Let me start this post by pointing out that I don’t believe all Republicans are deranged morons. I mean, I personally know some individual Republicans who are terrific people. But Republicans are limping with a couple of achilles heals right now.

Nationally, the Republicans have been hijacked, derailed, used, abused, snookered, and tarnished by BushCo and his neocon sidekicks. Maybe they’ll recover sometime in the next two or three decades. But much damage has been done.

In Washington state, Republicans have a different sort of problem. Their most prominent members are a bunch of tricksters:

[T]he state Republicans have lost standing with voters following a string of stunts, pranks, and dirty tricks. Voters have watched the Sotelo voter challenges, the sex offender postcards, Tim Eyman and his right-wing initiatives, the John Birchers and their right-wing initiatives, the secretive U.S. Chamber of Commerce hit on Deborah Senn (not really state GOP, but it worked for their side), and even the election contest with all of the “election fraud” hyperbole, BIAW “signature checks,” and Rossi dissing the Supreme Court. The Washington State Republicans come off looking like jealous tricksters trying to snatch power away from the Democrats by any means available except by honestly winning elections.

(And, man, are they ever sore losers after defeat in a close election!)

On Thursday the Washington state House Republicans did it again:

House Republicans lambasted trial lawyers during raucous debate Thursday but when one lawmaker singled out the Democratic House majority leader’s husband for scorn, the place erupted in shouts.
[…]

Rep. Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake, said it is “very, very concerning” that only trial lawyers are pushing the bill.

“This is not for the consumers,” he said. “This will increase costs to the consumer. It is a sad day.”

After being gaveled down for impugning the sponsors’ motives, he said, “Look out! The train is coming through! The Keith Kessler train is coming through and you better get out of the way.”

“Whooo woooo!” Roach cried, mimicking a train conductor tooting a whistle.

Keith Kessler is one of the state’s most prominent trial lawyers, a former president of the state trial lawyers and the husband of House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam.

Lovick sternly admonished Roach again for breaking House rules of decorum. Lawmakers aren’t supposed to refer to colleagues by name or criticize members’ families.

(* Sigh *). This isn’t really going to help the Republicans shake their image as a bunch of angry goofsters.

Rep. Dan Roach is, of course, the son of crazy-wacko, “who moved my roses?”, anal obsessive Sen. Pam Roach. He is also the brother of drug-dealin’, convicted felon and early parolee Stephen Roach.

So…um…I’m wondering. Do they do random drug testing for state Representatives? I mean…this seems like the kind of wacky shit that comes from being all hopped-up on goofballs or something.

(Cross posted at Hominidviews.)

In a surprise announcement on Saturday evening, Congressman Dave Reichert declared that he has switched political parties. “The time is right for me to switch to the Democrat Par…I mean, the Democratic Party,” said Riechert who represents Washington’s 8th congressional district. “This is a move I’ve considered seriously since early last November, when I suddenly realized my independent-minded values were more in line with those of the Democrats. As my critics have pointed out, I’ve increasingly become indecisive, and that is a reflection of the inner conflict.”

When asked why he waited nearly six months to make the change, Reichert responded, “I was waiting for the right time. Today is Joel Connelly’s birthday, and I guess I saved it as a birthday surprise for him.” Also, my investigations of global warming are now complete. I’m convinced that Al Gore is right—we really do need to be manufacturing and dropping giant ice cubes into the ocean.”

Reichert’s former spokesperson Kimberly Cadena resigned last week fueling speculation that the Congressman might be considering a jump to the Democratic party. Reichert announced that Cadena will be replaced by Sandeep Kaushik, currently the part-time Deputy Communications Director for King County Executive Ron Sims.

When asked about the reaction of his former Republican colleagues Reichert replied, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I’ve stared down the barrel of a loaded pistol and saw my name inscribed on the tip of the bullet…you can believe I can stare into the eyes of any disgruntled Republican colleague without flinching.”

Reichert told reporters that his first priority as a new Democrat will be to “figure out how they want me to vote.” Reichert also expected he might be called upon to personally provide security for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08). “I moonlighted a bit as a Republican in protecting her footwear. Now, if she wants me to, I’ll be acting more as a personal sheriff for the Speaker. And let me be clear, here, that school bus drivers are on notice—you respect the Speaker because this sheriff is watching.”

