Easter, 1916
by William Butler Yeats

I

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

II

That woman’s days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terribly beauty is born.

III

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashed within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone’s in the midst of all.

IV

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven’s part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse –
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Tim Burgess is pushing a measure to outlaw panhandling near ATM’s, or parking meters. One of the reasons he says that people from the rest of the city and elsewhere are afraid to come downtown. “The visitors do not feel comfortable walking from their hotels, to the market, or catching the bus without being approached by many different panhandlers and street people along their route.” That may be, but I doubt that people asking for change near parking meters (aka, everywhere downtown) is really among the top concerns of downtown residents.

In the couple years I’ve lived downtown, I’ve seen countless things worse than yellie beggars who are pretty much anywhere on the street. And while much of it is already illegal, I think the city should probably deal with open drug dealing, and use, prostitution, late night noise, and drunks spilling out of clubs yelling “Wooooooooooooooooo” and getting into fights from before midnight to well past closing time on a Friday or Saturday night. (Just to be clear, I love living downtown, but there are problems.) Talking to other Belltown residents about the proposed law, the reaction has usually been somewhere between “it’s a war on homelessness” to “I guess it’s worth trying.” Personally, I’m against it, but not terribly so, but I haven’t heard anyone say that dealing with beggars is a high priority.

So while I applaud Burgess for at least trying, I still don’t feel represented on the council. I know, I know everybody represents me, and if I want something done, let someone on the relevant committee know. But I’m relatively well informed, and I have no idea who sits on what committee, or who among all of my supposed representatives on the city council would be receptive to downtown issues. I’d really prefer to have my council member, rather than having to guess who might be the most helpful when none of them seem to be.

There’s something about old media trying to do new media. Sometimes it works wonderfully, but usually it comes off as an editor heard about one of those “blogs” or “twitters” and asked the tech guy to set one up. The Seattle Times’ Ed Page blog falls into the later category. Infrequently updated, clearly not edited, and as biased toward the status quo as anything in print, the Ed cetera blog manages to combine the worst parts of blogs and newspapers in one convenient package.

They have a weekly feature, Civil Disagreements, where Lynne Varner representing as far left as the Times allows and Bruce Ramsey representing curmudgeonly libertarian basically agree on an issue and argue about the details. This week’s issue is the debt. Varner comes out strong saying yay for a toothless commission, I hope it recommends working the elderly to death:

The panel is expected to come up with a deficit reduction plan by Dec. 1. But the part of this commission’s charge I like best is their promise to recalibrate American expectations around money and social benefits. For example, one suggestion is to raise the age people can collect Social Security and slow the growth of those benefits. Another is raising taxes on a larger portion of the populace, those making under $200,000. It will be interesting to see what this group comes up with.

Work harder grandma! And tax increases targeted to lower income people. (I think that’s what she’s getting at, but “those making under $200,000” is a strange construction, I assume she means everyone making under $200,000.) You know liberalism. I’d prefer a 50% top marginal rate, but start it at incomes above $30 Million. These are made up numbers, of course, but something out of the range of normal Americans, or even their crazy expectations.

Shockingly Bruce Ramsey is less wrong. After pointing out that the toothless commission would probably be toothless, he says that it’s important to cut the deficit the right way. Although, it’s not a great solution either.

As for the ideas menationed [sic]: sure, some of them make sense. I’m a small-government guy, so I like spending cuts lots more than tax increases. If we keep the present Social Security system, it has to be balanced. And the best ways to do that are to allow the tax cap to rise faster and make the benefits formula less generous over time. I am not so high on raising the retirement age. It might work for desk jockeys like you and me, but blue collar workers are done by 67, and many of them well before that. You can’t expect an ironworker, a sheet metal worker, a pipefitter, etc, to work to age 70 in order to get full benefits. Anyway, if we’re going to cut payments from the government, let’s cut them to people who don’t work, not to people who worked a lifetime.

