pelz was born in Seattle, WA in 1951. Well, he wasn’t so much born as he was forged. You know, like a sword. But instead of being made of out metal, Dwight Pelz was forged out of the tears of Republican children.

2. The name “Pelz” is Swedish for “go fuck yourself.”

3. You know the port wine stain on Paul Berendt’s forehead? It’s not a birthmark. It’s actually wine. And who put it there? Dwight Pelz. Scary, I know.

4. While Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-Potlatch) is AGAINST gun-control, he’s FOR Dwight-control.

5. In 2008, Dino Rossi is going to run… away in fear, that is, from Dwight Pelz. Rossi will make it seem like he’s running for Governor, but he’s really just shit-scared of Dwight.

6. By the year 2010, the Puget Sound area will be rid of it’s dependence on foreign oil. Instead of gasoline, our cars will run on Dwight’s unbridled rage at the Sonics for leaving Seattle.

7. In 2002, Dwight Pelz visited the Granma Province in Cuba. Four years later, Fidel Castro’s in a fuckin’ coma. ‘Nuff said.

8. Dwight Pelz once called Tim Eyman a “self-aggrandizing punk.” Tim’s really scared. Now, whenever Tim makes a public appearance, he wears a disguise. Some of those disguises are: Buzz Lightyear, a Heterosexual Man, and Darth Vader.

These are just some of “The Dwight Pelz Facts.” Trust me when I say this Democrats… we’re lucky Dwight’s on OUR side.

Speaking of So many pastors and so little time, ex-pastor Ted Haggard, now in deep therapy, might have a new therapy buddy:

On Sunday, Paul Barnes, founding pastor of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel in this Denver suburb, told his evangelical congregation in a videotaped message he had had sexual relations with other men and was stepping down.
[…]

On the videotape…Barnes told church members: “I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy … I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.”

But, but, but, all Barnes needed to do was put himself into the hands of Jesus! (Um…so to speak.) I mean, God hates homos doesn’t he? You would think an ordained pastor would have figured that out from the 15th chapter of the Gospel according to the Apostle John, verse 16: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

Failing that, he could always go for the 10-day solution with Anita Bryant’s Homo No-Mo.

The Christmas trees have gone back up at Sea-Tac airport. Whoopee.

The story went national — and big — about how airport officials were forced to remove the trees after a local rabbi threatened to sue. Only problem is, the rabbi never asked for the trees to be removed, and certainly never threatened to sue to remove them. All the rabbi wanted was a single electric menorah to be displayed alongside one of the trees, a request for which there is established legal precedent.

But, well, I suppose you can’t blame Port officials for just assuming the rabbi would sue, because after all, he is a Jew. And that’s what us Jews do, huh?

Anyway, the trees are back, but the damage has already been done. Thanks to Port officials’ ham-fisted, insensitive and idiotic handling of the incident, millions of Americans are now enraged over the way us Jews are trying to destroy Christmas, and no retelling of the story will ever set the facts straight. Every year around this time, Sea-Tac airport will be memorialized as a major battleground in the mythical War on Christmas.

On my radio show Sunday night I repeated my assertion that all this War on Christmas bullshit — intentionally or not — is actually a war on Jews. I base this on two observations, the first being the simple historical fact that this theme was first popularized back in 1921 in Henry Ford’s infamous, anti-semitic tract “The International Jew.” My second observation is pretty straight forward: when you invoke the rhetoric of war, you imply an enemy. And…

When you talk about a war on Christmas, or anything Christian, most Christians do not instantly think of the enemy as secular humanists or even Muslims… they think of Jews. […] Whether the intent is to blame the Jews for the rash of secular “Happy Holidays” that’s supposedly destroying our nation is not the point… many Christians, in buying into this bullshit rhetoric, will naturally blame Jews.

Don’t believe me? Here’s just a sampling of the many, many angry comments left on KING-5 TV’s comment thread on the Sea-Tac incident.