Rep. Pelosi was not available for comment.

This morning on KUOW’s Weekday the topic of discussion was “Who Won in Iraq?” Steve Scher’s first guest was Neocon posterchild David Frum. While Frum was discussing Iraqi deaths, he rather casually threw out the statement (at 8:14) that “the Lancet study [of Iraqi mortality] has been pretty thoroughly discredited.”

No, Mr. Frum, it hasn’t.

The Lancet study has been widely misunderstood, but not discredited. There are many batshit crazy neocons like Mr. Frum who wish, in their heart of hearts, that the grim reality uncovered by the Lancet study wasn’t so. But, if wishes were horses, neocons could ride…in a new crusade to world dominance….

The Lancet study [Burnham et al. (2006) Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:a cross-sectional cluster sample survey, Lancet 368(9545):1421-8.] found that there were 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths (with 95% confidence that the true number falls between 392,979 to 942,636) in the post-invasion period. The study used a standard epidemiological method of cluster sampling—methods that have been used in thousands of studies without controversy.

What is largely misunderstood about the Lancet study is that the estimates reflect a change in all forms of mortality between the pre-invasion period to the post-invasion (July, 2006) period. The excess deaths are mostly violent, but they also include non-violent excess deaths, like those resulting from increases in disease or resulting from destroyed health care infrastructure, etc. Other estimates, like counting media reports of deaths (i.e. the Iraq Body Count project) are not only attempting to measuring a subset of the mortality of the Lancet paper, but the IBC project method vastly underestimates all war-related mortality, just because every fatality is not reported in the Iraqi press. (In other words, because the estimates are substantially biased downward, the IBC body count would never be considered valid scientific estimates of total mortality in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.)

Frum’s statement is just another wingnut talking point that was directly disseminated by George W. Bush the morning the Lancet article was covered by the media. Bush came out swinging: (hear it here) “Six hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just, it’s not credible.” And then he defined the administration-approved wingnut talking point that the study was “pretty well discredited.”

Uh-huh. A newly published paper in one of the top scientific and medical journals in the world, “pretty well discredited” within hours of publication? Not!

You see, the opinions of politicians and pundits are irrelevant—they have no bearing on the validity of a scientific study. It is scientific review by the people who are qualified to evaluate the work (you know, people with PhDs in statistics, demography, or epidemiology) that determine whether or not the science is valid.

So far, there has been little scientific controversy over the findings. Because science is a constant game of oneupsmanship, a number of skeptical scientists have probed the methods for potential flaws and biases. Scientists consider this kind of skepticism extremely healthy—no paper is above scrutiny and there are large rewards in the community of science for uncovering fundamental flaws in a published paper. As a result, every now and then flaws are found that lead to the retraction of a paper.

Not so in this case. Despite a number of spirited attempts by qualified scientists to uncover scientific flaws in the paper, nothing of substance has been demonstrated that substantially challenges the scientific findings. If and when flaws in the paper can be demonstrated, the paper will be retracted. But for now, the scientific community considers that the paper’s findings are valid.

I just thought I would help clear up Mr. Frum’s misunderstanding…even if it means kicking the legs out from under his warrior horse.

TheHim over at EFFin’ Unsound takes Eric Earling to the woodshed for refusing to correct his statement about Valerie Plame Wilson. One of the points at issue is whether Ms. Wilson was or was not “covert” when she was outed to the press by senior administration officials.

Eric writes: “…let me amplify the original point: there is no evidence Plame was covert. ” Yeah…right.

The Republican disinformation machine has long attempted to throw up a smokescreen by disseminating the meme that Ms. Wilson was not really covert. But given the evidence uncovered in the Libby trial and evidence introduced by Plame’s testimony before the House Committee for Government Oversight and Reform, it could only be willful ignorance or unadulterated batshit crazy wingnuttery that could keep someone believing the discredited talking point.

I mean, there are really only two credible sources as to Ms. Wilson’s status. The first is the CIA. The fact is, the CIA called for the investigation in the first place. If Ms. Wilson’s status had not been classified, the CIA would have had no reason to call for an investigation.

