Goldy

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmOyaWaEwNk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Genesis 4:13-18

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,  east of Eden.

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

Discuss.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtNxpn6NltU[/youtube]

I’m kinda busy today on a side project, but over on Slog I’ve posted a rather massive piece I’ve been working over the last few days, in which I ask, is Rep. Dave Reichert brain-damaged?

And I’m not asking it in a snarky, mean-spirited, metaphorical sense. I’m asking it literally, based on medical literature and recent events that suggest that Reichert’s brain may actually be damaged.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Reichert’s hand-sized cerebral blood clot is necessarily an indication of prior brain atrophy or wasting, or that such a severe head injury, untreated as it was for two months, would have certainly caused permanent impairment.

[…] But extended or even permanent impairment is far from out of the question … thus it is not unreasonable to expect that a brain trauma as severe as that described by Reichert, in a man of his age, and untreated for so long, could very well have resulted in some degree of permanent neurological impairment.

You’ll need to read the whole thing for the background, but I ask you, if President Obama had suffered a similar injury, and then gave an interview like the one in the clip above, don’t you think this would be the number one story on talk radio and cable news?

I’m just sayin’.

Dino Rossi has released four TV ads (as opposed to those anti-Murray ads from IE campaigns that flooded the airwaves prior to Labor Day), but his latest is the first not to feature him narrating on camera.

Why? Perhaps because it’s relentlessly negative, and those aren’t the kinda words you want to put in the mouth of the candidate. But perhaps also, focus groups found Rossi a little, I dunno… creepy?

In any case, I never really thought those ads worked. And apparently Rossi’s media strategists agree.

I know it’s the age-old home gardener’s dilemma this time of year, but does anybody have any good ideas as to what to do with my abundance of zucchini… you know, other than this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOHdN8sdnwc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Now that’s a shit-kicker of a political ad.

Oh yeah, I did another post on Slog today: “Dino Rossi: Careless or Carefree?”

There’s been a lot of talk in recent weeks about some of Dino Rossi’s more boneheaded flubs. … Some have chalked off Rossi’s curious statements to strategy, others to a doctrinaire conservative ideology. But I have an alternate theory that I find at least as plausible: perhaps Dino Rossi just doesn’t care?

As always, read the whole thing.

The KING-5/SurveyUSA poll continues to be the most Dino Rossi-friendly poll in Washington state, but even the latest one reports a nine point swing in Sen. Patty Murray’s favor, giving her a 50-48% lead.

That said, I’m still not so sure about those cross-tabs. This new poll still only shows Murray with 52% of the “Metro Seattle” vote, up from a totally unbelievable 48% one month ago. By comparison, the final SurveyUSA poll of the 2004 season showed Murray with 58% of the Metro Seattle vote, while she ultimately went on to win over 65% of the King County vote on election day.

I’m not sure exactly how SurveyUSA defines “Metro Seattle,” but it’s sure as hell hard to imagine Murray winning only 52% of it.

Just got back from doing an interview with FOX News on I-1098. Yeah, I know, that makes me a media whore. But I heard they were interviewing 710-KIRO sports talker Dori Monson too, and I just wanted to bring him down to my level.

Anyway, I don’t have cable, and wouldn’t watch FOX News if I did, so on the odd chance any of my readers are watching Monday when the segment airs, I’d appreciate hearing back as to which clip they used.

According to our critics, bloggers like me aren’t really very good journalists. We’re partisan, we’re selective, and we don’t do our own reporting. Get your news from real journalists, like those at the Seattle Times, and you’ll come away much better informed.

Or will you?

Take this morning’s article on a plumbing screwup at Washington State Ferries headquarters, a story that’s making the top of the hour news on radio stations across the region: “Water fountains fed by heating, cooling systems found in ferries headquarters.”

Oh man… figures, doesn’t it? And you can see that instant, angry, government/union-bashing reaction in the comment thread on the Times website:

“This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, were talking Washington State Ferry System they have trouble keeping their ferries running.”

“Probably hooked up by the state Ferry engineers.”

“Wonderful that the State requires union workers paid union wages on contracts and this is what we get. But I’m sure the union will step right in and protect the lazy plumber who did this by saying they need ‘more training’.”

Only problem is, while none of the facts in the article appear to be obviously wrong (because apart from the addition of an administrator’s quote, all of the facts seem to have been pulled from a WSDOT press release), the Times article gave its government-hating readers exactly the wrong impression.

