The Seahawks play the Giants today in the first of their four games against NFC East teams this season. While the NFC West has looked truly awful (especially the Rams), the NFC East is looking exactly the opposite. The Eagles’ loss to the Bears last Sunday night was the first and only loss by an NFC East team to someone outside their division this year (and Westbrook definitely would’ve gotten that yard if he was playing). After 4 weeks, the NFC West only has two wins outside of the division. With an 0-3 record and 13 more games to go, will anyone in the NFC West beat a team from the NFC East this year?

With the curtain closed on Reload, I’ve decided to bring the Birds Eye View Contests over here to HA. If you don’t know how this works, you just have to guess where on Earth the following scene is from. The scenes are from the Windows Live Mapping site, which will be linked from the image itself every week. Good luck!

Taking a break from the election contests for a bit here, I wanted to give a plug to a great student organization at the University of Washington that’s kicking off their fall recruitment drive. I didn’t go to UW, but I got involved with the AIESEC chapter in Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan back in the 90s when I was getting my engineering degree. It was without a doubt the smartest decision I made while at college.

AIESEC is the largest student organization in the world. What it does is run an international internship exchange program. Students at universities across the globe work with local companies to create internship opportunities specifically for foreign exchanges and then host the students who get matched up to them. Members of the organization can then apply for and be matched to foreign internships of their own.

After being involved in the Michigan chapter for a year and a half – helping build their website and working on exchanging students, I was matched on a foreign internship, traveling to Helsinki, Finland during the summer of 1996 to work for the telecom company HPY. It was an amazing experience to live and work in another country, not to mention how much fun it was to be with dozens of other college students from around the world who’d also come to Helsinki that summer to work at various local companies. Over the 12 weeks I was there, I was able to go on weekend trips to Stockholm, St. Petersburg, and Tallinn, Estonia.

The University of Washington’s chapter has a small group of motivated students looking for more members, especially underclassmen, to get involved with the chapter and promote the AIESEC mission of better international understanding here in Seattle. The head of the chapter, Zhi Wei Wan, just got back from a summer spent in both Turkey and Brazil and is ready to get things going for this school year. He’s looking for people with an international outlook and some entrepreneurial spirit to join the local chapter and have the kinds of extraordinary educational experiences that are hard to get from classes alone.

Here’s the first meeting for those interested in joining:

Tuesday, October 7
6:00-7:00
Thomson 335

Radley Balko has an interview with former DEA agent and “House of Death” whistleblower Sandy Gonzalez. The “House of Death” case involves an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent named Guillermo Ramirez Peyro who took part in torturing and murdering people (including one legal U.S. resident) while also being paid over $220,000 by the U.S. Government. After Gonzalez demanded some accountability for this disaster, he was pushed out of the DEA. The full interview is here.

James Wolcott on the Sarah Palin train wreck.

The Matt Millen era came to an end in Detroit this week, as the Lions’ General Manager was finally canned after a reign of ineptness that made Lions fans feel like the Bush Administration was running their team. Here’s how some of the fans celebrated:

A Detroit radio station gave the Matt Millen era a proper burial Friday, complete with a motorcycle-drawn carriage lugging a “Fire Millen!” sign in a custom-painted Lions casket.

“This is a special moment for us as we say good-bye to a legacy, to a reign of a general manager that brought us frustrations, brought us tears, brought us everything but a trophy,” DJ Spike, from the “Mojo in the Morning” program on WKQI-FM (95.5), said as the funeral lined up at 8 a.m. at Eastern Market.

An $85,000 Harley-Davidson hearse led the procession south on Gratiot Avenue to Ford Field. Inside the gleaming Honolulu blue-and-silver casket was a photograph of Millen’s face on a white, padded, silk pillow.

As about 30 people standing around the casket snickered, Spike invited fans to put mementos in the casket “to be buried forever along with the bad memories of seven years of Matt Millen’s reign.”

Like the Lions, the Seahawks have their bye this week. And also like the Lions, the Seahawks have their own fans who go a little too far (ok, in that case, a lot too far).

There’s been a lot of conjecture around these parts over whether doctors in Washington support I-1000. Carol Ostrom provides some hard data:

In July, the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA), which represents nearly 7,000 doctors in Washington, said it opposes the measure and that its “opposition was emphatically voted on” at last year’s meeting.

