Goldy

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

I’m not sure what kind of crowds we’ll get the next two Tuesdays (or if the Ale House is even open Christmas night and New Year’s Day,) so if you suffer from the DL DT’s, you better come by tonight and drink your fill.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Sunday’s post lambasting the Discovery Institute (and our political and media elite’s insistence on taking them seriously no matter how wacky their proposals) has generated a number of emails from folks offering more detailed information on Discovery and its operations. It’s not pretty.

They may have cleaned up their “official” budget by now, but I’ve been assured that in past years at least 40-percent of the Gates Foundation’s roughly $1 million/year grant to the Cascadia Project went directly to Discovery to cover “overhead”. This included a $60,000 line item to help pay the salary of Discovery Executive Director Steven Buri, who I’m told has absolutely no expertise nor interest in transportation planning. Of course, I expect Discovery would deny using Gates Foundation money to subsidize its Intelligent Design campaign, but if they want to refute my allegations I challenge them to release the original budget documents (not some bullshit, made up spreadsheet,) or better yet, sue me for libel, so that I might use the discovery period to shed some light on the shady accounting Bruce Chapman has used to sucker the world’s richest man.

My point is that through his foundation’s 10 year/$9.35 million grant to Cascadia, Bill Gates — who frequently bemoans the state of our nation’s science education — is directly funding the operations of an organization dedicated to undermining the scientific method, and teaching creationism in our public schools. I mean… what the fuck?

But worse than the money is the undeserved credibility Gates and others grant Discovery by perpetuating the fiction that there is actual thinking going on in its tank. A real think tank starts with a problem and then goes about creatively devising a solution; propaganda mills like Discovery start with a solution, and then go about marketing the problem. And what is Discovery’s solution to the many challenges facing our nation in the 21st century and beyond? Here are the institute’s goals as enunciated in its infamous Wedge Document:

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

That is what Bill Gates’ fortune is helping to fund.

Of course, the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree, and so despite its charade of scholarly objectivity, Cascadia has its own ideologically predetermined solutions. That’s why, for example, anti-light rail zealot Ted Van Dyk was so eager to give Discovery’s Bruce Agnew a rhetorical blowjob in today’s Crosscut. Van Dyk, Agnew et al have their own transportation plan, and it resolves around “governance reform” that would create a four-county, regional transportation commission, largely designed to dilute the power of Seattle’s pro-rail voters, while forcing us to fund their priorities, rather than our own. To Van Dyk’s credit, at least he’s honest about his cabal’s ultimate goal:

It would stress immediate priorities such as addressing the urgent Alaskan Way Viaduct and Evergreen Point Bridge, which are aging and structurally vulnerable. It would not stop light rail construction in place, but it would limit construction to a line running from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to either Convention Place, Husky Stadium, or Northgate. Future funding would be focused more greatly on express bus, bus rapid transit, and normal bus service; dedicated transit lanes; HOV lanes; tolling; and selective repair and expansion of long neglected local roads and lifeline highways. Citywide trolleys definitely would not be part of the scheme.

That too is what Bill Gates’ fortune is funding.

Of course, I suppose there are those civic leaders who agree with Discovery’s “Big Bore” pro-roads/anti-rail agenda, just as I suppose there are those who support its goal of imposing a world view “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”; I just wish they’d be honest about it. But for the rest, it is time to wake up and recognize Discovery for what it is, and stop granting credibility and money it has not earned.

If you’re running as a pro-life presidential candidate for the nomination of a party that has made overthrowing Roe v. Wade a moral and political litmus test, I’m guessing it’s not a good news day when a photo turns up of you attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.

Blue Mass Group has the photo and the details of Romney’s hypocrisy and prevarication.

Amnesty would stamp a congressional seal of approval on the Administration’s warrantless spying. If Congress immunizes the telecoms for past violations of the law, it will send the message that Congress approves what the Administration did. We would be aiding and abetting the President in his illegal actions, his contempt for the rule of law, and his attempt to hide his lawbreaking from the American people. Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and illegality. There would be no accountability, no justice, no lessons learned.