Great, a group that makes up about 5% of the American population (if that), does it again. Disgusting.
Posted by: Tom at December 11, 2006 12:01 PM

He is gone too far. If he is so religious why don’t he go to his “promise land” and selebrate his holidays there.
Posted by: rita at December 11, 2006 12:10 PM

I think we should consult Mel Gibson….
Posted by: Ron at December 11, 2006 12:11 PM

Like it or not, this country was founded and settled by Christians; and they still make up the vast majority of the population. […] Give up! When you make up the majority, we’ll reconsider.
Posted by: WC at December 11, 2006 12:17 PM

Not to worry, the Non Jesus Believing Jew will get his when he faces god. God does not take a fancy to those who conspire with other heathens to kill his only begotten son.
Makes you want to root for the Palestinians.
Posted by: Khan at December 11, 2006 12:26 PM

I, like most Americans, are sick of being told what we can say and what we can do in our own country, by people who have no right. I think the NATIVITY Scene should be placed at every Jewish site of worship during their holidays!
Posted by: Sandy at December 11, 2006 12:27 PM

I cannot believe that the Rabbi and other Jews from Seattle are attacking us Christians like this !! Our men and women are fighting and dying in the Middle East directly or indirectly because of our support for Israel and then he turns on us like this. How grateful !
Posted by: David O’Brocki at December 11, 2006 12:27 PM

The United States is a CHRISTIAN country! This country was founded on Christian principals! If someone migrates from their oppressed country to find a better life, don’t try to turn our country into what you ran from!!!
Posted by: Sam at December 11, 2006 12:39 PM

I think that if the rabbi or anyone else does’nt like our ways of life ,our traditions and customs,that he or she should go back to wherever they came from so they can enjoy there own ways of life,traditions and customs in there own country,instead of trying to take ours away from us,and force us to learn there’s.
Posted by: W.R.Cannon at December 11, 2006 12:41 PM

Someone post a picture and the identity of the rabbi.
Posted by: Jon at December 11, 2006 12:42 PM

Once again 2% of the US population is telling 98% what to do-ain’t it enough they run the government,Hollywood,the big Media, the “Federal Reserve”(actually private banks),and AIPAC lords it over our Senate and House?? AND oh yes,the Iraq war is for ISRAEL and OIL, IN THAT ORDER.
Posted by: c. mead at December 11, 2006 12:42 PM

My father helped liberate Auschwitz in the closing days of World War II. An emaciated, thin Jewish man noticeing the cross he wore around his neck told him “Thank you. But one day my decendants will make airports around America remove your Christmas trees. Your schools will no longer have Christmas plays or mention Jesus in prayer. Nativity scenes will be outlawed across your land. But thank you for liberating me anyway”.
Posted by: Dean at December 11, 2006 12:53 PM

Rabbi…this is AMERICA !! We celebrate AMERICAN TRADITIONS…why do we have to honor your (one rabbi’) wishes ?? Take YOUR “traditions” and….”pound sand”. Oops…could be a double meaning there !!
Posted by: Bruce at December 11, 2006 01:07 PM

I’m going to sue to have the Rabbi shave, as a person who shaves every day, that Beard offends me.
Posted by: Rob Dog at December 11, 2006 01:10 PM

The nation was founded by Christians not Jews or Muslins or Buddists.
Posted by: Maxine at December 11, 2006 01:11 PM

If that rabbi” do not likes the christmas trees!
go BACK to your country!!
this is the USA and move out!!
this is not a jewish state or country!!
give me a break!! to much crap, we are bowing down to! because of all the different races, that live in this country!!
and above all!! speak English!
Posted by: juanita at December 11, 2006 01:41 PM

airport should put his picture, address and phone number up so public can chat with his sorry a–.
Posted by: charles glisson at December 11, 2006 01:49 PM

One more reason why we shouldn’t help Israel anymore…just let Iran and Syria take care of them once and for all.
Posted by: steve at December 11, 2006 02:23 PM

Welcome to America. You chose to immigrate here so accept the American way. Don’t impose your father land on our land born of Christian principles. What chance do you think we would have in putting up a Christmas in Israel? The great, great majority of people in America are Christians. Blend in or move out.
Posted by: Arnie at December 11, 2006 02:35 PM

Go back to your ancestors in Russia? Israhell? And stay away from America this is not JewSA but, USA.
Posted by: Ulisses at December 11, 2006 02:59 PM

HOW DARE THAT MONSTER RABBI !!!
AFTER I SUPPORTED ISRAEL AND THE JEWS THIS LOWLIFE HAS THE GALL TO SUE THE AIRPORT BECAUSE OF CHRISTMAS TREES ! AND MEANWHILE HAMAS IS DECORATING BETHLEHEM IRONIC ISN’T IT . DID WE SUPPORT THE WRONG PEOPLE FELLOW CHRISTIANS ?
Posted by: GEORGE MARCHESE at December 11, 2006 03:04 PM

