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]
Why not the Official State E. Coli? He pops up regularly like a Jack in the Box.
Darryl – you are reaching way too far much like a really bad pun that only elicits raised eyebrows.
Using the actual language of HB 1069 as an inspiration:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinf.....;year=2007
AN ACT Relating to designating David Goldstein as the state horse’s ass; and adding a new section to chapter 1.20 RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 1.20 RCW to read as follows:
David Goldstein is hereby designated as the official horse’s ass of the state of Washington.
And we could make Eyeman the official savior of overtaxing the working poor.
How about the official state gadfly?
“Gadfly” is a common name for horseflies and botflies … one species of which is the only fly whose larvae hatch and mature in human flesh.
A few things we know about human botflies:
1. The botfly maggot cannot be removed easily whilst alive due to the strong, hooked spines that run in circular rings around the midsection of its body.
2. Immediate contact with larvae can be remedied with alcohol.
3. There are some extremely gross photos and videos documenting such encounters. Warning: Eeewwww!
(Sources: Wikipedia, Snopes)
How about declaring Tim as the state noxious weed, maybe Dalmation Toadflax?
The task of watering the arid desert between Eyeman’s ears is a challenging one for his co-workers.
@4 “Chuck says: And we could make Eyeman the official savior of overtaxing the working poor. 02/21/2007 at 11:10 pm”
We could — but it would be misleading, because Timmy Lieman is hardly the savior of the working poor. First of all, nearly all of his initiatives — whose common feature is poor draftsmanship rising to legal defect — have been thrown out by the courts, so he really hasn’t been the savior of anyone from anything. But setting that aside, the spirit of Eyman’s initiatives generally is to shift regressive taxes to even more regressive taxes. You see, the spending needs don’t go away, and if you repeal the vehicle excise tax, then they just get the money from you some other way, such as at the gas pump. The overall tax burden on Washington citizens hasn’t gone down a penny because of Eyman; it has merely tilted even more in favor of the rich.
It’s a good thing car tabs aren’t so damn expensive anymore: we need the money to pay for gas! So, Eyman has benefitted us all, in an indirect way.
@9
Sure!
Them stupid schools they’s closing are no damn good anyhows.
Those Seattle schools are being closed because there aren’t enough students to make them economically viable.
Sorry that the real world is intruding into your socialist fantasy!
Does the repeal of the car tabs fees have anything to do with closing schools? I thought the only thing the car tabs fees had to do with was, well, car tabs fees!
Chuck at # 4 said: “And we could make Eyeman the official savior of overtaxing the working poor.”
Hardly. It wasn’t the “working poor” behind Eyman’s car tax initiative. The cars they drove didn’t have much value, so they were taxed pretty low anyway, not much more than the minimum fee. And many of the really working poor don’t even have a car, they use public transit to get to and from work.
It was the very well-to-do car owners, many of them on the East side of Lake Washington (where I work) who were outraged to find that their $40,000 ~ $50,000 SUVs (Hummers, Land Rovers, etc.) were so expensive that they were incuring renewal excise tax fees in excess of a thousand bucks a year. THEY were the ones behind the car tax intiatives.
It really comes down to those with expensive cars not wanting to be taxed to support mass transit which benefits mostly the lower economic classes. The arguments that the tax cuts benefited the “working poor” is just a dishonest attempt to camoflauge the motives.
Is it right to force car owners to pay for mass transit for people who do not own cars? If mass transit cannot operate without subsidies, in the form of higher car tab fees, should it be pursued as a transportation alternative?
Does Seattle actually have any “working poor?” I thought eveyone there was either a Microsoft millionaire or they were born filty rich. Just how does mass transit for Seattle and the surrounding area benefit the “working poor” of Ferry County?
Is it right to force me to pay for a fire department? After all, my house is not on fire. Is it right to force people to pay for schools if they do not have children?
Mass transit benefits even those that are not currently using it directly. Fewer cars on the highway mean that when I’m driving, the road is less crowded. Lower demand for gasoline means that it is cheaper to fill my tank, and more efficient use of fossil fuel also reduces the smog that goes into my lungs and the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.
That mass transit also provides an important backup method of transportation for my family and myself. Out where I live, mass transit is not a terrific option for everyday use, (one bus per hour, twenty minutes to the nearest store, about an hour to the Tacoma transit hub) but I appreciate the fact that if I need it, it is available.