[…] Think about what we’ve been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President’s insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue and for the rule of law.

It’s painfully clear what the President’s request for retroactive immunity is really about. It’s a self-serving attempt to avoid legal and political accountability and keep the American public in the dark about this whole shameful episode. Like the CIA’s destruction of videotapes showing potentially criminal conduct, it’s a desperate attempt to erase the past.

Via Crooks and Liars.

Apparently, non-union jobs pay less than union jobs. Who knew?

And, when you clear cut a steep mountain slope fronting onto a stream, you dramatically increase the chance of a devastating landslide during heavy rains. Oh. My. God.

Oh, and guns… don’t get shot by one. They can kill you. Same with pit bulls; sometimes they’re mean.

As for hard local news on a Monday morning? Now that would be news.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos: Church and/or State?
Rev. Forrest Church is an author and theologian, the son of former Idaho Sen. Frank Church, and the Minister of Public Theology at All Souls Unitarian Church in New York. In her review and interview posted today on Daily Kos, Joan “McJoan” McCarter describes Rev. Church’s latest book, So Help me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle over Church and State, as “an engaging, beautifully crafted and meticulously researched history of our nation’s first culture war over what role religion was to play in government.” Rev. Church and McJoan join me for the hour.

8PM: Will WA state ferries sink or swim?
An 80-year-old section of our state highway system was essentially allowed to disintegrate, when four steel-electric class ferries were pulled out of service due to serious corrosion. Washington State Transportation Commissioner Bob Distler joins me by phone for an update on the current plans to serve the effected routes, and a discussion what got us to this situation in the first place.

9PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

You’ve got to give credit to the folks at the Discovery Institute; when they put their “minds” to something, they never seem to let little distractions like public opinion, science or, you know, reality get in their way.

As political momentum grows for a highway-free Seattle shoreline, some would-be visionaries want to help traffic move by digging a deep tunnel from Sodo to north of downtown. […] Costs are unknown, but would be in the billions of dollars. Even if a suitable tunnel path exists, Seattle’s loose, watery soils present a challenge in places, and there’s not much room at the surface for ramp connections at I-5.

That hasn’t stopped the Cascadia Center, a branch of the Discovery Institute think tank, from promoting a tunnel.

No, no… of course it hasn’t, because the folks at the Discovery Institute are a bunch of fanaticist nutcases “visionaries”… you know, if by “visionary” you mean promoting Intelligent Design, seeking to overthrow the scientific method and “replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” and ignoring both voter sentiment (“No/Hell No” vote on the Viaduct; Prop 1’s crushing defeat) and economic reality in proposing a multi-billion dollar big dig through downtown Seattle.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ… what does it take to tarnish the Discovery Institute’s reputation? Does Bruce Chapman actually have to strip himself naked and go on a shooting rampage through the Tacoma Mall before our local media and political elite finally accept the fact that he might not be the same reasonable city councilman they remember from the 1970’s? Is there nothing he can do or say to destroy his credibility?

I once proposed building a gigantic rollercoaster along the West Seattle to downtown portion of the Monorail’s abandoned Green Line, and you didn’t see my joke of a transportation proposal picked up by the MSM, let alone labeled “visionary”. And yet the Seattle Rollercoaster Project is no less technically challenging nor politically, well, utterly fucking ridiculous than Discovery’s deep bore, crosstown tunnel. Engineering and economic feasibility aside, God himself could descend from the heavens with a blueprint in one hand and an infinite supply of cash in the other, only to be greeted by polar bear clad environmentalists and angry Eastside developers complaining that He isn’t doing enough to ease congestion on I-405. In a city where completion of a 1.3 mile vanity trolley line is feted like some transportation miracle, the very notion that local voters might commit more than a half billion dollars a mile to an untested technology is a dramatic tribute to Discovery’s primary mission of promoting the exercise of faith over reason.