As former CIA intelligence officer Larry C. Johnson points out, CIA director Michael Hayden approved a statement, read into the congressional record, that established Ms. Wilson as under cover, and her status at the CIA as classified when she was outed.

Even during the Libby trial, Patrick Fitzgerald made a statement confirming that Wilson was a CIA officer and that her position with the CIA was classified on the day she was outed.

The other credible source is Ms. Wilson, who obviously knows what her status was on 14 Jul 2003. She testified under oath that her status was covert and that the information about her status was classified. When asked whether she had traveled overseas as a covert operations officer within the last 5 years, she responded affirmatively. Her testimony before the committee can be seen here: Part I, Part II, and Part III.

She even pointed out that most of the individuals working in the CIA Counterproliferation Division were covert. Yeah…that includes people who went to CIA headquarters every day and worked behind a desk.

Eric apparently misunderstands the meaning of “testimony under oath” when he quipped, “Valerie Plame has her right to say whatever she’d like under oath.” Umm….no she doesn’t, Eric. The whole point of testifying under oath is that you give up your right to make untruthful or mislead statements. And, as we know from Scooter Libby’s failure to testify truthfully, the consequences for lying are severe. It defies credulity to imagine that Ms. Wilson would go before Congress and make false statements under oath—statements that were pre-screened by the CIA to avoid divulging remaining classified details—about her status at the CIA on a particular date.

Eric can close his eyes, clenched his fists, hold his breath, and wish with all his might that it ain’t so. But it is so. In fairness to Eric, I suppose we should chalk this up to willful ignorance…but, man, it sure makes Eric look no brighter than the kooky commenters over at (u)SP when he digs in on this.

Following up on Goldy’s earlier post, I considered titling this “The body of contemporary conservatism.”

This is part II of Max Blumenthal’s unauthorized CPAC documentary:

Sen. Pam Roach has an anus problem. Last night as the Senate passed bill 5297 that requires medically and scientifically accurate sexual health education, Sen. Roach clenched her…her…fists, and proclaimed:

What does the word anus have to do with sex ed when we’re talking to fourth graders? No parent wants their child to be talking about sex and anuses.

Sen. Roach was outraged by instructional materials for a 4th-6th grade curriculum she found on the King County website that includes the word “anus.” (Sen. Roach has a point—hearing your kid talk about sex and anuses is probably not high on the list of parental moments to savor. But it helps if your kid at least uses scientifically accurate terminology….)

Roach’s problem is that she, apparently, doesn’t understand the difference between sexual health education and “talking about sex.” Apparently, there is no room in her world view for an objective discussion of other anatomical structures as part of an education in reproductive anatomy. Might this attitude come from a belief that sex is only for procreation?

Here is a figure from the King County website that is part of a typical lesson in the 4th-6th grade curriculum that includes “talking about sex and anuses.”

Clearly, there is a leftist agenda at play here–I mean sneaking the bladder, urethra, and anus into the same diagram as the female reproductive system is a pernicious attempt to promote promiscuity and homosexuality (while giving in to the terrorists). The agenda could only have been more blatant by including the G-spot….

I think it’s revealing that Pam Roach found “anus” objectionable in the anatomy lesson, but not “bladder”—revealing about the state of Pam Roach’s own anal sphincter. And I think we can all agree that thinking about Pam Roach’s sphincter is inappropriate at any age.

UPDATE:
Sen. Roach may have a point. From what I understand about trends in teen sex, the diagram emphasizes the wrong end of the alimentary canal. [–Goldy]

You may remember Initiative 831, written by Goldy, that declared Tim Eyman a horse’s ass. In the end, the initiative had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, but Goldy’s efforts were thwarted by a meddling Attorney General by the name of Christine Gregoire. She felt that this brilliant initiative was not suitable initiative material (“frivolous,” I think she called it).

Huh? Is there is some kind of truth in anatomical attribution principle that is only known by law students at Gonzaga University? Too bad…by many accounts this was the single best initiative offered since the Rosellini administration.

