HorsesAss.Org

It seems to have worked out just perfectly that my first year in France is an American election year. I came with the intention to understand the culture of France and advance my level of French but what has been the most interesting part is learning about French culture and simultaneously critiquing and comparing it with our own systems in the States.

One thing that has really stood out is the interest that France takes in American politics. Whereas in the United States, we tend to take little to no interest in international politics unless we feel threatened by someone who came into power. And even then, it’s usually only the most politically informed who seem to know about international politics with any sort of depth. I’m sure we could all take a lesson from that, because we aren’t the only one’s living on this planet.

Another plus, not only do the French seem more often politically and internationally informed, according to a recent study done by BBC, France is the country with the highest support for Obama. However, by living here, that fact is pretty clear.

An easy way to depict this is by showing some of the numerous magazines that feature articles about the upcoming election.

Here are a few examples that I love:

“Obama’s America”; the cover of the most well known magazine series in France. They published this magazine with a full, detailed description of current state of the United States and the context and implications of this in the upcoming election.

This is one of the articles in the same magazine that reads, “The Elusive Mitt Romey.”

Another magazine cover that reads, “Romney Against The World.” Sadly, a large portion of Americans can’t seem to see that…

This one reads, “The America That We Love, And Those Who Scare Us.” With clear intentional placement of Obama next to the words, “the america that we love” and Romney next to “those who scare us”.

After posting a few of these photos on my facebook page, an American friend of mine living in Nantes as well cleverly stated, “France loves to hate Romney, and I love France.” Which in my opinion pretty well sums it up.

I don’t have much to add to this Seattle Transit Blog piece. But right on.

The few million in this proposed budget seems like so little compared to the huge Sound Transit projects many of us are used to – but in this case, at this time, it goes a long way.

In the next couple of years, Sound Transit is likely going to put together their ST3 package; sources in Sound Transit say it’s looking more likely that we could see a regional vote in 2016. The primary goals for the next package are to connect Everett, Tacoma and Redmond (and maybe Issaquah) with extensions of Link. This means there will be money in Seattle for projects too, but it might not be exactly the right amount for the big projects we need in the city – it could be too much for one surface or elevated rail line, or too little for underground rail. We don’t know.

The projects on the table right now – major improvements to the streetcar line on Westlake (likely making it more like Link than streetcar), connecting it through downtown to the First Hill line, to Ballard via Fremont, and to the U-district via Eastlake, building real BRT on Madison, and extending the First Hill streetcar to Aloha – are all projects that might fill in those gaps.

Seriously, Donald Trump is like the worst person in the world. It’s tough to imagine someone you don’t like offering to give money to charity, and you liking them less as a result, but kudos to Trump for paving the road to that particular place.

To be fair, we did enjoy your impression of Dr. Evil as you sat behind your very big desk and shouted into the camera, vowing to contribute “five mill-ion dol-lars!” to the charity of the president’s choice if he releases “to my satisfaction!” all of his college records and passport applications by, appropriately enough, Halloween at 5 p.m.

Seriously, Donald Trump, if you’ve got $5 Million to spend on charity, don’t play this game. Just give it to charity. Don’t waste the finite amount of time the President of the United States has on your paranoid nonsense. Just give the money to charity.

Also, passport applications? I’m pretty disorganized, but I’m not sure if I was better organized that I could just pull up all of the passport applications I’ve made in a week. And I’m not in the middle of, you know, running for president. Do you keep them? Would the government keep the passport applications of a 7 year old (or whatever) kid from Hawaii from when he went to visit his dad, like years after it had expired? That’s such a strange request. And really, can you imagine Obama using the last week of the campaign to argue with Trump about if that was really all, and the correct, passport applications to his satisfaction? That’s just bizarre.

– There ain’t enough fuck you in the world for this guy.

– Nepotism on full view on TV.

– At what point do the R-71 people give up their court case to keep their signatures hidden?

– It is ridiculous — RIDICULOUS — that we live in a society where it’s a good guess that a shooting in a place often frequented by women is going to be an extension of a “domestic dispute.”