In fact, WSMA members never voted on the initiative.

And a survey WSMA commissioned last year actually found slightly more doctors approved of the provisions of I-1000 than opposed them.

In the survey, completed by Elway Research, 50 percent of doctors responding said they would support a measure like I-1000 while 42 percent would oppose it. Female physicians were more likely to support such a law.

In addition, I-1000 does not force dissenting doctors to certify patients under the law if they have moral objections to it. This is an initiative that respects choice for both doctors and patients. And this is why the similar law in Oregon has been so effective.

With the Sonics in Oklahoma City, the Huskies 0-3, and the Angels’ Francisco Rodriguez having more saves than the Mariners have wins, the Seahawks losing to the awful Rams today would send this city to an all-time sports low.

Well, I guess the Storm are in the playoffs, although that just makes it all sadder somehow.

Kitsap County Superior Court judge Anna M. Laurie found medical marijuana patient Robert Dalton guilty. Her reasoning was that his pain could have been relieved by other medicines, so therefore it’s perfectly fine to arrest him and seize his property because he was growing marijuana plants. As Dalton’s attorney Douglas Hiatt pointed out, Dalton’s opiates made him sick and are far more addictive than medical marijuana:

Hiatt was “very disappointed” with Laurie’s verdict, reiterating what he’d argued in court: that Laurie was “second guessing” physician Thomas Orvald, who recommended Robert Dalton use marijuana.

“If Judge Laurie wants to be a doctor, she should go to medical school,” Hiatt said. “No patient in this state is safe if she’s right.”

I’m not sure any patient in this state is safe anyway. Dalton is now disallowed from using the most effective medicine for his pain while he hopes to have a potential jail sentence postponed while he waits for an appeal. In the meantime, Washington state taxpayers continue to pay to prosecute someone who can’t possibly be considered a danger to society by any stretch of the imagination.

SurveyUSA has done some polling on Sound Transit and it’s looking good for Prop 1.

On Proposition 1, concerning an expansion of mass transit, are you certain to vote yes? Certain to vote no? Or, are you not certain how you will vote on Proposition 1? {“Not Certain” voters were asked: At this hour, do you lean toward yes? lean toward no, or do you not lean?}

Lean Toward Yes – 65%
Lean Toward No – 20%
Don’t Lean – 14%

Is your opinion of Sound Transit favorable, unfavorable, neutral, or are you unfamiliar with Sound Transit?

Favorable – 52%
Unfavorable – 17%
Neutral – 27%
Unfamiliar – 4%

As someone who was skeptical that a transit-only package could pass so easily, I happily stand corrected on that point. The folks in our comment threads who are maniacally opposed to Sound Transit really are a fringe around here.

Josh Farley at the Kitsap Sun provides another recap of the Robert Dalton case. Dalton was arrested after WestNET, a local drug task force, searched his property in August of last year and found 88 marijuana plants, which he says he was growing for his own personal supply of medical marijuana. Dalton is an authorized medical marijuana patient. Prosecutors tried to claim that he was supplying others, but the judge, Anna M. Laurie, threw out the “with intent to deliver” charge because of a lack of evidence.

Laurie will give her ruling on this case Friday. The case has boiled down to a man with a doctor’s authorization being accused of growing marijuana for medical reasons. Washington voters first said in 1998 that this should be legal, and the percentage of the state’s residents who support it has only grown since. In the comment section of Farley’s report, there are 27 comments, not a single one supportive of this prosecution. Why is it still happening?

For one, you can definitely blame Rob McKenna, the state’s Attorney General, who appears to believe that the Federal laws on marijuana should trump our state laws (and that putting sick people in jail is more important than protecting consumers from fraud). At a meeting I attended in April with patients, there was nearly unanimous agreement that McKenna and his office’s attitude towards them was a large step backwards from when Christine Gregoire was in that position.

But Christine Gregoire and the state Democrats are not without blame here either. Gregoire derailed the Department of Health’s efforts to establish good limits, leaving us in limbo past the original deadline and with a lesser likelihood of ending up with guidelines that can protect patients like Dalton. The legislature, which should have no reason to be tentative about this issue – considering the widespread support for medical marijuana – caved to law enforcement pressure to water down the original bill that was meant to provide better protections for patients under the initial voter-approved law.