The rabbi is a hypocrite who represents Jewish supremacist views which are widely accepted among Jews. […] This is purely Jewish power exerting itself so they get a Jewish state for the Jewish people and we become a multicultural mosaic with no one people or religion having any power at all in this country -divide and conquer.
Posted by: Rich Fausette NYC at December 11, 2006 03:08 PM

The majority of people in this country are Christian, if the Rabbi doesn’t like looking at Christmas trees than it is time for him and anyone else like him to move out of the country. I have an idea may be he can move to Iran.
Posted by: Evelyn Gilliana at December 11, 2006 03:22 PM

See…I told you so…
Posted by: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at December 11, 2006 03:31 PM

Seems as though the good Rabbi was very intent on winning friends and influencing enemies. Then “they” wonder why people “hate” them! Sign!
Posted by: Frank Spears at December 11, 2006 03:32 PM

I hope Seattle people with Christmas trees refrain from spending their Christmas dollars with any Jewish business. I know I will in Vancouver and encourage my freinds to do the same. As for the Jewish community worried about looking like a grinch..if the shoe fits….perhaps you have earned that.
Posted by: rogarboy at December 11, 2006 03:44 PM

After all we christians have done, and continue to do, for the Jews – this is the way they repay us?
Posted by: koko at December 11, 2006 03:47 PM

I wonder how many Jewish business operations have Christmas trees in their stores ” cause thats where the money is” not that it’s a religous symbol
Posted by: XGI at December 11, 2006 03:51 PM

Cut all support to Israel, cut the MILLIONS of dollars the American people have paid out of pocket in taxes that has gone to support the Jewish state, see how they like us then.
Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2006 03:53 PM

Does it surprise anyone that a Jew would sue… ?This story just further serves to bolster the distaste the majority of good, honest, red-blooded Americans have for Zionist politics in the US of A. I know what the Port was thinking…: “Don’t upset the Jew. Dont’ upset the Jew.”
Posted by: t-d off at December 11, 2006 04:10 PM

My daughter goes to a Methodist Elementary School. This week they are viewing different holiday celebrations from different cultures. If she asks me what a Manorah is I will tell her it is a left over prop from the Phantom of the Opera.
Posted by: XGI at December 11, 2006 04:11 PM

And you wonder why the Palestine people dislike the Jewish people. I am really trying to like everyone one but it’s getting to the point where I am losing any respect for the Jewish people. This Rabbi owes an appoligy to everyone. Maybe if the rest of us non_-Jewish people boycott the Jewish bussiness they will change their tune. The American people have had it!!!!
Posted by: Cathie at December 11, 2006 04:19 PM

He is just another example of why Jewish people, and others, especially the ACLU (which is supported predominately by Jewish people), are looked upon as the leading proponents of asking a nation, that history can demonstrate was based upon Judaeo Christion values, to mask / remove those values.
Posted by: og3p at December 11, 2006 04:22 PM

Lets stop exchanging gifts at Christmas and see if the Jewish owned stores want GIFTING brought back!
Posted by: XFI at December 11, 2006 04:22 PM

One of the arguments I’ve heard again and again is that by threatening to sue, the rabbi should have expected the reaction he would get from airport officials. Thus even if he never asked for the trees to be removed, the rabbi is directly to blame for the airport’s head-up-its-ass remedy.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the rabbi never actually threatened to sue to remove the trees, I’d like to make a parallel argument: that the Christian warriors who shamelessly promote this fiction of a War on Christmas should likewise expect reactions like the ones we see in the KING-5 comment thread. Thus the propagandists responsible for promoting this theme are also directly responsible for the anti-semitic sentiment it inevitably arouses.

Of course when it comes to this particular incident it’s the Port officials who deserve most of the blame, both for making their inexplicably dumb-ass decision, and for willfully allowing the media to initially misrepresent the circumstances that led up to it. They should have anticipated that the rabbi — and by proxy, “the Jews” — would be blamed for forcing them to remove the Christmas trees. Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of these officials did anticipate the public reaction.

But then, in any war, there’s always going to be collateral damage.

Reacting to an explosion in the use of so-called “independent expenditures” in Washington state — particularly in judicial races — the Public Disclosure Commission has asked the legislature to impose tougher restrictions on how PACs fund political campaigns. Not so fast, says the Seattle P-I editorial board:

Whoa. We have our own concerns about the distorting effects disproportionate amounts of money can have. The pursuit of large, centralized contributions can tend to draw candidates away from their individual constituents’ concerns.

But a citizen’s right to express support for a political candidate with cheers or checks seems pretty fundamental. So it could be that an increase in political spending is no more damaging to the process than an increase in political speech.