Of course, it’s not merely faith in God that ultimately drives Discovery’s transportation planning, but more specifically faith in the Invisible Hand of God and the inherent efficiency of the free market. No doubt Seattle’s “Big Bore” would be pitched as a public/private partnership… you know, one of those sweetheart deals in which tax dollars are used to subsidize the privatization of a public asset. Sure, taxpayers would probably be better off financing our transportation improvements through payday loans, but then, who the hell am I to question the wisdom and motives of such an upstanding civic leader as Bruce Chapman?

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Feit
The Stranger’s Josh Feit and Jonah Spangenthal-Lee join us for a recap of the week’s news, and a look ahead to what’s coming up. Do Seattle police tase first and ask questions later? Are Eastside Republicans a dying dead breed? Will the Legislature once again ignore Josh’s advice? All that and more, plus your calls.

8PM: Did Brian Boshes have a Ha Ha Hanukkah?
Brian Boshes says he grew up in a stable household with parents who still love him, and yet he grew up to be a stand up comic. Go figure. He’s performing in the Ha Ha Hanukkah show at the Mainstage this week (Dec 20-22), and joins us in studio for the hour. We’ll be chatting, and giving away tickets.

9PM: HA rides/derides the SLUT!
HA has always been fair and balanced, as evidenced by bloggers Will and Paul opposite take on the South Lake Union Trolley. Both Will and Paul join me in studio for a no holds barred review/debate of Seattle’s idea of a mass transit system.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Another victory for Intelligent Design….

I talked with Sen. Brian Weinstein this afternoon and while he gave a lot of reasons for not seeking a second term — tired of “banging my head against the wall” on issues like the Homeowners Bill of rights, disgust at the recent special session, etc — he says his primary motivation is that he simply needs to make money again… a commentary on our “citizen legislature” that I think deserves a more in depth conversation. Far from bitter or defeated, Weinstein seemed genuinely cheerful at the turn of events, and gave credit to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown for bringing Fred Jarrett into the fold, a goal that had consistently eluded House Speaker Frank Chopp. Weinstein may not have always been the most politic politician, but he was passionately progressive, racking up one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. He’ll be missed. (At least by me.)

As for Jarrett, well, now that he has torn that scarlet letter from his chest and replaced it with a bright blue “D”, I feel free to divulge a little secret. Back in January of 2006, when it became apparent that no other experienced candidate was willing to get into the congressional race against Dave Reichert, I went to Jarrett and pleaded with him to seek the Democratic nomination. He simply responded that he was “too old,” and that as a state we needed to pursue a “seniority strategy” by electing a younger candidate, preferably mid 30’s, to be in a position to eventually fill Norm Dicks’ role in the delegation.

I liked Darcy Burner, but up until that point I’d always thought of her youth as a liability. Jarrett’s response got me thinking about the many unique advantages Burner would bring to the job, and when, a few weeks later I started to forcefully advocate for her election, I did so with unquestioned enthusiasm. It was an uphill battle for an unknown novice to challenge a sitting incumbent, but I was confident that if she won, Burner would serve her district and the state well.

A while later I approached Jarrett again, this time asking him to publicly endorse Burner, arguing that the support of a respected Republican like him could sway enough votes to swing a close election. I was reminded of that conversation while reading Jarrett’s quote to Postman today:

“I felt there was a strong tradition in the Republican Party that really couldn’t be lost. So what I’ve been doing as long as I’ve been in the Legislature is trying to articulate that moderate Republican, progressive Republican, viewpoint, and what I found is I may have a lot of ego, but I don’t think I have enough ego to think anymore that I can do it.”

That’s kinda what Jarrett told me a year and a half ago, though not exactly in those words. I don’t know if Jarrett ultimately voted for Burner, but I can tell you that endorsing her would have required him to switch parties, and he just wasn’t prepared to go that far at that time. This was his GOP, dammit, and he didn’t want to give it over to those bastards. At least, that was the impression I came away with at the time.

