Archives for November 2008

After eight months on the market, it looks like the Blethen family has finally found a buyer for its struggling Maine newspaper properties, and while the terms of the deal have not been announced, it is likely the Blethens will ultimately realize a nine-figure loss on their ten-year foray into the media market of their ancestral homeland.  Looks like Frank’s own business decisions will end up costing his heirs a helluva lot more than Washington’s estate tax.

That said, any sale is good news for the Blethens, who need the cash to help shore up the sagging fortunes of their flagship Seattle Times.  And anything that helps stabilize their publisher’s finances is surely good news for Times staffers, who are already bracing themselves for another round of layoffs, expected to be finalized this week.

I’ll be on KOMO 1000’s The Commentators this morning near the top of the 11AM hour, talking about yesterday’s PDC meeting on “internet lobbying,” and whether reporting regulations should be extended to bloggers like me.

Irvine Housing Blog explains why ARM resets aren’t finished, and just how bad things might get, at least in California. Yikes.

And since California is basically the size of a country all by itself, it’s kind of difficult to be optimistic about a quick rebound of housing prices on the West Coast. You could give AIG $25 billion a day for the next year and it wouldn’t help much, unless they hold all their parties in vacant houses rented for the occasions.

This socialism stuff is hard. Can I interest you in a used car (company?)

With about 50,000 ballots left to count, Democratic challenger Mark Begich has pulled ahead of Alaska US Senator Ted Stevens by an insurmountable 3 vote margin.

Well, no, 3 isn’t really an insurmountable number, but from what I’m hearing from the people on the ground in Alaska, the trends most likely are.  So perhaps Alaskans really haven’t reelected a convicted felon.

UPDATE:
Oops.  Begich now leads by 814 votes.

I’m sitting in the PDC meeting right now, courtesy of Toby Nixon, who reminded me of it when he stopped by Drinking Liberally last night, and I realize I forgot to report that Toby has announced that he will not be running for the now elected position of King County Elections Director.

Toby was one of the forces behind changing the position from appointed to elected, and given his interest in the elections process (and his failure to win back his seat in the state House), many of us just assumed he’d run for the post.  Well… no.

Given our conversation last night, I wouldn’t rule out another run for the legislature, but as for now, we won’t have Toby Nixon to kick around anymore.

During the 2004 gubernatorial contest in Washington state, the Republicans, as part of their “election fraud” propaganda campaign, needed an enemy with a name and a face.

Their primary victim was King County Records, Elections and Licensing Director Dean Logan, who was mercilessly vilified through the contest, court case and even afterward. They might have gone after our Secretary of State, Sam Reed, except that he’s a Republican. (They did go after him to a lesser extent after losing the lawsuit).

In Minnesota, it looks like Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is going to be the Republican’s first target. TPM Muckraker has obtained a three-page “backgrounder” put out by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

The NRSC origin of this memo highlights one big difference between the Washington state 2004 gubernatorial election and the Minnesota 2008 Senate race—the addition of an important target audience for the latter. Ultimately it is the Senate who will seat either Franken or Coleman. The election results, certified by Secretary of State Ritchie, will be used to guide the Senate (as per Article I of the U.S. Constitution) in seating the winner.

One long-shot strategy for the Republicans is to discredit Ritchie enough to cast doubt on his impartiality in certifying a close Franken win. The Republicans would challenge the election in the Senate (as sometimes happens) with the aim of not seating Franken.

Light blogging this morning, as I head down to Olympia, where the Public Disclosure Commission is holding a “Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Internet Lobbying.”  Considering some of the questions that will be addressed, I think I’m what one might describe as a stakeholder:

Lobbying Blogs (Web logs)?
o       Are lobbying postings and responses on blogs reportable?
o       Are funds provided to “tip jars” (donation links) on lobbying blogs reportable?

Um… hell no.

If the PDC were to adopt such rules, they would instantly become a playground for harassing bloggers, with organizations and individuals filing PDC complaints willy nilly.  Such rules would also be a major lawsuit waiting to happen, as I’m going to make it clear that under no circumstances would I comply with such rules should they pass… unless, of course, they apply the exact same regulations to Frank Blethen and his staff of paid lobbyists.

