HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Goldy

I write stuff! Now read it:

Picking apart government, one anecdote at a time

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/4/10, 10:56 am

Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial board’s resident libertarian (you know, the one who hates government on principle), chronicles the travails of a would-be gentleman farmer who has given up his dream of tilling 89 acres of Snoqualmie Valley hillside and bottomland due to excessive King County rules and regulations. And while it’s hard to defend the permitting hassles Ramsey cites, at least offhand, there was one paragraph that kinda jumped out at me (the emphasis is mine):

To pave a driveway, the blueprint — one sheet — cost $1,000. The county, which funds its permit department through fees, wanted $22,000 to review the one sheet. Capeder hired a lawyer, and they settled for $10,000.

A thousand dollars for a one sheet blue print? Another $22,000 to review it? That sounds rather outrageous, and it doesn’t take a libertarian to realize how such steep upfront permitting costs can discourage entrepreneurialism.

But this anecdote also demonstrates the delicate balance that government must strike every day in protecting and promoting the commonweal, while levying the costs of the services provided relative to the individual and communal benefits enjoyed, as fairly, pragmatically and efficiently as possible.

Still, setting aside those who would argue for little or no government regulation of private land (there’s no arguing with ideologues), let’s start from the assumption that the community as a whole benefits from land-use regulations and the permitting process it necessitates. After all, even Tim Eyman would object were I to purchase the house next door, knock it down, and propose to replace it with, say, a Hooters, or an auto-wrecking yard or something similarly out of place in the midst of a residential neighborhood… and rightly so.

On the other hand, Tim might also object were I simply to buy the house next door and propose to live in it, though in this case he would have no moral or legal right to stop me. So hyperbole aside, I think most of us can safely agree that there are limits to both the rights of the landowner, and the rights the community to limit the rights of the landowner.

With that established, let’s get back to the woes of our gentleman farmer. $22,000 to review a permit for a driveway sure does sound excessive, though given the size of the property, I’m guessing were not talking your typical, 40-foot residential driveway here, but rather something more akin to a private road through agricultural land, with all the environmental impact that implies. So whether the fee was $22,000, or the $10,000 figure on which the department finally settled, let’s just assume that this represents the actual cost of reviewing the permit in a manner thorough enough to actually meet the intent of the rule that requires the permit in the first place.

Now, who should pay for this?

There is an awfully strong argument to make that developers should pay for the cost of permitting and inspecting their own projects, as they’re the ones who enjoy the most immediate economic benefit from their developments. And make no mistake, that’s what Ramsey’s gentleman farmer is — a developer — for the permits in question are not for farming, but rather for the development he proposed to build processing, retail and tourist facilities on his property, and the private road driveway to get there. Ramsey’s column is titled “Rules and roadblocks make farmland difficult to farm,” but that’s a bit misleading, as it’s the agribusiness related land development that is the subject of permitting, not the farming itself, and the question of whether farming such expensive land is economically viable without this development is still an open question.

I’m not arguing against this guy’s integrated farm/processor/retail/tourism concept; I think it’s a brilliant, creative approach to turning expensive exurban farmland into an economically viable operation, and I’d love to see him succeed here in King County rather than Skagit. But the concept requires building stuff, building stuff requires permitting, permitting costs money… and somebody’s got to pay for it. If it works, our gentleman farmer stands to make a pretty penny off his venture, so shouldn’t he pay for the costs of starting it up, rather than shifting the cost to taxpayers like me and Ramsey?

On the other hand, by requiring the permitting department to recover the costs of its operations solely from its users, perhaps we’ve made the upfront costs of development too high, discouraging such innovative projects that would ultimately prove an economic boon to the surrounding community, while keeping precious farmland in use as such? Perhaps the benefits to the community of such development are so great, that we should all bear the costs? Perhaps by shifting the cost of an essential government service to the individual user, we’ve made the service unaffordable, and tipped the balance too far in one direction?

For example, as homeowners, we all pay a not insubstantial portion of our property tax each year to fund the local fire department, a government service most of us will never use. But were we to shift the cost of firefighting to the individual user, few would be able to afford the service; imagine losing everything you own in a fire, only to have the fire department hand you a $50,000 bill for snuffing out the flames. Yet like the land-use permits, we can’t make firefighting optional, as failing to fight your fire would put my property at risk as well.