So you can imagine my surprise and delight today when I learned that…

[o]n a 90-3 vote, with five lawmakers excused, a measure designating the Pacific chorus frog as the state amphibian. “I have not heard from the newt or salamander lobbies,” said bill sponsor, Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, before passage of the bill, which now heads to the Senate.

Hmm… Pacific chorus frog is the common name for Pseudacris regilla, meaning something like splendidly dishonest locust, which, if you think about it, sounds an awful lot like Tim Eyman. On the other hand, calling Eyman a lying locust is an insult to locusts and other agents of plagues, rusts and pestilences everywhere. I mean, locusts don’t steal money from donors and then lie their supraanal plate off about it, do they?

This House measure got me to thinking that, perhaps, Goldy’s initiative would have succeeded if, instead of declaring Eyman to be the body part of an animal, he had declared Tim Eyman an official state organism—the whole organism. That’s not frivolous, is it? I’m thinking maybe the official state Myxogastria (i.e. slime mould). Or how ’bout the official state Spirogyra (pond scum)? I can’t decide.

In this era of scientific enlightenment, all life forms have equal value. So think of it as an initiative to celebrate biodiversity. I think even the new Attorney General could get behind it.

CORRECTION:
I-831 had about 60,000 signatures by the time the AG obtained an injunction — pretty impressive for a joke initiative with no money or organization. It still would have been a long shot, but had we managed to qualify it for the ballot, I’m pretty sure the measure would have passed. [–Goldy]

(Hat tip: Aritist Dog Boy)

David Horsey has a commentary in Sunday’s Seattle PI on Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Jay Inslee, and Rep. Dave Reichert. At one point, while interviewing Reichert, Horsey gives us a telling glimpse into the eyes and soul of Sheriff Hairspray:

[Reichert] described a meeting with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan during which one of her companions pointedly asked Reichert how many more soldiers’ lives he was willing to sacrifice to the Iraq War.

Recreating the moment, Reichert trained his hardest gaze on me as if I was that upstart activist and said, “That question offends me. Do you know how many partners I’ve lost as a cop?”

What the hell? What does the number of police partners Reichert lost have to do with soldiers dying in Iraq? And where is the offence in a concerned citizen pointing out that (1) soldiers are dying in Iraq and (2) as a Congressman, Reichert shares in the oversight responsibility, and consequences, for our actions in Iraq?

I have several theories about Reichert’s inappropriate (if not bizarre) response. I’ll call them the stupid theory, the fiction theory and the unmanaged anger theory.

The stupid theory is that Riechert simply fucking up his own talking point. He meant to use a talking point along the lines of this one from his DaveReichertForCongress web site:

We may disagree on the timeframe of that, but as a police officer who has lost friends and partners in the line of duty, I do understand how difficult it is for society to make sacrifices in the name of freedom and keeping Americans safe.

Nothing in the written version of the talking point would suggest that Reichert could be offended, per se, by the peace activist’s question. If the web site properly captures the position, Reichert should have sympathetically disagreed—something like this: “I understand your concern about more soldiers losing their life in the line of duty–I’ve experienced the tragedy of losing law enforcement partners. Still, I disagree with you about the best way to achieve a free and safe America in a way that minimizes such sacrifices.” Instead, Reichert forgot or misunderstood the proper response, and invoked faux outrage instead of sympathy.

The fiction theory is that the event didn’t really happen this way at all. Rather, the details given to Horsey constituted a “creative intrepertation” of a more mundane exchange. The purpose was simply to use the interview with Horsey as another opportunity to shape his image as playing the staring role in “Tough Guy Sheriff Goes to Washington.” We’ve seen this before from Reichert…you know, like the bus driver flipping the bird at Bush incident where Reichert bragged before a group of Republicans only to change the story to something more mundane when the “tough guy” version looked damaging.

The unmanaged anger theory is that Reichert really was insulted and outraged, and, therefore, responded irrationally. Reichert is widely known for being sensitive to criticism, being overly defensive when his failures are brought to light, and having a short fuse. In the face of such “insolence,” I can imagine Reichert reacting with a mixture of anger and defensiveness that clouded is thinking, resulting in a response that was a non sequitur. How dare they blame him for deaths in the Iraq war!