– Family values.

– Bikers and walkers spend more money than drivers over time.

– Anyone interested in seeing a MST3King of BIRDEMIC tomorrow?

Goldy points to this piece by the Sky Valley Chronicle taking the Seattle Times to task for their Rob McKenna ad.

And now the Times asks for forgiveness. Asks for another chance.

But as the Times reader comment noted in the headline of this piece – produced in response to a column written by Times Executive Editor David Boardman called “A vow to continue impartial reporting,”- it may be far too little and way too late.

I get why people are upset with the ad. I’m upset with the ad. The real problem is that Frank Blethen runs the paper. The problem isn’t the perception, it’s the reality. The paper is owned by a bully who has a toy that he pretends is a public service, but that he uses to tilt toward corporate power and the status quo.

The ad is just a symptom of that. And the symptom was far worse a few years ago, for example, when The Seattle Times decided to run a phoney story about Darcy Burner’s diploma. But they circled the wagons when people like Goldy pointed it out.

And it wasn’t just The Seattle Times staff. I couldn’t find anything in the Sky Valley Chronicle criticizing that. Plenty of main stream people ran with it. After all, if it’s in The Seattle Times, it must be true. But that was far worse than the ad people in The Seattle Times giving away the space in their paper. That was a news decision clearly directed by Blethen’s desire to swing the race. So, color me unimpressed that the people who are fine that sort of content are upset about the ads around it.

We had a great turn-out at the special debate edition of Drinking Liberally last night—a lot of new faces. Tonight we’ll have our regularly-scheduled gathering. Please join us for an evening of politics and conversation over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.

Our gatherings are informal. If you show up and don’t immediately recognize the pack of liberals, ask a bartender or server.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? You have options. The Tri-Cities chapter also meets tonight. On Wednesday, the Burien and Bellingham chapters meet. And on Thursday the Woodinville chapter meets.

With 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including fourteen in Washington state, four in Oregon and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.

The last in a series of presidential debates is on tonight, featuring President Barack Hussein Obama II (D) and former Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney (R).

This debate will focus on foreign policy. But since Willard has little foreign policy experience beyond a courtesy visit to London (plus Israel and Poland) so that he could totally avoid watch Ann’s dressage horse compete in the Olympics, be prepared for the candidates to twist everything back into domestic issues.

I’ll be at the Montlake Ale House liveblogging as I can. Please join me there, or have fun in the comment threads, if you prefer.

6:04: Romney wins!!!! (the coin toss.)

6:05: Mitt opens with a lot of babbling and proclaims, “We can’t kill out of this mess.” Uh-huh.

6:08: “Gov. Romney, you strategy has been all over the map.” Certainly is was based on his opening answer.

6:09: Mitt wants “Gender equality”. Does he really know what he is saying? But this second answer is so babbly it’s hard to know what he is saying.

6:12: Obama hits Romney HARD on his inconsistent positions on foreign policy.

6:13: Romney hits Obama back on the “after the election” comment to Putin.

6:15: After a short bicker-fest, Obama comes out with a pretty coherent positive agenda.

6:18: Romney doesn’t have a plan for Syria…he just regurgitates factoids about the situation. Then, when he gets down to “action” points, his plan is what the Obama administration is ACTUALLY DOING RIGHT NOW. Sheesh!

6:21: Obama complements Romney on supporting the Obama administration on Libya and then punches him in the nose on his “mission creep” statement.

6:23: Mitt Romney tells us what “we all hear intelligence sources saying”. Damn…I can’t say…left my national security briefing binder at home.

6:27: Mitt declares himself a peacenik

6:28: Both candidates work in domestic issues. Obama did a better job sneaking it in. Romney criticizes the sequestration cuts…as if that’s Obama’s doing!

6:30: Mitt gives a speech directed toward the Priests of the Military Industrial Complex.

6:31: Obama does it again—turning the debate into a list of his accomplishments.

6:32: Obama hits below the belt…”[Romney] praised George Bush for his economic stewardship and Dick Cheney for ….”