That would be ridiculous, of course, and so we socialize the cost of firefighting and other essential services by forcibly collecting it from the community as a whole in the form of taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes, not even tax-and-spend liberals like me. But we all benefit from the services and infrastructure they fund.

So perhaps, if the cost of permitting a “driveway” through 89 acres of Snoqualmie Valley farmland is too high, and the benefits to the community of such development are so great, then perhaps we should shift some of the costs incurred by the permitting process away from the individual user and onto the community at large… you know, us taxpayers? I’m not arguing for this shift, just that these sort of equations are part of the delicate balance between the needs and rights of the individual and the needs and rights of the community that every functioning government must strike.

And that is the irony of Ramsey calling out the self-funding nature of the permitting department, for while he no doubt would prefer that such permits weren’t required at all, this anecdote only serves to illustrate the broader nature of government and the inherent flaws in the libertarian agenda as a whole. For when we devolve government services and infrastructure, shifting the costs from the community to the individual users, either  through “user fees,” or ultimately through privatization, much of what government provides ceases to be affordable to all but the wealthiest consumers.

The costs of some government services should be borne directly by users, and I’d argue that permitting fees generally fall into this category, though since my position is based on pragmatism not philosophy, I’m willing to consider the alternative. But while Ramsey is happy to lay out the $22,000 driveway permit as an example of government regulation run amuck, judging from his oeuvre I’m guessing he’d be unwilling to consider raising taxes on the rest of us — including himself — to help make such innovative development more affordable. Nor does he even attempt to engage in the question of whether there should or should not be a permitting process for paving a private road through agricultural land, or who, if anybody, should pay for it.

No, as the Times’ resident libertarian, Ramsey is content merely to grab a couple of anecdotes out of context and present them as an example of, well, of government regulation run amuck. And considering how little popular support there is here in King County for the kinda regulation-free, libertarian dystopia that would be the logical conclusion of the philosophy Ramsey appears to espouse, I’m just not sure that this moves the conversation anywhere.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Smoking Gun: Boeing, Paul Allen, McCaw family bribe legislators! Where’s the outrage?!

by Goldy — Wednesday, 3/3/10, 11:12 am

Last year, when an internal labor email surfaced threatening to cut off contributions to Democrats if they failed to pass the Workers Privacy Act, the Democratic Governor, House Speaker and Senate Majority leader literally called the cops on the unions, and very publicly killed the bill out of fear of even the remotest appearance of impropriety. So you’d think legislators would be equally sensitive to the appearance of a quid pro quo relationship with business interests.

Well… apparently not.

The video clip above is from last Saturday’s Senate Ways and Means Committee hearing on HB 1329 — a bill which would permit child care workers to bargain collectively — and it stunningly shows Sen. Cheryl Pflug (R-Maple Valley) calmly reminding her colleagues that they had promised to kill the bill in exchange for $70 million of funding from Boeing, Paul Allen and the McCaw family for the public/private “Thrive by Five” partnership:

“Not doing this bill was the bright-line promise that we made to the Paul Allen Foundation, The Boeing Company and the McCaw family that contributed the funding for this.  This was the agreement:  that was that we would not unionize child care centers. This was the bright line that we would not do, and I think that we need to remember that when we make a commitment to somebody that gives us $70 million, we might want to keep it.”

So when, say, the Boeing Company gives legislators a big chunk of change (and let’s be clear, that’s $70 million legislators get to spend in their districts without raising their constituents’ taxes), not only is it okay to to promise to kill a piece of legislation in return, Pflug argues that it would be downright dishonorable not to honor the promise. But when organized labor talks amongst itself about whether it should continue contributing money to Democrats who vote anti-labor… well… book ’em Danno!

The message is clear when it comes to influencing legislation: business money good, union money bad. And since this meme is so pervasive in our local media, you can be sure that you’re not going to read about this particular outrage on the pages of, say, the Seattle Times.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Bad news for GOP as jobs market shows hint of recovery?

by Goldy — Wednesday, 3/3/10, 9:37 am

Washington state’s jobs numbers rebounded in January showing the biggest one-month gain in nearly three years, and many economists are now predicting Washington to lead the nation in jobs growth throughout the year.

Good news for workers. But if these projections hold up, and if our economy shows significant signs of recovery over the next eight months, and if Democrats nationally manage to get voters to give them a little credit for the stimulus packages they pushed through in the face of unified Republican opposition, that can’t be good news for the GOP’s prospects come November, can it?