I’ll report back from the meeting, but in the meanwhile, the PDC’s Lori Anderson is soliciting public comments, and you can send her an email here.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early to enjoy the cuisine.

Tonight’s activity?

Gloating.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, McCranium shoud have the scoop on the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

The fledgling right-wing propaganda war continues in the Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken. As of yesterday’s midnight deadline, Franken trails Coleman by 206 out of 2.9 million votes.

The latest error-prone Wingding propaganda piece comes from Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. writing an opinion piece for Fox News. Lott, a right-wing academic, begins his article by insinuating something sinister behind the changing vote tallies:

[On Wednesday morning,] Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 — a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount.

It is hard to know if this is genuinely spin or whether Lott is simply unaware of elementary elections procedures. Changes in vote totals are almost guaranteed in the days leading up to initial certification. There are numerous reasons for this, including ongoing tallying of absentee and provisional ballots, correction of tabulating and reporting errors, and resolution of disputed ballots. In Minnesota, however, the changes are mostly corrections of tabulating and reporting errors because absentee ballots must be received by election day, and with election day registration possible, provisional ballots are not used. (In 2006, Minnesota had no provisional ballots cast. I am unclear whether provisional ballots play any role in Minnesota’s new voter challenge procedures.) Some ballots do remain uncounted at the time the polls close on election day:

Ramsey County found 55 absentee ballots which arrived on time to be counted on election day, but which were not. Those results have now been included in the new totals.

Counting these ballots will obviously affect subsequent reporting.

Contrary to Lott’s insinuations, the only thing unusual about these changes is that people are paying attention:

…county auditors are finding minor errors as they’re proofing their unofficial numbers before shipping them to St. Paul, said John Aiken, spokesman for Secretary Mark Ritchie.

“The counties are trying to be as accurate and transparent as possible. You’ll see fluctuations here and there,” Aiken said.

It happens all the time in every election, he said. The only difference is that for most elections, the margin is much wider and the election less prominent. Here, he said, “The eyes of the nation are on this Senate race.”

Lott goes on to “analyze” the errors, and he offers alarmist rhetoric that overlooks the specifics of known cases. For example, one case of an additional 100 votes for Franken simply reflected a typo:

In Pine County, an election official accidentally entered 24 votes for Franken on Tuesday night instead of the 124 he actually received. The mistake was caught on Thursday and the numbers changed, said Jim Gelbmann from the Secretary of State’s office.

In another case, the change reflected a failure to report any result at all:

In northeastern Minnesota, the town of Buhl’s ballots had been cast but not counted in statewide totals. It turns out election officials there counted the votes but never called them in. […]

Election official Mike Buchanan said that when Buhl election officials arrived a work at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, “we received a phone call from St. Louis County — they wanted our election numbers.”

They got them.

Coleman received 152 votes in Buhl and Franken got 343, for a difference of 191 in the Democratic candidate’s favor. Not enough to change the results, but enough to tighten the contest even more.

Sinister! Sinister, I tell you!

Lott’s specifics-free discussion of the precincts from which Franken’s votes came ends with this bit of factually challenged, pure Wingnut propaganda:

It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

This is the kind of statement that somehow seems authoritative—I mean, using words like “statistically more likely” and all. But it is bullshit technobabble. Statisticians use the term “statistically more likely” to refer to a result that exceeds some benchmark by an amount that is (probabilistically) outside of the sampling error. When the entire population is surveyed (as, say, when all voters in an election are considered), there is no sampling error. A difference is just a difference (or every difference is statistically significant). So Lott either doesn’t understand statistics (doubtful) or he is trying to bullshit us.

Lott offers more sloppy propaganda:

The recent Washington State 2006 gubernatorial recount is probably most famous for the discovery of ballots in heavily Democratic areas that had somehow missed being counted the first and even second time around. Minnesota is already copying that, though thus far on a much smaller scale, with 32 absentee ballots being discovered in Democratic Hennepin County after all the votes had already been counted.

In fact, the 32 absentee ballots in Hennepin County (and the 55 absentee ballots found in Ramsey County) are part of the first count. Even so, it is possible additional ballots will be found in the Minnesota recount. What of it? The whole purpose of a recount to ensure that every ballot is counted and counted correctly. Ironically, it was Republican Dino Rossi’s campaign in the 20064 Washington state race that ended up hunting down additional ballots—after the second recount.