This wasn’t a screwup on the part of lazy/incompetent public employees, but rather the private sector.

For what the Times leaves out is that the building is owned and operated by Seattle uber-landlord Martin Selig, and that the water fountains were installed two-years before the Ferries moved into the building, not by union plumbers, but by a small, mom & pop, Kirkland-based contractor.

The Ferries and their workers were victims here, not the perpetrators. But you wouldn’t guess that from the Times’ factual reporting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayCmNlo80a4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6saBwHM6VM[/youtube]

While most of the rest of the media, local and national, have so far been unwilling to mess with the accepted narrative, the folks at Talking Points Memo at least are acknowledging what’s been obvious on the ground for quite some time: Sen. Patty Murray just ain’t all that vulnerable.

While the political earth shifts around her, Sen. Patty Murray appears to have grounded herself in Washington state. While the national press largely passes her race by, Murray — who at the start of the summer was, according to conventional wisdom, a Vulnerable Democrat — appears to have built the momentum she needs to comfortably compete for a third term.

[…] If Murray was the Vulnerable Democrat in the original Washington state narrative, Rossi was (in the view of most Republican establishment figures) the ideal Formidable Opponent to defeat her. But as election season has proceeded, that storyline has proven to be more and more far-fetched. Murray, quite simply, is winning while Rossi is losing. And it’s been that way for awhile.

TPM goes on to graph the polling averages, emphasizing that the polls have been trending in Murray’s favor for quite some time. And while it’s still close, yeah, filter out that clearly bogus SurveyUSA outlier, and not quite so much.

So what’s to blame for Rossi’s lackluster performance at the polls? Well, one factor might be his lackluster performance on the campaign trail. Indeed, to say that his campaign is in disarray would imply a level of energy and passion, even negative, that Rossi has never been able to muster this cycle.

To paraphrase Clint Didier (the quote escapes me at the moment) before voters get excited about Rossi, Rossi is going to have to get excited about Rossi. And so far, we just haven’t seen that happen.

The 31st officially became the stupidest, most pathetic and most completely dysfunctional legislative district in Washington state yesterday, as three “prominent” Democrats (you know, about as prominent as a Democrat can be in cousin-marryin’ country) issued a press release announcing their endorsement of too-crazy-even-for-the-Republican-caucus state Sen. Pam Roach. Really.

So what prompted Yvonne Ward, Karen Willard and state Rep. Chris Hurst to make such a “painful and necessary” decision? Well, Sen. Roach may in fact be a gun-toting, mouth-foaming, flower-avenging wingnut, but unlike her general election challenger, fellow Republican Matt Richardson, at least she doesn’t, um, “sexually assault” young girls.

You know… allegedly. The Tacoma News Tribune felt too “uncomfortable” to repeat the Democrats’ charges, but lacking an attorney on retainer to advise me otherwise, I have no qualms about reporting the public statement of an elected official:

After carefully reviewing the extensive documentation relating to the criminal behavior of Matt Richardson extending back many years, we conclude that if he were elected to the Washington State Senate, the safety of children would be at risk.  Matt Richardson was charged with sexually assaulting two young girls over multiple years.  He pled guilty to the charges.  He then engaged in a pattern of seeking positions in schools with young children while hiding his history.

According to a criminal Affidavit of Probable Cause, Matt Richardson engaged in a persistent, ongoing sexual assault of two young girls.  After this incident, he engaged in inappropriate behavior in public school classrooms.  That pattern should stop at the steps of our Capitol.

Um… ya think? Finally, an issue on which Rep. Hurst and I can wholeheartedly agree.

Democratic State Representative Christopher Hurst, when faced with the prospect of a child molester in the State Capitol stated:  “Spirited political debate is a healthy process in our system of self-government.  However, there are times when a moral imperative becomes so great that it is necessary to set aside partisan differences in the interest of public safety.  This is one of those times.”

It certainly is. Though it’s a kinda ironic sentiment coming from a self-proclaimed “Independent Democrat” who tends to side more with Republican legislators than with his own caucus. Still, I think we can all join Rep. Hurst in his bold stance against electing child molesters to the Legislature.

As for Ward, who has long opposed Sen. Roach, and whose campaign for Roach’s seat I aggressively plugged here on HA in 2006, well, it’s hard to argue with her logic:

“I disagree with her on so many policy issues. But given the choice between a conservative Republican, and a conservative Republican with a history of sexual assaults against children, Pam Roach gets my vote.”

