– The story of the Metro Route 48 is pretty amazing.
– The city council lost its best excuse not to put the full $80 on the ballot. But they’re still not going to.
– What could go wrong with a tunnel (h/t Mike O’Brien on Facebook)?
– Good on Warren Buffet.
– We’ve seen Rick Perry before, he was called George W. Bush.
– So the amount of Border Patrol agents in Port Angeles has gone from fewer than 4 to 40 in the past five years? Huh? Here’s some background on the unpopularity of the Border Patrol out in the peninsula.
– Another victory in the drug war.
– Warren Buffett wants the government to raise his taxes. Isn’t he supposed to fix the economy by giving everyone jobs instead?
– Nouriel Roubini explains why he thinks that our current economy is proof that Karl Marx was right about the potential perils of capitalism.
– Rebels in Libya are closing in on Tripoli and a former army colonel says that the Gaddafi regime is collapsing. And now Syria is turning into the next Libya.
– Yakima attorney and Sensible Washington member Alex Newhouse writes about why we should legalize marijuana in the Yakima Herald.
Last week’s contest was won by Roger Rabbit (who first got the city) and wes.in.wa, who found the location in Belgrade, Serbia.
This week’s image is related to a movie or a TV show. Good luck!
Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.
Discuss.
Yesterday CNN’s Don Lemon was roughed up by Michele Bachmann’s thugs. And the “thugs” included Michele’s totally not gay husband Marcus:
“She came out, after speaking for just a couple minutes,” Lemon said. “There were other reporters and cameras there. And I asked her very respectful questions: ‘How do you think you did in the debate last night?’ and ‘How do you think you’re going to end up in the Ames Straw Poll?’ And her two campaign aides started elbowing me.”
Lemon continued: “I told them, asked them not to elbow me. And then her husband Marcus started doing the same thing. And then he elbowed me into the cart. And I said, ‘You just pushed me into the cart.’ And he goes, ‘No, you did it yourself.’
“It was just, I don’t know, why they would choose to do that. We weren’t asking any ‘gotcha’ questions,” Lemon added.
Why, indeed!
I’m left wondering…is Don Lemon blacklisted by the Bachmann campaign? And if so, is it because he is gay? Or because he is black? Or both?
Either way, Don Lemon just needs to cool off and accept personal responsibility for their actions….
Thom: The Good, the Bad and the VERY, VERY Ugly.
On Wisconsin:
White House: West Wing Week.
Sam Seder: Al Franken confronts anti-gay group’s lies.
Olbermann with Markos: Obama’s “plan” to destroy the Mittster.
Stephen: Liberal media’s big temperature.
Sam Seder: How the American Legislative Exchange Council uses taxpayers money to destroy our government.
Commissioner Dean Foster on redistricting Washington.
Following the Hostage “Situation,” S&P Downgrades U.S. Political Process:
Greenman: This is not cool—heatwave 2011:
Thom: Is FAUX News now a bastion of Socialism?
Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas resolves his way to Worst Person in the World.
Obama: Celebrating Ramadan at the White House.
The Onion: Week in Review.
Ed with some major psychotalk from Hannity.
Sam Seder: Job are missing from the discussion in Washington.
The week in presidential campaign.
Olbermann: The GOP downgrade.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) on workforce investment act.
The GOP Primary Funny Farm:
Young Turks: Another gay Republican hypocrite.
Greenman: Lord Christopher Monckton brings the crazy to New Zealand.
Second City: The Bachmann Institute for curing gayness : .
Obama at Johnson Controls battery plant.
Thom: The Good, the Bad and the VERY, VERY Ugly.
The Friday Funnies.
“Concerned parent” Amber Hahn is Worst Person in the World.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
I love the deal to end the free ride zone (Is it a zone or an area? I’ve always called it a zone, but John Jensen at calls it an area at the link. Then again I still call it the Bus Tunnel, so let’s concede that a transit expert may know more than me about transit terminology.) and adopt the $20 car tab/saving bus service. In addition to the points Jensen made, the economic rule about free things (that people don’t value them) certainly applies to the free ride zone.
The jokes about the rolling homeless shelters have been around since I’ve been in Seattle. You find yourself sitting next to a drunk or a junkie sometimes. Of course we all try to ignore them, but sometimes you can’t if they smell like piss or are yelling. I imagine it’s worse if you’re a woman, and there’s harassment, etc. Those riders will still be on the bus, but in fewer numbers and more distributed throughout the system. Buses aren’t equipped to handle social services anyway.
The other problem is that all the people who can’t afford to pay get off the bus at the same time. I’ve always suspected that at least part of the reason that the open air drug market on Bell Street is so persistent is that all the junkies who ride back and forth in the free ride area get off there (there are other factors, of course, the Recovery Cafe was nearby for a long time, there were businesses that catered to that clientele, a general neglect of downtown).
I guess what I’m saying is that while the $20 tabs and saving bus service is clearly the best part of the deal, ending the free ride zone is a nice bonus. Here’s hoping they implement the changes well.
Why was the credit rating of the U.S. downgraded by S&P? An S&P director explains in unambiguous terms:
…[O]ne reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default — a position put forth by some Republicans.
Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.
“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”
In other words, the Republican party has become so fringe, that they jeopardize the fiscal health of the United States.