Of course, those are a handful of huge “ifs.” One month’s uptick does not a recovery make, and unemployment levels are predicted to remain at generational highs, even as our economy pulls well out of recession. And of course, relying on the Democrats to effectively message their successes is like relying on France to successfully defend its border with Germany. But still, it does illustrate a larger point: for a party that relies primarily on fear and anger to motivate its base and gain traction with independents, good economic news is bad news for the GOP.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Why does the Seattle Times want Washington to be more like California?

by Goldy — Tuesday, 3/2/10, 8:53 am

One of the pleasures of reimmersing myself in programming these past few weeks is that I haven’t had as much time on my hands to fisk the Seattle Times op-ed page. Unfortunately, I haven’t quite been able to break the nasty habit of reading it, so I’ve accumulated quite a backlog of Blethenesque  pontifinuggets just begging for ridicule.

For example, take this gem from a recent editorial castigating the governor for signing the bill repealing Initiative 960’s blatantly unconstitutional two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases:

Surely the people wanted it that way. Over the years they have voted three times for the two-thirds rule. They still favor it. In a poll of 500 adults done for KING-TV, 74 percent favored the two-thirds rule, and 68 percent said the Legislature and the governor had done the wrong thing to suspend it.

Huh. I suppose we could run our government along the (small “r”) republican principles laid out in our constitution, or, as the Times suggests, we could just craft our policies based entirely on the latest KING-5/SurveyUSA poll.

And as for its provisions’ alleged support at the ballot box, it might be instructive to remember that I-960 just barely passed in 2007, with only 51% of the vote… and in a relatively low-turnout, off-year election. By comparison, the measure’s 816,000 Yes votes would have amounted to only 27% of the vote in 2008, when turnout was nearly double, and voters handed Democrats overwhelming control of both the legislature and the governor’s mansion.

Perhaps the Times thinks Washington would be better off if we were more like California, where citizens initiatives, of both the tax-cutting and money-spending varieties, are nearly impossible to overturn or amend by anything less than another citizens initiative, thus handcuffing lawmakers in a nearly perpetual state of fiscal crisis. But personally, I prefer a system where our elected officials are forced to make the tough choices we elected them to make, and then face the consequences at the polls.

And you know, the real polls… not the bogus ones conducted by TV stations.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

The Seattle Times: All the news that fits… their way of thinking

by Goldy — Monday, 3/1/10, 12:48 pm

Thousands of Seattlites rally in support of healthy care reform at a Sept. 2009 rally the Seattle Times didn't bother to cover.

Thousands filled Westlake Park in support of health care reform, at a Sept. 2009 rally the Seattle Times didn't bother to cover.

Back in September, when two to three thousand people swarmed Westlake Park in support of health care reform — specifically, a greatly expanded federal government role in the health care market — the Seattle Times didn’t think the event merited even a mention in the following day’s paper. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Yet when maybe a couple hundred teabaggers show up to celebrate the anniversary of their faux movement, the Times apparently feels the need to devote a political reporter, a photographer and twenty column inches:

An anniversary “tea party” rally drew about 250 people to a rainy corner in Northgate on Saturday afternoon. Not bad for Seattle, or as one participant called it, “Lib-Ville.”

Really? This is news, and the ten-times-bigger pro-HCR/pro-government rally was not? You gotta be fucking kidding.

Frank Blethen pays a professional photographer to snap photos of a handful of soggy sign-wavers.

Frank Blethen pays a professional photographer precious dollars to snap photos of a handful of soggy sign-wavers.

This is the type of shit that drives media critics like me absolutely nuts. It’s “false equivalency” taken to the Nth degree, with the Times not only covering the teabaggers totally out of proportion to their actual numbers, but entirely ignoring the much larger and more energized pro-reform movement on the other side. And more coherent as well, especially compared to the “keep government out of my Medicare” logic of your typical teabagger:

They oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs, and they attended their first tea-party event last year after paying their taxes, they said. But they’re perhaps most passionate about the tea-party movement’s common ground: the size of government.

“Government is too big and it’s too intrusive,” said Doug Larsen.

That’s right… government is too big and too intrusive… which is why they want it to tell women what they should or should not do with their bodies.