I’m not sure what exactly “it has to be balanced” means; Social Security is the largest part of the budget that isn’t swimming in red ink, it seems strange to focus on it. There is also no mention from either of them, why the deficit is more important than, say, job creation, or even desirable in a recession. Of course neither of them say if we want to balance the budget, we’re going to need to tax the people with the most money, shrink the military significantly (yes including Boeing’s contracts) and take concrete steps to grow the economy that probably include government spending in the short term.

If Evan Bayh had died, I guess I could understand this piece in the Seattle Times (and similar pieces throughout the print media and cable). But this seems pretty overwrought for someone who is going to retire to a nice corporate gig, and then maybe run for president in 6 years.

Democrat Bayh has politics in his bones. He was 6 when his father, Birch Bayh, was first elected to the Senate from Indiana. The younger Bayh served two terms and was twice on a shortlist of potential vice-presidential nominees. He is the ultimate moderate who aimed to work with Republicans and Democrats.

Yet the harsh partisanship of the Senate wore him down — a strong signal our country is at the low ebb of its politics.

It’s a strange definition of moderate that includes war monger, corporate lackey who literally was in bed with lobbyists but was willing to throw regular people to the wolves. Of course, that’s the kind of thing we’ve been hearing from a media that has long confused moderation with capitulation.

The most extreme version of this in recent times was when Bush was in charge and making war for no reason, “moderates” like Bayh helped him and “extremists” were for peace. But even under Obama, it’s extreme to want single payer health care, but moderate to be fine with a status quo that results in over 44,000 adult deaths and all sorts of other nasty complications.

If that’s moderate, call me extreme any day.

A couple weeks ago Lee put up a post attempting to extrapolate data on how Washington State might feel about reforming our marijuana laws from a national survey. As it turns out, I was at a meet and greet with the 36th legislative district legislators, and during Q&A someone asked Mary Lou Dickerson about her proposed law to legalize Marijuana, and after she said her piece, she asked a representative of the ACLU of Washington to say a few words, and she mentioned that they had conducted a poll a while ago.

The poll was taken in 2006 among 1200 registered voters in WA with a sampling error of +/- 2.8%. The question was asked at the beginning and end of the poll.

Some people think we should make marijuana legal for adults while others say we should not. In your view, should we a) continue to send adults to jail for marijuana possession, b) make marijuana possession a finable non-criminal offense, or c) make marijuana possession LEGAL for adults?

In the beginning the results were:

Continue to send adults to jail for marijuana possession………………………………….. 29%
Make marijuana possession a finable non-criminal offense ……………………………… 30%
Make marijuana possession LEGAL for adults ………………………………………………. 37%
Don’t know……………….4%

And at the end:

Continue to send adults to jail for marijuana possession………………………………….. 22%
Make marijuana possession a finable non-criminal offense ……………………………… 34%
Make marijuana possession LEGAL for adults ………………………………………………. 40%
Don’t know………………………….4%

More recently they asked just people in Puget Sound counties 2008. 500 registered voters +/- 4.5% and they only asked the question once.

Continue to send adults to jail for marijuana possession………………………………….. 26%
Make marijuana possession a finable non-criminal offense ……………………………… 33%
Make marijuana possession LEGAL for adults ………………………………………………. 32%
Don’t know……………………. 10%

So, a couple caveats: obviously the poll is for an organization that’s pushing specific policies. While I don’t think the Washington ACLU is in the business of deluding themselves, I wouldn’t have heard of it, and I don’t know if they’d have let me see it if there had been a lot of support for locking people up. Also, obviously, one statewide poll and one poll of a region in the state are hardly conclusive of how an initiative campaign or legislative session might play out.

…Argh. Insert not very funny posting while high joke here (although in reality worse, just sloppy writing, and poor editing and trying to rush it out). The polls got reversed in the original post, and this has been updated significantly for clarity and my being an idiot.

6:41 I’m in a mostly empty auditorium as people filter into McGinn’s last (?) town hall of the transition. There are a few kids hula hooping on stage, and people gossiping a 5 rows in front of me. I guess the event starts in 20 minutes or so, and I’ll update with interesting questions and answers as they happen.