6:34: Romney said “teacher’s unions” and Obama looked down! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo……!!!!!!

6:36: We are now on the topic on whether class size makes a difference. In Afghanistan?!?

6:37: Obama gets surly while Romney babbles on about “his” education successes in MA.

6:39: No, Governor, we cannot afford to repeal Obamacare.

6:40: Obama gets his do-over from Debate 1: “five trillion dollar tax cuts…military spending that the military isn’t asking for…”

6:41: I’m watching NBC. Why is Obama on the right and Romney on the left? This is a conspiracy!!!!

6:42: Romney, “I balanced the budget for the Olympics”. Yes…Governor, with a little help of your taxpayer friends.

6:43: Obama finally defends himself against Romney’s bullshit of blaming Obama for sequestration cuts.

6:44: Obama lands a left hook with the “horses and bayonettes” zinger. Perhaps the best zinger of all three debates!

6:48: Mitt’s flaggey-flag pin is bigger. Obviously, he loves America more.

6:49: Mitt Romney thinks Ahmadinejad has committed more war crimes and crimes against humanity than George W. Bush and Dick Fucking Cheney???? Very curious.

6:51: We have about 20 folks at the Ale House who are, apparently, here for the debate.

6:54: Note to Obama…watch out for Tagg Romney running toward you….

6:55: Obama contrasts his visit to Israel with Romney’s…it seems pretty effective!

6:59: Mitt lets us know he has “a relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel.” No doubt he cultivated that relationship the same way he cultivated a relationship with the Prime Minister of the U.K.

7:01: Obama goes after Romney hard on his flip flopping. I noticed, he always ends those bits with a positive message. Good debate coaching.

7:04: Mitt just told all the terrorists when he will pull out of Afghanistan. Why does he hate our soldiers?

7:08: Bob: “Obama bin Laden”

7:10: I’ve heard Mitt say lots of things about Pakistan, but I am still not sure where he stands and what he would do?

7:11: Mitt drones on about his support for Drones. But, but, but, I thought we couldn’t “kill our way out of this”

7:14: Trending on Twitter (US): #horsesandbayonets

7:18: Via Twitter:

Abby Huntsman ‏@HuntsmanAbby
I’ve never heard two candidates agree more during what is suppose to be a “debate.”

7:17: Mitt wants to label China a “currency manipulator.” That will bring them to their knees.

7:21: Obama pushes the “Romney has bad political instincts” meme: outsourcing, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”, etc.

7:23: Mitt: “I would do nothing to hurt Detroit.” Obama calls him out on that bullshit.

7:25: “Governor, you keep on trying to airbrush history.” Look up history here.

7:28: Romney keeps bringing up the same old bullshit about how much worse things are now then they were when Obama came into office. Two words: “Bikini Graph”

7:31: Mitt: “I want to see growing peace in this country.” Huh? This is the kind of thing that is said when politicians are on autopilot.

7:38: Promoted comment from Michael:

Moderate Mitt’s plans all seem to come down to being just like Obama, only white.

7:47: Debriefing: Michael nails it. Romney etch-a-sketched so far back to the center that he was, essentially, agreeing with Obama more than he was disagreeing. That ends up being a huge problem for him. After all, the power of incumbency is that given identical choices, the devil you know is better than the identical devil you don’t.

But, of course, the other problem is that by becoming The White Obama, he contradicts his past “non-Kenyan” self. You know, like most of the stuff he said in the G.O.P. primary. His strategy depends on potential moderate supporters not being disturbed by his total abdication of past positions. That may have worked 20 years ago, but in the age of The Twitter and a plethora of other social media…maybe not so much.

– Right now Thurston County voters have a real opportunity to vote for change, for what stands to be a better way for all rate-payers.

– UW people, here’s a chance to ride in the rain.

– RIP George McGovern and praise the lord if you’re paying high taxes.

– The most important endorsement ever.

– News Corp’s shareholders are not particularly happy with the way the company is being run.

– I’m not as big a sriracha person as the author of this piece (how could anyone be?), but by coincidence I was having some soup when I started reading it, and immediately decided to add some. It was exactly what it needed.