These are tangible benefits to me, even if I don’t use it directly, so yes, I should be required to pay to subsidize the system.
John,
Does the car tab deal have anything to do with closing schools in Seattle, or was that guy, Chadt @ 10, full of bull?
All of this is fine and well.
But I’ll contribute the first $100 to a REAL initiative to rename Timmy. Instead of a simple “horse’s ass” it should be
“Timmy is a G.D.M.F.C.S.B.F.C.S.P.O.S.”
Only without simply capitalizations. Use the real words.
Johnny Barelli sez:
“Fewer cars on the highway mean that when I’m driving, the road is less crowded. Lower demand for gasoline means that it is cheaper to fill my tank, and more efficient use of fossil fuel also reduces the smog that goes into my lungs and the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.”
It’s all about you Johnny Boy, and your career showing snot-bitches in Gig Harbor their next million dollar house. Does a real estate agent actually do anything worthy of mention, other than dress nicely, have a nice car, and think they’re rich because they don’t actually do any work?
As for carbon dioxide, take a big lungful of it! You POS!
I am so tired of this crap – and it comes from both sides at all levels of government. I recently was watching CSPAN and was delighted to see our electeds spending time (granted, minimal time, but time nonetheless) on congratulatory speeches for college football teams.
What a complete fucking waste.
How many of Goldy’s alleged 60,000 signatures were ever independently validated??
Wow, Yossarian, I must have struck some sort of nerve. I’m a liberal that examines government services based on benefit and utility? Did that just really screw up the underpinnings of your world-view?
Oh, and most of my clients are pretty nice average folks, just looking for a decent place to live. Yes, I’ve sold million-dollar homes, but most of the homes I sell are just your basic family house.
As for dressing nicely, well, I do wear a tie most days, but I’m the only one in my office that does so regularly. It’s a hold over from my Navy days, where I wore a tie when I was in dress uniform.
I’m not sure what Chadt is talking about, except perhaps that whenever money is removed from the budget, either expenses have to be reduced or the money has to come from somewhere else.
Unlike some folks (including some of my fellow liberals) I am not of the impression that government has an unlimited supply of money. If we want government to provide a service or perform a function, we will have to pay for that through our taxes and fees.
One of my biggest problems with the Bush administration (along with the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations) is that they have replaced “Tax and spend” with “Spend and tax our grandchildren”.
Pope at # 16: “Is it right to force me to pay for a fire department? After all, my house is not on fire.”
This reminded me of something I hadn’t thought about in years. When I was young, our community had a “private” fire department. If you wanted it to respond in case your house was on fire, you had to “subscribe” to the service. If there was a fire and someone called the fire department, they would respond, but would stand there and watch the house burn. They would only get involved if the fire threatened a neighboring house which did subscribe to the fire department, in which case they would send the original homeowner a bill for several thousand dollars for putting out the fire.
It was a lousy system. People died because the firefighters wouldn’t go into non-subscribing houses to search for victims who might be trapped. The city eventually formed a public fire department.
Similarly, in more recent years in Washington I had a neighbor who wouldn’t subscribe for the garbage service. They figured out that they could save a few bucks by collecting the garbage and once a month or so take it to the dump themselves. In the meantime they had bags of garbage accumulating in their garage, which during the summer began to smell. I wondered if they were really taking it to the dump, or instead finding a ravine off a rural road which became their “dump”. I figure that in an urban (or suburban) setting, it is better to just tax people for services like that, so that it doesn’t become a bigger problem in the long run.
Oh, and as far as education is concerned, we all have a vested interest in having an educated electorate. After all, their vote counts just as much as ours does, whether they are our children or someone else’s.
rhp:
That was my post with the comment about the fire department, and I hope that it was clear that the point I was making was in favor of my paying for mass transit systems (even if I do not ride the bus very often) rather than being opposed to paying for fire departments and schools.
Perhaps I should be more careful to make my point clear, as there are folks that would be in favor of private fire departments, and do feel that they shouldn’t have to pay for public schools.
What did you do for the Navy, John?
Libertarian at 25 says: What did you do for the Navy, John?