Hmm. Perhaps that should be Roach’s new campaign slogan. I can see the yard signs now.

Via email, Ward added that “painful” is too much of an understatement to describe her decision to endorse Roach; “torturous” would be more apt.

“Roach is like a cat with nine lives. Just when the stars seem to align so she can be ousted, her opponent turns out to be a child molester. Amazing.”

Yeah, I guess. But Richardson’s sexual assault conviction and classroom firing were public records, both of which have been previously reported in the press (so I’m not sure what’s provoked the TNT’s sudden disquietude), thus the bigger question here is… could the 31st LD Dems be any more incompetent?

I mean, when the Republicans put up a child molester and Pam Fucking Roach for chrisakes, the Dems might want to look at this as an opportunity to lock themselves in a room until they can agree to unite around a single Democrat, instead of suicidally splitting themselves between Ron Weigelt and Raymond Bunk the way they did. And then, once you settle on a Democratic challenger, you do a little goddamn opposition research and get this treasure trove of Richardson related muck to nasty-ass partisan bloggers like me weeks before the August top-two primary, instead of emailing me a press release weeks after.

Sen. Roach may be a shooting rampage waiting to happen, but at least she knows how to win a fucking election by cutting her opponents legs off at the knees and then sucking the marrow from his bloody stumps. Um, metaphorically.

And that’s a lesson the 31st LD Dems might want to learn if they ever want to send another Democrat to Olympia.

There are different kinds of laws.

There are the laws of nature. There are the laws of man. And some would argue that there are the laws of God.

But here in Washington state, we also have the laws of Rob McKenna.

HA regulars are well familiar with our Attorney General’s efforts to redefine both the scope and obligations of his office, so it should come as no surprise to see McKenna’s imaginative approach to the law applied to more mundane issues, for example, our state’s formula for calculating increases in the minimum wage:

The state Department of Labor and Industries asked Attorney General Rob McKenna if the state would be able to increase the minimum wage if inflation increases, but not above the level the current rate is based upon. In an opinion issued Wednesday, McKenna said no.

See, in accordance with 1998’s Initiative 688, Washington state’s minimum wage is increased annually by the rate of inflation, specifically the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Last year the CPI-W actually decreased, so the minimum wage remained flat. This year the CPI-W is expected to increase slightly, but not by the amount it decreased the previous year. So McKenna says no minimum wage increase.

But what does the law actually say?

(b) On September 30, 2000, and on each following September 30th, the department of labor and industries shall calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation. The adjusted minimum wage rate shall be calculated to the nearest cent using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index, for the twelve months prior to each September 1st as calculated by the United States department of labor. Each adjusted minimum wage rate calculated under this subsection (4)(b) takes effect on the following January 1st.

I’m no lawyer, but the language seems plain… so plain that it actually describes a mathematical formula that a software programmer might express as something like this:

if (CPIW > 0)
then mWage := mWage + (mWage * CPIW);

The if statement is necessary because the statute specifically uses the word “increasing” not “adjusting” or something like that. I suppose one might theoretically argue that the plain language of the statute permits increasing the minimum wage by a negative amount, but that’s not McKenna’s argument; if it were, then the minimum wage should have decreased from 2009 to 2010. It didn’t.

No, in his opinion, McKenna argues that the tension between the words “maintain” and “increasing” makes the statute’s language ambiguous, going to great lengths to confuse the matter by engaging in a bunch of mathematical gobbledygook, culminating in his adoption of an entirely extra-statutory “index-ratcheted calculation.”  McKenna also asserts that the statute does not define an actual formula for adjusting the minimum wage, when in fact the use of the word “by” in constructing the sentence clearly denotes a course of action: “by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation.”

Q: How shall L&I “calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power”…?
A: “by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation,” that’s how.

That’s what the word “by” in this context means; the clause following it describes the method for achieving the intent stated in the clause that precedes it.

mWage := mWage + (mWage * CPIW);

Perhaps there is indeed a tension between the stated method and the stated intent, but the method is perfectly clear, despite McKenna’s elaborate effort to distract the reader with formulas and graphs… so clear that Oregon, which modeled its statute after ours, has already announced that its minimum wage will rise. One could even make a perfectly reasonable argument that the statute should behave as McKenna claims it does… but if so… well… that’s the sorta stuff that happens when we legislate via citizens initiative, and if the Legislature agrees that the statute needs to be fixed, they are always free to do so.

But Attorney General Rob McKenna should not be free to reinterpret the law by fiat.