Lott then goes on to downplay expectations that the recount will affect much about the election. He poo-poos an AP article about the magnitude of the undervote, and its possible significance. He incorrectly suggests that voters are warned about undervotes in Minnesota. This is simply incorrect—overvotes are flagged, not undervotes.

Optical scan machines do make mistakes. Minnesota estimates this error rate after each election by conducting audits in about 5% of precincts. The 2006 results gave a rate of 53 errors in 94,073 votes cast. Indeed, in Ramsey County yesterday, the machine audit found Franken gaining one vote out of 7,700 counted.

Lott uses his misunderstanding of the optical scanning machines to raise the same old tired talking points against “voter intent”:

There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.

Yes, there really is a role for discerning voter intent—it’s the law. Minnesota, as a voter intent state, provides clear guidelines on how voter intent is to be discerned.

Finally, Lott offers a Wingnut taking point that has no place in this discussion:

With ACORN filing more than 43,000 registration forms this year, 75 percent of all new registrations in the state, Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election. Even a small percentage of those registrations resulting in fraudulent votes could tip this election.

Un-huh. I suppose it is possible that Lott has been in a vacuum and actually believes this crap. More likely, he knows better, but just throws this out as Wingnut bullshit designed to cast doubt on the election. Specifically, he is exploiting the widely publicized fact that some ACORN employees have made up registrations (i.e. they have defrauded ACORN, who pays them for registering new potential voters)—information that has come to light in some cases because ACORN has reported what they believe are fake registration forms. Unless Lott believes that dishonest workers subsequently go on to recruit people to go vote as Micky Mouse, there is no link between real people registered by ACORN and “vote fraud problems” at the polls.

So…that is the latest in wingnuttery over this race. Get ready for the howls of “election fraud” when the voter crediting numbers turn out to be less than the numbers of ballots cast.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter defends her newspaper’s biased and crappy reporting on WA-08:

Not only do Northwesterners have a built-in disdain for people who name-drog [sic] fancy colleges, she should not have gotten twisted up in a dispute about a great degree.

Uh-huh.  First of all, that’s the sort of attitude one might expect from somebody who would have gone to a “fancy college,” had she been gifted enough to get in.  But more importantly… talk about blame the victim.  Darcy was totally fucked by the Times over the trivial, front page parsing of a college degree, and Joni’s defense is, well, she shouldn’t have flaunted that sexy education.

I mean, really, Joni?  Darcy deserved to have her political career destroyed over this?  That’s your analysis of the race?  This from the women who argued to my face that it was totally irresponsible for the press to report, just weeks before an election, that David Irons hit his mother?  I’m sensing a double-standard here.

To put this all in perspective, here’s a question for you Joni, and the rest our local media, which I’m guessing neither you nor colleagues have the balls to even acknowledge, let alone answer:  Did Dave Reichert catch the Green River Killer?

Come on… did he?  He sure as hell has taken credit for catching the Green River Killer… over and over and over and over and over again.  In fact, it is fair to say that he has built his entire political career on what is no doubt a shamelessly self-serving exaggeration, if not an out and out lie.

So really, how dare you attack Darcy’s credibility when you and your colleagues not only refuse to debunk the biggest lie in Washington state politics, but were actually complicit in creating and promoting this myth in the first place?

I’m just sayin’…

If we’re going to be stimulatin’ and subsidizin’ the construction industry, an admittedly wise step considering the scope of the financial scandal and related crash, could we pretty please with sugar on top have basic consumer protections in return?

Is there something I don’t understand here? You buy a new car, you get a warranty and you’re covered by the lemon law. If the wheels fall off you have options.

You buy a new house and the plumbing fails, well, sorry pal. Caveat emptor.

It doesn’t make any sense, and it really won’t make any sense if we inject hundreds of millions of dollars into a sector without providing basic consumer safeguards. This socialism stuff has to be about all the people, not just the bidness guy socialists. Otherwise it’s Chi-Com Socialism!