6:53 Still waiting for any action, and I want to discuss McGinn staying in the community since his election. There is a lot about the transition that has been a bit off kilter, but by far and away McGinn still doing townhalls, still soliciting questions from the community, still being involved is marvelous, and I hope he keeps doing these sort of things as mayor.

Also, I should note fairly early on if other events are any indication, my notes are going to be incomplete because I don’t type as fast as people talk, and inaccurate because I’m sure I’ll miss things. I apologize in advance.

7:00 We’re about a quarter full now, and no sign of starting. But I’d like to give kudos to the event organizers for finding a place where my ClearWire works. Much better than on that score than Hillary or Governor Gergoire’s campaigns.

7:09 The Mayor Elect is wearing a tie (as am I, I’m coming from work). The last time I saw him at an event he had an open collar. And at least at this event, no obvious bike hair, or at least not obvious from the second to last row. Any way, it should start soon, and then less goofball nonsense from me, and more substance.

7:14 Same kids hula hooping, they’re doing a great job rallying the crowd. By being adorable. Seriously, we’re totally starting soon, I think. And I can’t believe I forgot my camera again.

7:28 McGinn is opening the meeting: Where we are and our objectives. Election’s over, and on January 1st he officially becomes mayor (applause) so now we’re in transition where we get from the heat and action of the campaign so we have to build a good team and chose priorities and get off on the right foot to accomplish change.

The goal is to hear from everybody not just the team. So doing community outreach: inviting people, and collecting information from activists. Put up a website, and put on town halls. We invite you to invite other people to submit information to see what that tells us to do next.

What do we do first: We want to hear ideas, and we want to know where to start because it’s important to do the right things first. We want to know what’s important and what to work on. We’ve appointed transition facilitators, 2 deputy mayors and a chief of staff. Those are the top layer of leadership, feel free to communicate with us during the transition. That’s the big picture, I’ve probably spoken too long, tonight I want to hear people’s views, and I’ll probably say a few things during the meeting, but tonight is for us to listen to you.

7:31 Darryl Smith is saying you can go to: ideasforseattle.org and new.seattle.gov for ideas, if you’re interested in feedback.

7:37 First Question: I see the differences between schools in the North End and the South End I’m concerned about jobs. There aren’t employment opportunity in Southeast Seattle I want a community college in Southeast Seattle to have educational values and have jobs in the community.

These are more listening, so I may not post every question/comment. [updating later to note that these are questions, and I love most of them, some live from the audience some on cards]

7:48 Building team I hear a lot about racial equity and economic opportunity. I don’t see that explicitly said. So here’s my question: Children and families are struggling. Low income children and family. What can we do and what is the obligation of the city?

7:50 One of the most pressing issues in the city is gentrification, specifically the displacement in the city. The other question is Seattle has the most well educated baristas in the United States. We’ve got low paying jobs, and what can be done to create jobs?

7:53 Will it be possible to have more public housing? People can’t afford a mortgage in the immigrant and refugee community.

7:58 I work at a homeless shelter downtown for single women, and I have to turn away single women. All the emergency family centers are full, we need to have more shelters because we’re turning too many people away.

8:00 I am very concerned about and would like to recommend a department that deals with civil rights and social issues. I think it would be a department that would expedite information to you, and one that would be beneficial to you and to various communities that comprise the city.

8:05 Youth violence: We see a lot of money being spent in the name of the youth, but not a lot of people are seeing the benefits. In a tight budget situation, we need to support grassroots organizations directions like the Rainier Beach Youth Initiative and youth sports, and Seattle vocational initiative. We need transitional housing for youth. Mother’s Reach Outreach, Black on Black Crime Coalition are getting the short end of the stick when the budget is getting cut.

8:06 How do you build a better relation between SPD and the community?