But, you know, the Blethens have been in the newspaper business for four generations, so if they tell me that this idiot babbling in the rain is newsworthy, while several thousand people rallying in support of health care reform is not, I suppose I’ll just have to bow to their superior journalistic expertise.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Socialism saves lives

by Goldy — Monday, 3/1/10, 8:17 am

There are several reasons to explain why last month’s 7.0 earthquake in Haiti killed over 200,000 people, while the death toll from Chile’s much more powerful 8.8 magnitude quake is not expected to rise much above a thousand or two, but part of the credit surely goes to the tough building codes the Chilean government has enforced for the past few decades.

You know, the sort of intrusive, government regulations that drive up costs in the private sector.

I’m just sayin’.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

HA Bible Study

by Goldy — Sunday, 2/28/10, 6:00 am

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Discuss.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Hey GOP… don’t let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric

by Goldy — Friday, 2/26/10, 11:36 am

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Republicans intoxicated with dreams of selling state stores

by Goldy — Friday, 2/26/10, 8:59 am

State Republicans are trying to use our current budget crisis as an opportunity to sell off our state store system, and privatize the sale of hard liquor. Why? I’m not sure even they know why. I guess they just believe that privatization is always good, kinda like the same way some Republicans believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

But as Rev. Jimmie James and Rep. Zack Hudgins point out in a Seattle Times guest column yesterday, privatization just isn’t worth it. Under our state store system Washington has the highest compliance rate in the nation in terms of restricting the sale of liquor to minors, and one of the lowest rates of alcohol consumption… and its inevitable social impact. All this while adding over $300 million a year to the state budget.

Furthermore, despite all their talk about supporting small business, the Republican proponents of privatization obviously couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the mom and pop private contractors throughout the state who would lose their shirts while the sale of liquor was monopolized by out of state giants like Safeway, Albertson’s, 7-Eleven, and Kroger’s (QFC & Fred Meyer).

So, you sometimes gotta plan a little ahead if you’re running low on liquor. Suck it up. Hell, if you ask me, tobacco should only be available in the state stores too. Along with pot. Now that would generate the state some serious revenue.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Radio Days

by Goldy — Thursday, 2/25/10, 1:13 pm

Rod Arquette, the program director who cancelled my show at 710-KIRO, has himself been canceled, according to a report over at BlatherWatch.

Of course I feel empathy for Rod, as I would for just about anybody losing their job, but sympathy… not so much. It’s nothing personal, but the radio biz is as fickle a mistress to program directors as it is to talent, so Rod’s departure is really just a circle of life kinda thing. In fact, considering the station’s sliding fortunes over his tenure, I’m kinda surprised he lasted this long.

When I started at KIRO in 2006, the longtime AM powerhouse was live and local 24/7 (with the exception of Bob Brinker on the weekends), a reliable cash cow, and a local icon, and while my personal schtick was political talk, I was honored to be a part of the station’s broader news coverage. Sitting at home in the cold and the dark with my wind-up radio in the aftermath of the December 2006 windstorm, I knew that there was one station I could rely on 24 hours a day to bring me the latest updates on the ongoing power outage, and for those few hours a day sitting behind the mic in the warmth and light of the studio, I was proud to be the one providing this service to my community.

And today, I can’t even find KIRO on the dial anymore.

Under Arquette’s watch, 710-AM reformatted to sports talk, while the venerable news/talk franchise moved somewhere in the FM band. The newsroom suffered a series of cuts, ceding the lead in that market to KOMO-1000, while the station abandoned its longtime commitment to live and local, replacing me and other hosts with syndicated fare. I feel a perhaps misplaced degree of loyalty and affection toward KIRO for giving me an opportunity I hadn’t really earned, but these days, given a breaking news event, even I tune in to KOMO. I know where they are on the dial, and I know they’ll never be broadcasting some syndicated crap.

And that’s kinda sad.

I was awfully disappointed when Arquette let me go, though not bitter. I never had much interaction with him, but he always seemed like a pretty nice guy, even while axing me. So I wish him all the best.

But I wish even better for KIRO under new management.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Jon Stewart previews today’s Health Care Summit

by Goldy — Thursday, 2/25/10, 7:53 am

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

DINO = “Declared In Name Only”

by Goldy — Wednesday, 2/24/10, 11:49 pm

One thing is for certain, if Dino Rossi does run for the U.S. Senate, he’ll kick Patty Murray’s ass… in 2011.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

iPost upDate

by Goldy — Wednesday, 2/24/10, 3:34 pm

This afternoon I hit a bit of a milestone in my effort to teach myself how to develop iPhone apps, marking the first time I successfully searched my old rhyming dictionary database from within the iPhone simulator, and displayed the results. The core functionality is now, well, functional, and considering where I was a just a couple weeks ago, that feels awfully damn good.