Almost five years ago, a small group of individuals began to call for a Presidential candidate Science Debate. The idea quickly gained momentum, with support from dozens of Nobel laureates, the leaders of over 100 major universities, prestigious scientific organizations (among them AAAS, the National Academies of Science and Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine), and tens of thousands of American citizens. From thousands of submitted questions, a list of 14 was eventually developed. Science Debate 2008 had bipartisan Congressional co-chairs, a television deal with NOVA, and even rented a venue. Unfortunately, although both the McCain and Obama campaigns produced written answers in 2008, neither side agreed to make science the topic of a debate.

The story in 2012 has been very much the same — tremendous support for a colloquy on the important scientific issues to be faced in the next few decades, a set of 14 serious questions, written answers but no debate. This cycle, the editors of Scientific American graded the Obama and Romney responses:

To make our determination, we invited readers to send us leads and solicited input from our board of advisers and other subject-matter experts. We scored the candidates’ answers on a five-point scale (with five being best), using the following criteria: how directly and completely they answered the question; scientific accuracy; feasibility (including economic viability and clear accounting for both revenues and costs); potential benefits to health, education and the environment; and sustainability (meaning how well the proposed solutions balance the needs of current and future generations).

While SA‘s evaluation found Romney to be more specific in his plans, and to have greater feasibility, Obama greatly exceeded Romney in scientific accuracy. In particular, Romney’s responses on climate change, ocean health, and freshwater “revealed an unfamiliarity with the evidence that shows how urgent these issues have become”. Also, as an opponent of Net Neutrality, Romney scored 0 on the question about the Internet.

The Science Debate people presented a subset of their questions — those particularly relevant to the Evergreen State — to the candidates for Governor of Washington. The issues on that list were:

• Innovation
• Climate Change
• Education
• Ocean Health
• Vaccination and Public Health
• Science in Public Policy

As would be expected from the author of a well-received book on green energy, Jay Inslee provided extensive and detailed answers to the six queries.

Rob McKenna’s responses, in full, are displayed below:

 
 
 
 
 

McKenna was invited to answer the questions on six different occasions. He failed to reply to any of the invitations. Even on what is allegedly his signature issue — education — his silence was deafening. In his typical weaselly fashion, McKenna opted to say nothing whatsoever instead of revealing his Republican anti-scientific orientation. He’ll do anything not to offend the teahadist GOP base in Washington while passively thumbing his nose at the reality-based voters in the Puget Sound environs.

Playing mute has worked for McKenna in the past; it worked well (and may almost have been appropriate) when he was running for a statewide service position. But after Dino Rossi’s twin failures to fool enough people in gubernatorial — that is, executive — elections, we the people of Washington are onto these barefaced attempts by conservative Republicans to bamboozle us.

If you haven’t already mailed in your ballot, what are you waiting for? Vote for Inslee (and Obama, Cantwell, Ferguson, Drew, Goldmark, Kreidler, McCloud, et al.), seal it up, and drop it in the mail!

On Monday there will be a third and final presidential debate. And that sounds like a good excuse to get together for a pint and an opportunity to watch and discuss the debate with a veritable binder-full of fellow liberals. So please join us for another Debate Edition of Seattle’s Drinking Liberally at the Montlake Ale House on Monday evening.

Important Note: We will have sound and video for the debate. But the bar and restaurant has other customers, so the sound may not be as loud as you want, especially with the background of a busy tavern and peripheral conversations. If you are intent on hearing every word, I recommend you bring an FM radio and headsets or earbuds. Additionally, the Ale House has free WiFi for streaming audio. Ask your server for the password.

We will meet at our usual place, the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

The Montlake Ale House opens at 5:00pm, and the presidential debate begins at 6:00pm.

I’ll be liveblogging the debate here.

We’ll still have or regular Tuesday evening gathering of liberals this week, as well. I hope you can make it to one or both events.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Birmingham, Alabama.

This week’s is somewhere in Washington state, good luck!