Careful, John, don’t get sucked into this Naval Service pissing match. I’m willing to stipulate that you served proudly. Now if only we could get these dorks to concede that military service is not a requirement for an American to have political opinions or patriotic sentiments…
I got your point on the Fire Department, by the way, good one.
But please, all of you, no more of this irrelevant My O-2 is bigger than your E-5 crap. ‘kay?
Poster Child,
It was a legitimate question. I asked John what he did for the Navy because I had dealing with the Navy when I was in the AF.
Sometimes us vets like to talk about our services amongst ourselves. There’s no hidden agenda.
Hi, Libertarian and Poster Child!
I was a (shade your eyes from my secret shame) Personnelman, and later a Navy Counselor. I retired as a Chief.
Essentially, I was an active duty Human Resources person. Of course, over 21 years, about 14 of them were assigned to combatant seagoing units.
Side note – Here’s a frightening thought. On one of my ships, my General Quarters (battle) station was manning a 20 mm (yes, we still had them). I think that primarily it was because that mount was rather exposed, and I was rather expendable. Still, a paper-shuffler with a weapon. What were they thinking?
And the “my O-2 is bigger than your E-5 crap” is mostly spewed by folks that never actually served. Once we’re no longer on active duty, a Veteran is pretty much a Veteran. My Lions Club goes down to Lacey twice a month to the eyeglass recycling center to help out, and we carpool. There is a running joke among us that the Chief keeps getting chaufferred by the Colonels.
As far as the “military service is not a requirement for an American to have political opinions or patriotic sentiments…” point, I agree, with one small proviso. I tend to get very annoyed with folks that are willing to send others off to fight and die, yet would never consider risking their own skin.
I also consider service such as the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders, International Red Cross and Crescent and similar organizations to be essentially equivalent to military service, and certainly Police and Firefighters as well.
Essentially, I have a high regard for folks that have been willing to back their words with their lives, and risk their own skins to help others. I will treat them with respect, even when I disagree with their positions.
Kemosabe:
Notice the gas price is climbing again. Remember when I posted the future price after Feb 7th said the climb would soon start due to Nancy Libtard Pelosi and her band of gas taxing freakshow members passing the “I hate Oil Companies” Bill? Remember I asked who would pay? Remember IDIOTS like Clueless just didn’t get it? Still doesn’t too. Well the price of gas is going up. Why is that? Why is the middle class getting screwed? Blame Pelosi and her oil initiatives!!!!!
Har har har har har Moonbat!s
Speaking of stupid initiatives see what the gay Moonbat!s are doing to a nice black man, Harold Ford.
http://rightdemocrat.blogspot......ility.html
I watch what happens to all the brothas and sistas when they mingle with the libtards!
“Former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) is expected to become the next chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Baptist Press reports that Ford’s likely DLC chairmanship has drawn criticism from a powerful interest group within the Democratic Party.
“The likely choice of Ford, a former representative from Tennessee, has some homosexual activists upset. Ford twice supported a proposed federal constitutional marriage amendment, in 2004 and 2006. He also vocally opposed a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ordering the state legislature either to legalize “gay marriage” or Vermont-style civil unions.Ford lost in a close race for the Senate last year to Bob Corker.”
“National Stonewall Democrats, a group that advances homosexual causes within the party, issued a statement Jan. 12 expressing “deep concern” over the choice of Ford, saying he “possesses a poor record on issues that impact LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families.”
“Congressman Harold Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern,” Joanne Wyrick, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said in a statement. “His willingness to lightly amend the U.S. Constitution and to exploit gay families for political gain should alarm Democrats across the country. The Democratic Leadership Council is in need of leadership that supports and affirms all American families.”The statement claimed Ford was at “odds with the past position of the Democratic Leadership Council.”
“The DLC is not an official party organization but seeks to influence the direction of the party. Ford would replace outgoing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for president.” http://tinyurl.com/3czlvr
This blogger supported equal rights for gays and lesbians in employment and housing long before such a view was popular. I am not homophobic but recognize that gay-lesbian activists have become a major force within the party and tend to put their own narrow agenda first. Everyone has the right to participate, however, issues like gay marriage cannot be allowed to define our party. We need more Democrats like Harold Ford who recognize that our party must affirm traditional marriage.”