8:12 Transportation is important to me. The one thing I want to do is walk my children to school on sidewalks. 2 out of 3 most direct routes in the school are scary. Sometimes these things seem like small things, but it’s really big for children and all aspects of our population.

8:23 McGinn: If I jumped up to respond to every comment, we wouldn’t have heard as much.

It’s valuable to hear from people directly. Sidewalks are important to me. Knowing your children can be safe outside is a big thing.

This is the first time I’ve ever been a candidate. I learned about being a candidate. When you go in public, and people hear about what they care about, something happens. We’ll do our best to keep this open.

What we’re trying to do right now is see what the priorities are. Issues of inequity. We see statistics around employment, arrest rates and housing are shocking, we must improve on the work in the prior administration.

The economy means that we’re getting less money in the door and we have more needs. Transit and safe neighborhood for everyone are critical.

We’re going to have to ask the community to do more. But the community wants to do more. Around youth. Around facilities. Education, sports, arts etc. We have to partner with the community better than we have in the past. I’m going to ask you to hold us accountable.

Issues around transportation will remain large. Job creation generally and youth jobs are the types of initiatives we’ll come up with. That’s about where we are right now. We know we’re up to the challenges we face. They’re difficult but people show up and we’re going to work with you.

UPDATE [Lee]: Bumping up to the top.

4 Pierce County police officers shot dead outside Parkland:

The officers were sitting in the coffee shop with their computers out when the shooter came in. The officers were targeted, and it was not a robbery, investigators believe.

[…]

“It looks like a flat-out ambush,” Troyer said. “Some one came in and opened fire.

The baristas who were inside the shop are “stunned and shocked, traumatized,” Troyer said.

A $10,000 reward has been offered for information in the killings. The amount is expected rise, Troyer said.

“The first one to call with information gets it,” he said.

Sorry to use so much of the Trib’s post without adding much but I thought there ought to be a thread.

… The tip line if anyone reading has any information: (253) 591-5959

So, how’d that endorsing Joe Mallahan go? Oh right, he was ahead until you, the Seattle Times, and the rest of the Seattle bashing institutional players decided to get involved. How’d that work out for you?

Sorry, there won’t be any more gloating in this letter: it’s for advise. If you stop screwing Seattle, then maybe we’ll be more receptive to hearing you out in the future. Perhaps if you’d dedicated less of your time last session trying to stick us with a bill for tunnel we didn’t really want, we’d be more receptive to your endorsements. But when the theme of the last session was any State DOT overruns should be paid for by Seattle taxpayers, how do you expect that not to come up in a campaign the following year?

Simply put, you aren’t that popular with Seattle right now.

Don’t get me wrong, if you run for a third term and survive a primary challenge, Seattle will put aside our differences and support you pretty overwhelmingly. But you might want to consider how difficult it may be to get support in the city if there is a primary. Or support as a city is earned, and shouldn’t be assumed.

Kiss kiss,
Carl Ballard

I think the Post Globe has been the best thing to rise out of the former P-I. And I generally like this piece on McGinn’s final town halls (incidentally, I’ve been making calls for McGinn, and the last time I did, we were pushing undecided voters to one of the town halls). Still, this piece of conventional wisdom repeating was a little disappointing.

Surprisingly, McGinn wasn’t asked about what Mallahan in particular has been describing as his flip flop over the viaduct.

Why are you surprised? First off, these are undecided voters. The people who are passionate about the tunnel one way or the other, who would ask that as their only question at a town hall (even in West Seattle) have made up their mind about the mayor’s race. They’ve got better things to do on a Saturday.

More important though, nobody outside of the political class thinks that the tunnel is the issue of the campaign. Sure it’s important, and it’s where one of the biggest distinctions can be drawn. But people are more concerned with, for example, crime and education than they are about a few miles of a state highway.

But of course, reporters who drive into Belltown from all across the region and leave before the crackheads come out probably put a higher emphasis on traffic on 99 than on crime in the city. And if they’re sending their children to Bellevue or Edmonds public schools, they probably don’t care as much about education as a parent worried about the quality of their neighborhood school. In fact, they’re more likely to laugh off McGinn’s education plans as unrealistic or someone else’s job.