We saw this behavior in 2004 when Reichert walked out on a debate and refused future debates with his Republican primary challengers. We saw a little bit of this anger during the 2006 campaign season in his debate with Darcy Burner.

While still King County Sheriff, Reichert sometimes displayed this type of behavior. For example, after an African American man killed a white officer (Deputy Richard Herzog) with his own gun in 2002, Reichert made a series of bizarre media statements. As Geov Parrish put it:

King County Sheriff Dave Reichert bristled last week after the fatal shooting of deputy Richard Herzog—a white officer, allegedly “executed” by a naked, unarmed African-American man with the officer’s own gun. Here’s Reichert: “I’m just going to be blunt about it and get to the point: Race isn’t important. . . . We’re sick and tired of being labeled as racist.”

In other words, Reichert equated discussing race with calling people racists. And then he shut down all discussion.

The sheriff has since backpedaled….

At the time, I was struck by Reichert’s repeated use of the word “execution” to describe the actions of Herzog’s killer. The naked, stoned-out-of-his-gord killer shot Herzog during a struggle after Herzog’s gun fell out of its holster…not particularly the circumstances that go with the word “execution.”

Reichert’s lashing out at the media came on the heals of criticism after Seattle Police shot and killed Aaron Roberts, an African American man. Reichert’s angry, illogical statements prompted the Seattle Times (22 June 2002) to editoralize…

King County Sheriff Dave Reichert irresponsibly lobbed his own grenade when he rushed past an official denunciation of the killing to rail against African- American leaders who have frequently charged law enforcement with using excessive force against minorities. The sheriff’s emotions later cooled to those more befitting a leader, but it was too late. A debate has begun whether the region has seen its first incident of reverse racial profiling: the executing of white police officers by black men….

During Reichert’s entire career as a cop, only five King County officers died in the line of duty. Herzog’s death was the only non-accidental death of an officer in the line of duty under Reichert’s administration. (The only other death was of Deputy Mark W. Brown who died in a motorcycle accident in 1999.)

No doubt, Reichert took Herzog’s death hard. But there was more to it—the King County Sheriff’s office (i.e. Riechert) was taking some heat in Herzog’s death. His death was avoidable. Herzog was killed with his own handgun, in part, because he was allowed to carry a holster not designed for his weapon. The result was that his weapon fell out of the holster during the struggle. Later the state Department of Labor and Industries investigated the incident and fined the King County Sheriff’s Office for safety violations. The root of the problem was mismanagement and a failure to follow established procedure (Seattle Times Sep 9, 2005, B3). (Reichert appealed the Labor and Industries decision and lost.)

Reichert’s statements to the media following Herzog’s death were made under a cocktail of sorrow, some guilt, and denial. And he reacted angrily and irrationally.

My hunch is that Reichert’s reaction to the peace activist involved that same cocktail of sorrow, guilt, and denial. By pointing out the Congressman’s shared responsibility for the death of American soldiers in Iraq, the activist triggered the same kind of angry, illogical, and embarrassingly inappropriate retort.

While South Dakota continues to marginalize itself, Kansas is stepping back from the precipice of kookiness by taking an important step to restore proper science to their education standards:

The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
[…]

The board removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts are controversial and being challenged by new research, and approved a new definition of science that limits it to the search for natural explanations of what’s observed in the universe…

What is the reaction from the fringies?

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said under the new standards, “students will be fed an answer which may be right or wrong” about questions like the origin of life.

“Who does that model put first?” he said. “The student, or those supplying the preordained ‘natural explanation’?”

Mr. Calvert picks an interesting case—the origin of life—because that is truly an elusive, intriguing area of science. We currently don’t have great answers to how life originated on earth. Rather we have several competing theories, each with strengths and weaknesses. The fact of the matter is, all of them may prove to be incorrect (and it is a lot easier to show a theory is wrong than it is to show any given theory is approximately correct). But no scientist is claiming to have unequivocally solved the “origin of life” question.