But times change, as do political parties, and I think it fair to say that the GOP left Jarrett long before he left it. Jarrett’s decision was years in the making, as was the political transformation that has been sweeping formerly Republican suburban districts nationwide. As I wrote back in November of 2004, even in the immediate wake of the deeply disappointing 2004 election, the path toward a Democratic majority was clear: subdivide and conquer.

Just like the Democrats lost their base in the South with their support of civil rights legislation in the sixties, the GOP risks alienating their moderate, suburban base by abandoning fiscal conservatism to focus on right-wing social issues at home, and military and economic imperialism abroad. The neo-cons may dominate the national Republican leadership, but they do not represent the majority of suburban voters.

Families move to places like Mercer Island for better public schools, cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods, and all the other public services that a higher property tax base provides. These are people who believe in government because they benefit from it every day, and they routinely tax themselves to pay for the services they want.

These are people with whom urban Democrats have common ground, and we have an opportunity to exploit the wedge the neo-cons have provided, to expand our base politically and geographically. For in addition to a shared belief that good government is necessary to maintaining a high quality of life, suburban and city voters have a mutual interest in maintaining an economically and culturally vibrant urban core.

Welcome home Fred.

Well, apparently, state Rep. Fred Jarrett is no longer my favorite Republican elected official.

Marking the end of an era in which the Republican Party once dominated Eastside politics, Jarrett will officially switch parties before the start of the 2008 session, while declaring his candidacy as a Democrat for the seat being vacated by Democratic state Senator Brian Weinstein.

Oh, did I mention Weinstein is stepping down after one term in office? It’s been a busy day.

For months rumors have swirled that Weinstein might not seek a second term, or that Jarrett might run for the seat regardless, but any hope of a GOP pick-up is erased by Jarrett’s long-overdue move across the aisle. Jarrett, the last remaining Eastside Republican legislator, has faced growing pressure in recent races despite his moderate voting record and well-earned popularity, but as a Democrat, he’s a virtual shoo-in. Meanwhile, Republicans face a daunting challenge in holding taking back the 41st LD House seat without the universally well-liked Jarrett on the ticket.

More coming….

No doubt Idaho’s GOP establishment has been shitting bricks over US Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig’s refusal to step down and allow the state party to appoint an heir apparent, but nobody really believes the Republicans risk losing this seat in this famously red state, do they? Well, according to a new survey conducted by Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners, um… maybe.

1. Idahoans are in the mood for change. Fifty-nine percent of voters believe that things in the United States are pretty seriously off on the wrong track. Only a quarter (26%) believe things are going in the right direction.

2. The Republican brand is in decline and a generic Democrat defeats a generic Republican. Forty-two percent of voters would vote for the Democrat in a hypothetical Senate race, compared to 36% who would support the Republican (21% are undecided). The Democrat leads by six points despite a 12-point Republican advantage in partisanship (40% Republican to 28% Democrat, 31% independent). Notably, voters criticize the job performance of President George Bush and Senator Larry Craig. Sixty-six percent of voters say Bush is doing either a just fair or poor job as President and only 33% say he is doing an excellent or good job. Craig is similarly critiqued: 56% just fair or poor, 37% excellent or good.

3. Jim Risch is not as strong as conventional wisdom dictates and Democrat Larry LaRocco is rated as popular. Asked to rate their feelings toward some people and organizations using a scale from 0-100, voters rate Risch a “56,” compared to LaRocco who scores a “57.” Despite his years as State Senate President Pro Tempore, and five years as Lt. Governor (including six months as Governor), the supposed Republican frontrunner has no advantage.

4. The data follows on the heels of two consecutive strong elections for Democrats in Idaho where voters have trended away from Republicans. In the 2006 State Legislative contests, Democrats managed to flip 6 State House seats from the Republican column. Additionally, Boise’s Democratic Mayor, Dave Bieter, won reelection this past November with 64% of the vote.

Sure, the poll was conducted on behalf of Democratic challenger Larry LaRocco and nobody is suggesting that he is even close to holding the upper hand, but Republicans would have to be nuts to write this seat off as an easy hold in such a volatile political climate. LaRocco is an impressive candidate — a likable economic populist in the mold of Montana’s Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester — and if he runs an equally impressive (and well financed) campaign, the GOP will be forced to respond in kind. This poses a particular dilemma for the NRSC, which trails its Democratic counterpart by a nearly three to one margin in cash on hand, but has many more seats at risk.