Still, reporters, in these last few days of the campaign, please don’t be surprised that people care about more than just the tunnel. Don’t be surprised that Seattle voters care about rising crime, or that we care about the cultural institutions of the city, and dealing with the dropout problem. Please consider that whoever we support, we might care about parks and neighborhoods. Please also understand that we think transportation is more than just the Viaduct: that we want improved bike lanes, better mass transit, and a road system that works throughout the city.

In their endorsement of Susan Hutchison, the Seattle Times told us that it was important for the county to, “act more like private-sector businesses.” Now, ignore that the county and businesses have fundamentally different jobs, so they should be run differently. Also, ignore the fact that the Times’ advice – hire someone with no experience, don’t look at new ways of finding revenue, and don’t even consider running a deficit – would be terrible advice for a business during a recession.

No, what I’m more concerned about is: who the fuck is the Seattle Times to tell anyone how to run a business? The Seattle Times that’s mired in debt? The Seattle Times that in recent years has lost most of its value. The Seattle Times who rumors are always circulating about their bankruptcy? They’re the ones who want to tell the county how to be more like a business?

I mean shit, if King County was run like The Seattle Times’ business, they’d buy worthless county property in Maine. Maybe hire Kurt Triplett’s kid to head up a major department even if he wasn’t really competent.

Now, you may think this is unfair. After all, there’s a line between the content and business sides of the paper. Normally, I’d think that was a reasonable point, if not necessarily a convincing one. But when the publisher is dictating content, it’s fair to ask how that content lines up with what that publisher does.

Check out Joe Copeland at the Post Globe.

But the council endorsements underline the odd disconnect between a very progressive city population and how its only remaining daily paper’s editorial page, at least on – one guesses – issues in which the Blethen family ownership makes its views known. The council editorial started by almost holding the editorial board’s collective nose to support the re-election of Richard Conlin, who is quietly brilliant on environmental issues. “It’s not that we agree with Conlin often; we don’t,” the editorial proclaims. They go on to cite his reversal of position on an employee head tax, something the chamber is dying to end and Conlin now thinks was a bad idea.

More confusingly, The Times writes, “His challenger, David Ginsberg, shares many of the same values. The key difference is who is more enthusiastic about environmental sustainability — not much of a differentiation at all. Ginsberg is in more of a hurry, which comes off as naive.” Maybe that means The Times doesn’t like the green Conlin, but at least he is in less of a rush about sustainability? But does The Times really have a problem with Conlin’s environmental positions? This summer, the editorial board had the good sense to endorse – unsuccessfully – the grocery store bag tax this summer.

When you pay for a trip on the Central Link light rail, the machine makes change in dollar coins. Will wrote about the coins a while ago. They’re going through all the presidents. Recently I got me a John Tyler, and I couldn’t help but think that maybe America shouldn’t be celebrating someone who supported the treason side in the Civil War.

There have been some shitty presidents, and maybe we shouldn’t be honoring Tyler, Nixon, Reagan, Truman, Hoover, either Bush or the whole host of corrupt Republican presidents between Grant and Harding or asleep at the wheel presidents before the civil war. Not to mention the assortment of slave owners and the trail of tears guy on the money now. At the very least though, why are we celebrating the one who committed treason?

The war in Afghanistan is probably the biggest pitfall for President Obama and for US foreign policy in general. It’s past time we got out, and two of the blogs I read regularly had some important posts that you should go read now.

Glenn Greenwald:

Does that sound like a stirring appeal to urgent national security interests? Why should we continue to kill both Afghan civilians and our own troops and pour billions of dollars into that country indefinitely? Because “there’s a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency approach will yield something better than stalemate.” One can almost hear the yawning as the Post Editors call for more war. We don’t need to pretend any more that war, bombing and occupation of other countries is indispensable to protecting ourselves; as long as “there’s a reasonable chance it will yield something better than stalemate,” it should continue into its tenth, eleventh, twelfth year and beyond.