Mr. Calvert asks who is served by teaching the ideas about the origins of life? I would strongly argue that the students are served. They are served by being introduced to science at the edge of knowledge—something that scientists should neither avoid nor be ashamed of. Science has made progress at different rates across differing areas. Some areas are ripe for innovative ideas and empirical testing; other areas stubbornly resist the best scientific minds. Origin of life studies falls on the stubborn side, and students should know that. After all, the stubborn, poorly developed areas of science offer the greatest and most exciting challenges for young potential scientists.

The students are also served because they receive a proper science education. The “theory” of intelligent design is to evolution what a theory of angels holding up airplanes on strings is to aerodynamics. In my opinion, students who believe airplanes fly because angels sweep them across the sky like puppets have no place in higher education. Likewise, students whose school system forces them to learn that “intelligent design” is a valid scientific theory of evolution, really shouldn’t be allowed into college.

Many colleges have prerequisites for admission that include things like coursework in a foreign language, algebra and trigonometry, English, etc. I think all respectable colleges and universities should add coursework in “scientific biology” to the entry requirements—and they should keep track of school systems that fail to provide courses in scientific biology. That way, school boards that foist anti-science curricula on their students would be excluding their children from qualifying for college. Of course, the students would likely be able to make up the deficiency through night courses, etc., but such school boards would be starting their graduates off with a hefty economic disadvantage.

A harsh policy, to be sure, but nobody said stamping out inter-generational transmission of ignorance was going to be easy.

You say you’re looking for an internet-based outlet for political activism and you just can find that sweet domain name?

And you say you’ve got too much disposable income on hand and you’ve got no good outlet for using it?

Is that what’s troubling you Bunky?

Well, hold your head up high and make a bid for impeachbush.com.

Bid, bid, bid, and never give up, never give up, never give up…that ship!

George Bush likes to think of it as the people’s house:

Well, thank you all so very much for coming to the White House. It’s my honor to welcome you to the people’s house.

But he apparently doesn’t think the people have a right to know who is visiting their house. From the AP:

The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.

The Bush administration didn’t reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall.
[…]

The five-page document dated May 17 declares that all entry and exit data on White House visitors belongs to the White House as presidential records rather than to the Secret Service as agency records. Therefore, the agreement states, the material is not subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
[…]

The memo last spring was signed by the White House and Secret Service the day after a Washington-based group asked a federal judge to impose sanctions on the Secret Service in a dispute over White House visitor logs for Abramoff.

That’s our Bush—always promoting transparency and accountability in government. Really, you don’t want to know if the logs record almost 500 past visits on behalf of someone pleading guilty to fraud and corruption…. Just try not to think about it.

The White House is now using the memo to block a Washington Post request for Secret Service logs identifying visitors to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.

Clearly, only freedom hating, terrorist sympathizers would want to know about the comings and goings in the people’s house.

Senator Patty Murray is now the secretary of the Democratic caucus. That puts her in the number four leadership position in the U.S. Senate.

She outranks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Sen. Olympia Jean Snowe, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Barbara Boxer. Senator Murray is now the highest-ranking woman in the U.S. Senate.

A kid was shot to death today at Foss High School in Tacoma, Washington.

One of the arguments given by gun control proponents is that handguns make it really easy to take out aggressions on someone. It’s hard to find fault with that claim.

From 1999 to 2004, there were 70,200 people in the U.S. that died of gun-related homicide, which is a rate of 41 gun-related homicides per million people. (And this does not include gun-related suicides.)

Over the same time period, there were 2,927 people who died of terrorism—a rate of less than 2 terrorism-related deaths per million people.

Yet, somehow we’ve chosen a war on terror™ [sic] as our national obsession. And using that “war” as justification, we’ve weakened the Constitution and abandoned other fundamental American values, we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the effort, we’ve invaded other countries, and we’ve brought death, injury and violence into the lives of millions of innocent people.

My point is this: if we really wanted to make America safer, wouldn’t it be far more effective to launch a war on gun violence with the same resolve? I mean, that war would involve weakening the constitution, too, but I cannot imagine it would entail all the other bad side effects….

Maybe it’s just me. But this Seattle Times editorial, seemingly celebrating Washington State’s achievement of gender parity in politics, comes off as slightly misogynistic in the very last sentence:

Voters, as well as skilled politicians at several levels, understand that men do a very good job at a lot of things and, quite often, women do, too.