After all, some of the biggest spending didn’t pay off at the polls last month. John Groen’s noisy attempt to unseat Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander is the prime example.

I don’t take as much comfort from Groen’s defeat as the P-I does. The nasty, mean-spirited and ham-fisted Groen campaign reflected the character and personality of his primary patron — the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) — and it just didn’t go over well with voters. But while the BIAW may be a bunch of rude, cold-hearted bastards, they’re not stupid. And they’re loaded. That’s why they’ve been one of the most effective political organizations in the state over the past decade or so. Thus I fully expect them to learn their lesson from this year’s embarrassing defeat, and spend their money more wisely next time around.

With few exceptions the initiative process has become the exclusive playground of well-financed PACs and wealthy individuals, with measures often devised more as GOTV tools than serious attempts to legislate. And for all the relief over Groen’s defeat, Alexander still could have been overwhelmed if supporters hadn’t scraped together a sizable if lesser chunk of change to fight back in kind. Do we really want our Supreme Court justices chosen via a multimillion dollar game of campaign finance chicken?

The P-I concludes by saying that in a perfect world “public financing for all candidates would level the playing field,” but apparently dismisses such a reform as panglossian. I don’t.

It is time to learn whether public financing would indeed level the playing field, and our state Supreme Court races are the perfect place to start. Don’t just limit the amount of money special interests can spend on judicial candidates, eliminate it entirely. Our Supreme Court is too important to be jiggered by money coming from the right or the left; if it was encouraging that voters saw through the tsunami of cash that was intended to sweep Groen to victory, imagine what kind of jurists we might elect if we took money out of the equation altogether.

Otherwise, if we accept the notion that political money is political speech, and therefore should never be limited, then we implicitly accept an electoral system in which some people have the right to speak louder than others.

As a Belltown resident, I’ve got a great view of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. I should, because the thing is fifty feet outside my window! Fifty feet! When I wake up every morning, I look out my window at the rush hour traffic whizzing by on the Eisenhower-era structure. The Viaduct is not some political abstraction for me.

There’s a debate about how to replace the Viaduct. Some folks want a tunnel, or a rebuild, or what is being called the “roads and transit” option. Lots of people are against the tunnel option, but not all of those folks are for another viaduct. A new viaduct will be at least thirty percent wider than the current viaduct, thanks to modern DOT guidelines. Maybe it made sense in the 1950’s to build freeways through the city’s core, but it sure seems like a bad idea these days.

Do we need to replace the car capacity? Not necessarily. Plenty of car trips made on the viaduct could be made on arterial streets. We could mitigate the West Seattle to Downtown and Ballard to Downtown routes. Most Viaduct users make local trips. Is it cost effective to spend billions on a mile of roadway? It may not matter what a Seattle guy like me thinks, as these big decisions are made in Olympia. If only Seattle had an ace up their sleeve, a power broker with influence to spare, someone to push for a progressive solution. Someone like…

Frank Chopp!

He’s the ‘big dog’ of the Democrats, and he’s against a tunnel. He’s corralled a bunch of Democrats into signing a letter stating the tunnel option is a bad idea. Big shots like Frank can stop things, but what plan would Chopp actually go for?

Here’s a snippet of The Stranger’s Josh Feit’s interview with Rep. Frank Chopp.

Then Chopp surprised me again: “That leaves two alternatives that I’m very open to.” He started sketching again, drawing two options he felt hadn’t been given a fair hearing. “One is the surface transit option,” he said. “I’m okay with this if it’ll work.”

By “work” I asked him if that meant “maintain capacity”… and he said simply: “I don’t know if the surface transit option is good or bad, but I’m open about it. If that’s what we end up with, I’m happy.”

Others aren’t so happy. Some are attacking the People’s Waterfront Coalition, the folks behind the plan, saying the idea is non-starter. Then again, lots of people thought the R. H. Thompson Expressway was absolutely necessary for Seattle’s economic health. You can see what happened to that proposed freeway when you drive through the Arboretum. (Look for the freeway ramps that just… end.) The Washington State Department of Transportation is a highway building bureaucracy. That’s their job. Where they see traffic problems, they see highway solutions.

As the tunnel option seems unaffordable, and the elevated option unpalatable, a truly progressive solution to the Viaduct problem is at hand. Instead of spending millions studying the same old auto-centric ideas, I hope the WA-DOT can think about moving people, not just cars. That would make this Belltown resident sleep more soundly.