Of course, the reason the Post editors and their war-loving comrades can so blithely advocate more war is because it doesn’t affect them in any way. They’re not the ones whose homes are being air-bombed and whose limbs are being blown off. That’s nothing new; here’s George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, describing (without knowing) Fred Hiatt in 1938:

The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.

Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.

And Shaun at Upper Left (emphasis in the original):

How, I wonder, can you be in favor of having any force, necessary and/or reasonable, if you don’t first know what victory is and how we will achieve it. Isn’t the size of the force, it’s need and rationality, dependent on the goal, the definition of victory?

They say the memory is the second thing to go, and I’m getting on, but as I remember we entered Afghanistan with three identifiable and arguably defensible goals. The first was to destroy it’s capacity as a training and operational base for Al Qaeda. We accomplished that swiftly and handily. The second was to punish the Taliban government that had given them safe harbor by deposing them. That, too, was the matter of a brief and decisive battle. Finally, in the wake of an unconscionable attack on American sovereign territory and the death and destruction attendant to those attacks, we set out to kill or capture as much of the Al Qaeda high command as possible, and in particular their spokesman, strategist and financier, Osama Bin Laden.

The second goal, though apparently swiftly achieved, continues to be a stumbling block for adherents of the disgraced former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule.” The rule fails in Afghanistan, though, because we didn’t break it. It’s been broken for centuries, and centuries of outside interference have caused the debris to spread far beyond Afghani borders. Some of it spilled into ours, and we swept it out of our path. If Afghanistan were to organize itself in such a way that it could accept and distribute humanitarian aid, it would certainly be a candidate with other countries that receive American largesse, whether publicly or privately provided. The level of American military force that would be required in order to effect and enforce such an organization of Afghanistan, though, in time, treasure and blood, would defy any possible conception of “within reason.” Its impossibility, by the same token, renders its need moot. We didn’t break it. We needn’t buy it. And we’re only making it worse.

And while you’re over at Shaun’s place, you ought to read all the posts he’s been doing on Afghanistan.

Goldy and I believe the exact opposite thing about the possibility of Ed Murray running for Mayor. While I would absolutely support Ed if he decided to mount a write in campaign, I hope he sits it out. I voted for McGinn in the primary, although “for” is probably too strong a word: I voted against that self funded asshole, Mallahan. I wouldn’t say it was the strategic decision described here, McGinn did make the best case for the next 4 years, and was the least reflexively corporate whore of the pack.

Mike McGinn would definitely be a better mayor for the environment, and for public transportation than Mallahan. Less concretely, he would not feel the same sense of entitlement as someone who bought his way into the office. The liberal position ought first and foremost be to beat back Mallahan, and the polling shows Ed Murray in second right now to Mallahan; he’s probably taking away more votes from McGinn. Although you can ask the right questions and get Murray up to first, that won’t be how the write in ballot is worded.

So while I hope he sits this one out, I’ll also gladly support Senator Murray if he does make the foolhardy decision to run. While I don’t always agree with him, Ed Murray is one of the few politicians I trust in this state to have people’s best interest at heart, and he’s the only member of the Seattle delegation in Olympia I’d be sad to see lose a primary. He has been a real champion for education and for public transit, two things that the delegation is bad at in general. Of course his work on gay rights has been outstanding.

In November, I’d hate to both have Mallahan as mayor and to say I didn’t do everything to elect an actual liberal, so if Murray runs, I’ll do my damndest to get him into office. If not, it’s McGinn all the way. Still, I’d like to have someone to vote for, not just someone to be against.

The quesadillas were shockingly good for an Irish place. What no boiled meat and cabbage? Oh, also he seems to have a ticket through the primary.

Hutchison…………37.40%
Constantine………22.38%
Jarrett…………….12.04%
Phillips…………….11.72%
Hunter…………….10.90%

I’m sure a new set of numbers will drop as soon as I hit publish, but there you go as of right now.