The polling from the end of this week should be a wake-up call for the Gregoire campaign. I obviously don’t think that the Dalton case, or even medical marijuana in general, is having this effect on the polls, but the lack of courage that has been demonstrated by her in this area is something that we’ve seen across the board, especially the infamous cave to Eyman on I-747. And this perception is having a profound effect on the Governor’s chances for re-election. Right now is not the time for timid leadership that’s constantly worried about perceptions, or worse, completely beholden to special interests (the state’s law enforcement union in this case). Maybe it’s too late to do anything about this. It likely is for trying to win my vote.

The saddest thing is that if Gregoire’s terrible handling of this situation was based upon the fear of public perception alone, her fear is unfounded. The public’s attitude towards the drug war is not what it used to be. This is one topic that often brings policy wonks on both the left and right together, and it’s one that finds almost no support from people under the age of 40. The marijuana decriminalization initiative in Massachusetts has polled at over 70%. Taking a stand against the wastes and abuses of the drug war is a smart move in a state like Washington, but only a handful of politicians here have figured this out. Christine Gregoire is not one of them.

I don’t have any personal anecdotes to explain why I support I-1000, the Death With Dignity Initiative. Unlike Geov, I’ve never been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Unlike Goldy and Michael, I’ve never been beside a loved one whose once vibrant life was replaced by something barely recognizable in the time before their passing. And unlike Jesse, I’ve never had a job that put me so close to death and dying.

But I-1000 is personal for me. It can be personal for anyone. End of life situations can be complicated – they can be heart wrenching. And they are always unpredictable. Even as a healthy person in his 30s, I know that if I’m ever at a point where my death my imminent, the biggest tragedy for me might not be the death itself – death is inevitable and mostly out of one’s own hands – but finding out that the government is limiting the options I have because it doesn’t trust me with the ability to make my own choices.

We talk a lot about liberty when we discuss politics. Regardless of one’s particular orientation, we all tend to think that we’re coming from the standpoint of maximizing our own liberty. But while many talk about their liberty, not everyone follows the famous advice from Thomas Paine:

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

This truism extends to a number of our political debates today, as we often see politicians and partisans hold two completely opposing viewpoints on a subject depending on whether or not they or someone else is affected by it. When it comes to the opposition to I-1000, what many people see as government protecting their liberty is nothing more than a restriction on the liberty of others. What they desire is a system where government makes our choices for us because the decisions are difficult and potentially painful. This is the real slippery slope of I-1000.

I-1000 opponents will often come up with scary stories within a law like this. They imagine scenarios of being coerced into taking one’s own life or being overcome by the feelings of being a burden. These types of scenarios exist, but I-1000 does not create them, nor would it make them more common. I-1000 does not cause the insurance companies to do the wrong thing or a relative to lust after your inheritance. But I-1000 does prevent those people from dictating the choices you make at the end of your life. I-1000 ensures that the decision about how you die can be made by you, and no one else. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying about the law or does not understand it.

Many people desire a higher authority who protects them from themselves. I have no problem with such beliefs. But where I do have a problem is when the people work to make their own personal higher authority the higher authority for everyone. Government should exist to create systems that protect people from the things that we can’t control as individuals – the environment, natural disasters, unexpected health problems, the shifting winds and complexities of the economy. But government should not exist to tell us what decisions we make at an individual level that relate to our own moral compass – unless of course those decisions directly impact the public at large. The opponents of I-1000 are crossing that line – attempting to make choices that should be left up to individuals and their loved ones, without government interference and without having to submit to anyone else’s religious doctrines.

This is why I-1000 is personal for me. I’ve seen a growing desire in this country to have government take on the role of moral nanny in many ways. The end result of such a movement is undoubtedly a loss of liberty and a loss of our desire to be free adults, fully responsible for our own choices. This is why I feel compelled to speak up and this is why I’m working so hard to make sure I-1000 is passed – even though I’m far from being in a situation where the law would ever apply to me. As Thomas Paine knew, and as we still understand today, protecting liberty is not just about protecting your own freedom, but making sure that you live in a society where everyone’s is protected.

Please vote Yes on I-1000.