This past week saw the passage of nearly every drug law reform initiative on ballots across the country. Among the big ones, medical marijuana is now legal in Michigan. Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts and replaced with a $100 civil infraction. And Hawaii County, Hawaii residents made marijuana enforcement the lowest priority for the police. All three initiatives were landslides. In fact, the percentages of people voting for the initiatives in Michigan and Massachusetts were higher than the percentages who voted for Obama.

The result was clearly not from a lack of opposition. Drug Czar John Walters even traveled to Michigan in October to beg people not to vote for medical marijuana (which is probably a violation of The Hatch Act of 1939). In Massachusetts, law enforcement officials actively campaigned against the decriminalization measure. Now that the voters have loudly stood up for more sensible drug policy, law enforcement officials are throwing temper tantrums over it. Let’s break down five of the dumbest things said this past week by those who can’t figure out why voters are giving them the finger.

1. Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association representative Jim Carnell

“Few people, if any, who were arrested for simple possession were ever in any real jeopardy of a serious nature, provided they learned from past transgressions.”

The initiative in Massachusetts has law enforcement officials all twisted around. After complaining that the initiative was unnecessary because pot smokers never really had anything bad happen to them, they’re now complaining about how there’s no teeth to the marijuana laws any more. It’s been comical to watch them try to have it both ways.

The major reason why this initiative was needed was because people with an arrest for even minor marijuana possession will have a lifelong criminal record that makes it difficult for them to obtain housing and jobs, even if there wasn’t a conviction. In 2006, nearly 7,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession. Now, the vast majority of those people would only be written a $100 ticket (although there’s an interesting question as to whether police can ask for a person’s ID to be able to write that ticket).

2. Holyoke, MA Police Chief Anthony Scott

“It’s basically telling young people that it’s okay to possess an ounce or less of marijuana, after we have been spending millions of dollars trying to tell kids to say no to drugs, not to drink, and to quit smoking.”

This is totally ridiculous. Alcohol and cigaretters are legal for adults. Does that mean that we have to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal in order to tell kids that they shouldn’t drink or smoke? There’s nothing dangerous about treating marijuana the same way we treat alcohol or cigarettes. In fact, cigarette smoking among young people has been dropping. We didn’t have to make it illegal to accomplish that.

3. Six Michigan Law Enforcement Officials

“How do law enforcement officers respond to marijuana growing operations when the owners claim that they are “caregivers” who must cultivate marijuana for their customers?”

It’s very simple. You should find out if they’re telling the truth, and if they are, let them be.

It never ceases to amaze me that law enforcement officials think that when they bust a marijuana grow operation that they’ve somehow completely eradicated marijuana from their area. They actually believe that they’re some “front line” against marijuana, and that if they didn’t do what they do, all hell would be breaking loose. It’s just another example of the great adage that “a man will never understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.”

Whenever a grow operation is busted, another one that doesn’t get busted just gets richer. In the end, organized criminals end up controlling the entire trade and getting filthy rich. Not exactly a smart way to protect people in a community, but for reasons that continually amaze me, law enforcement officials will fight tooth and nail to keep doing it this way.

4. Hawaii County, HI Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna

“If you’re pro-drug, or pro-marijuana, you’re automatically pro-terrorist.”

What a moron. I don’t even know what to say.

5. The Drug Czar’s new ad campaign

“Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads.”

Actually, there a quite a few jobs out there for pot smokers. For one, President. The last time we had a President who’d never smoked pot before was 1992. There’s a video here with the many, many other people who smoke pot and have jobs, including scientists, businessmen, and entertainers. Personally, I know of doctors, lawyers, corporate executives, and people of all walks of life who enjoy smoking pot. The myths about this drug are dying. Hopefully, prohibitionists will figure this out and stop making asses of themselves.

There’s no question the economic downturn has been hard on house builders. But at least one BIAW-affiliated official is optimistic. Here’s David Roewe, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Clark County, the local unit of the BIAW, in a Columbian business section article:

Roewe predicted home sales would improve after the first of the year and continue to pick up in the second quarter of 2009.

“Springtime is when you’ll see the release of money, with the new (presidential) administration in office,” he said.

See, even some BIAW folks are rooting for President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to succeed. Now that’s refreshing.