When Post #30 is finally released by Voice of Chalk Scratching, you see what the GLA Moonbat!s are doing to a great brotha Harold Ford, Jr!
puddybud, Democrats are actually allowed to have different opinions; not only that, they are allowed to speak out lous about those differences. That’s why Democrats are different from Republitards.
Charlie: Did you comprehend post 30? It’s your party who puts narrow minded agendas first over traditional themes!
Chucky@32: Do you read the Democrat Underground?
“WHO ARE THE BLUE DOGS?
Differences between the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Leadership Council
Blue Dog Democrats tend to differ ideologically from another coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.
A small number of newer Blue Dogs, however, hold positions closer to those of the DLC; some Blue Dog Coalition members are also DLC members. Blue Dogs share with the DLC a desire to keep the Democratic Party grounded in their view of the political center and to ensure that the party does not drift too far to the left of their own positions and no longer appeal to what they believe to be the majority of U.S. voters.
Differences between the Blue Dogs and Liberal Democrats
The Blue Dogs’ moderate-to-conservative agenda in Congress has upset many in the Democratic party, as it sometimes leads to voting with the more conservative Republicans. In 2005, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition voted 32 to 3 in favor of the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection (S 256). Congressman Collin Peterson was subjected to a heated round of questioning from colleagues in the Democratic Party over several votes where he strayed from the party line before being nominated as the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, in what would otherwise have been a routine nomination.
On the other hand, some prominent Blue Dogs have also received strong support from liberal activists within the party, most notably Brad Carson of Oklahoma in his unsuccessful 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, John Tanner of Tennessee (whose Republican opponent in 2004, James L. Hart, was a radical eugenics advocate denounced by his own party), Jim Matheson of Utah, and Loretta Sanchez of California in her successful bid to unseat former Congressman Bob Dornan. Online fundraising efforts by liberal weblogs in 2004 named Brad Carson’s campaign a top national priority. In some cases this support for Blue Dogs came about because the Republican opponent (former Representative, now Senator Tom Coburn) was seen as holding strong right-wing views; in other cases the support is because in some states like Tennessee (where native son Al Gore lost the state’s electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000), Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and Utah, a conservative Democrat is seen as the only kind of Democrat who can be viable at the polls. Some progressive activists also view the Blue Dogs as an important part of a Democratic Party big tent coalition, which will give the party important credibility with rural voters and social conservatives, while viewing the Blue Dogs as perhaps easier to swing to the left on fiscal and trade issues than the DLC.
Others in the party’s left wing disagree, and have promoted the idea of running future primary challenges against both Blue Dog Coalition and DLC members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.”
Yes, your party is the one for “inclusion”. Yet your party has one agenda: left wing libtard Moonbat!itis.
Cum agin Chucky?
Hi, Puddy (Somehow, “Mr. Bud” just brings the wrong mental image. Must come from growing up in the 60’s.)
One only has to read one or two posts from RightEqualsStupid to realize that there are some folks in my party that consider anyone that isn’t ideologically pure to be a traitor to the cause.
But in highlighting the paragraph you did, you somehow managed to miss the paragraphs just before. (That’s the trouble with cut-and-pasting. You have to read the whole article, or some pesky bits that disproves your point can slip through.)
So, if you’re trying to complement us on having a “big tent” where people can discuss and even disagree on important issues, then thank you. Despite the few on the fringe that would rather be ideologically pure than actually win elections and get something done, we’re managing to bring lots of folks into our “tent”.
Heck, if you actually read some of the posts here and talked to some Democrats about our views on issues, you might even come over yourself. (Maybe that’s why Ms. Coulter and her ilk work so hard to keep conservatives from talking with us.)
Are there some far-left pseudo Marxists that call themselves “Democrats”? Yes, and they’re often convinced that they are the only “real Democrats” around, while the rest of us (99% of the party) are all “DINOs”. These folks are often quite noisy, and make for wonderful soundbites on Faux News.
Oh, well.
Well, since bullshit jokes like this are a waste of everyone’s time, glad the history has shown it got what it deserves. Down in flames. At least buddy Timmy for the most part- has legitimate and needed initiatives. Jealous that he gets thing done istead of all bark like you there Goldy?! It seems no one on this site knows the defintion of “fiscal responsibilty” whatsoever. Look it up, it’s in a big blue book called Webster’s.