There’s a ton of work still left to do, but I’ve left most of the learning curve behind me. I guess my brain isn’t quite as old as my body.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Give ’em Hell, Hunter

by Goldy — Wednesday, 2/24/10, 9:13 am

The other day the Seattle Times singled out House Finance Committee chair Ross Hunter for his willingness to consider raising taxes to ward off some of the most crippling and counterproductive impending budget cuts:

This is a failure of leadership. Hunter, in particular, disappoints us because he was supposed to be a moderate.

That’s right, because in the Times’ Bizarro World lexicon, true “leadership” always consists of defending the status quo, and the status quo around here is last year’s all-cuts budget. And of course a true “moderate” would never consider raising taxes, only cutting them, because moderation never involves looking at both sides of the budget equation.

The Times had no gripe with Hunter and his committee when their primary business was considering and passing innumerable tax breaks and exemptions, but the minute he considers pushing revenue in the other direction, well, that’s a failure of leadership.

I was reminded of the Times’ immoderate attack on Hunter while reading Eliot Spitzer’s latest column in Slate, in which he effectively debunks the popular conservative meme that higher taxes inevitably result in lower GDP. It’s worth a read, especially within the context of our current state budget debate in which the Times and its surrogates in the Republican caucus (or is it the other way around? It’s so easy to get confused…) reflexively argue that raising taxes will inevitably hurt our economy, while totally ignoring the economic, let alone human impact of spending cuts.

But I was particularly struck by the following passage, in which Spitzer lays out a bit of history the 21st Century reader might find rather startling:

Leaders of a century ago invoked justice in remarkable language that is unimaginable today. President Woodrow Wilson called paying taxes “a glorious privilege.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed that “taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt said, “In this time of grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war; no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000.” That $25,000 is the equivalent of $323,208 in today’s dollars. Can you conceive of a modern president suggesting that no American should earn more than $323,000 after taxes? (President George W. Bush went to war twice without once calling for such a common sacrifice to pay for it.) And President Harry Truman in 1948 vetoed a broad-based tax cut, even in the face of an expected and eventual congressional override, and then asked for a tax increase following his upset victory.

On the subject of leadership, I hate to give Ross Hunter the pleasure of lumping him in there, no matter how momentary or tangentially, with the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., but… well… you know…

Regardless, just like there are two sides to the budget equation, there are two sides to the question of whether in an economic downturn like ours, tax increases are more damaging than spending cuts, so in the interest of an informed public debate, I really wish the Times would stop operating on the assumption that their side of the argument is a given.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Times focuses on taxes, ignores budget cuts in Senate proposal

by Goldy — Tuesday, 2/23/10, 12:37 pm

Yesterday I griped about the Seattle Times myopic focus on the revenue side of the state budget equation, while providing very little coverage of the steep spending cuts in virtually every state agency and program:

You wouldn’t know it from reading the Times, because that doesn’t fit in with their lazy waste/fraud/abuse meme. No, the Times never writes about the thousands of state employees who have lost their jobs — further depressing our local economy — because they’re too busy expressing outrage that the remaining state employees still enjoy the same kind of health care benefits newspaper employeesused to enjoy as recently as a decade ago.

And today, as if on cue, the Times initial coverage of the just released Senate budget proposal focuses exclusively on tax increases.

If all you read was the Times, you might not remember that the legislature and governor addressed last year’s record revenue shortfall with a dramatic, all cuts budget, and you might think that the Senate is looking to close this year’s additional $2.7 billion gap entirely on the back of taxpayers. No, you’d have no idea that the Senate budget proposal includes another $838 million in additional cuts.

I’m just sayin’…

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • …
  • 471
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 5/7/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 5/6/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 5/5/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 5/2/25
  • Friday Open Thread Friday, 5/2/25
  • Today’s Open Thread (Or Yesterday’s, or Last Year’s, depending On When You’re Reading This… You Know How Time Works) Wednesday, 4/30/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 4/29/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 4/28/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 4/28/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Saturday, 4/26/25

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky @goldyha.bsky.social

From the Cesspool…

  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • EvergreenRailfan on Wednesday Open Thread
  • lmao on Wednesday Open Thread

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

© 2004–2025, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.