Republicans have 22 US Senate seats to defend in 2008, compared to only 12 for the Democrats, and of the 10 races uniformly considered competitive by Beltway pundits, only one (Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu) is currently held by a Democrat. If the NRSC finds itself spending money fending of LaRocco in Idaho, that’s money it won’t have available to spend defending, say, a very vulnerable Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, who has a field of credible Democrats vying to take him on next November. And if the NRSC ignores LaRocco, writing off Idaho as a gimme, well, they need only look to the House Republicans’ disastrous strategy in 2006 for a vivid illustration of the possible consequences.

Faced with tight resources and an exploding number of potentially competitive races in the final weeks of the campaign, the NRCC resorted to political triage, ceding first-tier races to the Democrats while assuming the third-tier “Republican favored” races would mostly fall their way. This left the NRCC free to focus most of its resources on the second tier, where it pulled out narrow victories in eight of nine high-profile races, including WA-08. Problem was, Republicans ended up losing not only all the first tier races, but all the third-tier races as well. The NRCC gambled and lost.

It may seem odd to suggest that the road to a 60-seat Democratic majority lies through traditionally red states like Idaho and Alaska of all places, but that’s the beauty of the 50-state strategy that worked so well in 2006. Washington voters may not have a US Senate race on their ballot next November, but there are two key contests on our borders, and both our media and our money will play a big role in determining the winners. Stay tuned.

UPDATE:
Well, that’s what I get for not reading Joan. The poll was actually conducted by Myers Research on behalf of Idaho Dem House member Nicole LeFavour, who was considering getting into the race. Joan’s got more details over on Daily Kos.

Yeah sure, Dan had it up on Slog first, but it was too good to resist….

Good thing for the incumbents on the Seattle City Council that my daughter is only ten, because if she was old enough to have a vote, they all surely just lost it. In unanimously voting to clear cut the Fun Forest at the end of 2009, the council may have freed up some valuable real estate for their gradual bourgeoisification of the Seattle Center, but in doing so, they’ve pissed off thousands of kids of all ages.

I’ve heard a lot of talk about making the city more family friendly, but apparently, it’s all just talk. Sure, the Fun Forest was dingy and cheesy and a bit of a calculated rip-off, but it didn’t require a grueling commute to a state fair, or an onerous admission fee and a strip-search for contraband food from the pocket fleecing folks at Wild Waves. Best of all, it was just one of many attractions at the Center, and as such could be “enjoyed” in small doses — a trip to the Science Center and/or the Children’s Museum, a splash in the fountain and a couple of rides — that was a full (and affordable) day of entertainment for a family with young children.

I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been in the EMP or Key Arena or the Space Needle or many of the other adult “attractions” the Center boasts, but the Fun Forest? Since my daughter rode her first roller coaster there at the tender age of two, it’s been a frequent destination. Sure, I sometimes kinda dread the inevitable question during nearly any Center visit, “Can we go on the rides?”… but I don’t think I’ve ever regretted caving in. And neither has my daughter.

Oh, I’m told the Fun Forest has been a money loser for years, but as a city we subsidize much stupider things, and while that shiny, new $52 million trolley might be nice, it sure ain’t no roller coaster. So before the council closes the book on this issue I urge them to take one last look at the Fun Forest through fresh eyes — the eyes of a child. Throughout my adult life I’ve been the occasional target of exasperated directives to “grow the hell up,” but it wouldn’t hurt occasionally for more folks to do the opposite.

From Daily Kos:

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: “I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.” What was in the family statement from the SBC? “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

The ad wasn’t just a blanket, “we support the SBC statement,” but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: “You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.”

Huh. If my wife had “submit[ted] herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband,” I suppose she never would have divorced me. Now that’s what I call a Defense of Marriage.