Yeah…it’s just a minority of Republicans. But the rest of the congressional Republicans didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to that nut-case minority. Instead, they permitted—indeed, they fully participated in—the process that sank into a chaotic battle of ideology that brought the U.S. to the brink of default.
Congressional Republicans tangibly harmed the U.S. In doing so, they failed to live up to their oath of office.
The other day when Patty Murray was appointed to the Superduperextraspecialcommittee, I noted that the choice of words calling her a co-chairwoman was potentially off.
Also, one other thing. The Caucus piece linked above refers to her as the future “co-chairwoman” of the committee. I assume that means the Republican co-chair will also be a woman. Otherwise, let’s hear it for gender neutral language in the future.
Well, sad to say, she won’t even be the co-woman on the panel. Yes, that’s right, our government has decided that a population underrepresented in Congress should be even underrepresenteder in the Awesomesaucepeachykeancommittee.
Asked by PubliCola whether Murray felt the makeup of the committee is fair or representative, Murray’s spokesman Eli Zupnick responded: “Senator Murray would always like to see more women at the table, but as the only one on this Committee she will be in there fighting for those women who don’t have a voice at the table—as well as for everyone who is counting on her and her colleagues to come together with a balanced plan that works for families across the country.”
I just finished watching the Republican debate. And…Wow!
No, not “wow” about the debate. That was pretty much formula. Political debates have become as formulaic as TV sitcoms. And this debate could be, perhaps, the archetype of political debates. We had a stage full of people who want to be President of the U.S. and they were parroting bullshit lines fed to them by political consultants, designed to invoke an emotion.
Let me explain. As a teen, I was given some bullshit advice about how to win a woman’s heart. “In an early encounter, you must evoke a strong emotion from her. It doesn’t matter if it is pity, or lust, or anger, or fright, or extreme nausea. Just make it extreme. Because later on she’ll only remember that you stirred her passions.” (No…I’m not endorsing the idea….)
Contemporary political consultants must have all heard that same story. That’s what the candidates were doing all evening. Trying to evoke a little anger, patriotism, angst, fear, disgust, etc.—hoping to connect with voters so that the only thing they remember the next morning is how much candidate X stirred their passions.
The problem is, they all did it and it was formulaic. It was generic political sitcom. Tim Pawlenty was transparently engaging in it—he came off as a total buffoon. Michelle Bachmann was just off…she seemed detached and robotic. At one point, coming back from a break, she wasn’t at the podium! She came scurrying back whilst on camera. WHAT. THE. FUCK. (My guess is she was in the middle of a debilitating migraine and puking her guts out in the restroom. But who knows.)
There were two exceptions to the robot-a-thon. Newt Gingrich did less of it than the rest. He seemed much more earnest and analytical in his answers (even if the underlying ideas are lousy).
And Ron Paul was certainly passionate and genuine and honest. After all, madness has it privileges!
None of that was the “wow” part.
The “wow” part was the “Spin Room” post-debate circle-jerk on the FAUX News livestream. (Were they on TV too? Beats me. I don’t have a functioning TV in my house.) The “wow” part is that they said many of the same things about candidates I just articulated. No…worse, they outright savaged each and every one of the candidates. They savaged the debate format. They savaged the questions. They made the excellent point that none of the candidates on the stage inspired people to the point of personal sacrifice and devotion. Its because none of them showed real leadership—just formulaic sitcom bullshit answer after answer.
And so I am in the hugely embarrassing position of agreeing with a panel of fucking FAUX News infotainers, none of whose names I know or even remember. (In fairness…they probably don’t know who I am, either.)
Here’s the thing. Newt would lose because he is a deeply flawed person. Ron Paul would lose because he is a nut-case. And all of the rest of them would lose because they are a “relationship of convenience” to Republican voters. Just like Bob Dole, who was “their guy”. He was ok-ish. “he’ll do.” Blah.
And that’s just not good enough.
What we have on the Republican side is a group of people who desperately want to be President, but haven’t given Republicans a good reason why. George W. Bush got away with the sitcom-like formula, but times were good.
Not so much right now.
Here’s a thread for this bullshit if you want to talk about it.
… I’m not sure anyone will ever talk about “Minnesota nice” again. And apparently Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Herman Cain exist.
… As always, it feels odd when Ron Paul makes more sense than anyone else. In this case RE immigration. Although, his proposals are still garbage.
… Republicans sure don’t like taxes, even though they supported them when they supported them as governor.
… I really like the Minnesota people hating each other. NOBODY CARES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MN LEGISLATURE, you guys.
… If anyone else is watching online, is the video cutting out a lot for anyone else?
… We also don’t care about the MA Constitution (although it is pretty rad).
… Santorum wants to “fight marriage imposed by the states.” And I think he just compared gay marriage to slavery!
… Everyone on the Fox News online panel during the commercial are in love with Newt Gingrich.
… They’re talking about Rick Parry, as “the candidate who isn’t here.” Then they mentioned Palin and Guilani. I thought for a minute someone might have mentioned Fred Karger.
… Romney, Newt, are you guys hypocrites on foreign policy? Nuh huh.
… And Paul also makes sense (mostly) on Iran and foreign policy (at least in the 30 second bites, if you extend it out, there are things to disagree with).
… “Social issues, that should be fun” after the break. I doubt it. I’m going to make myself a samich.
… Byron York asks a sexist question of Bachman, and she answers it fine. Please stick to issues everyone because I really don’t want to defend Bachman.
… As someone who is used to to watching sports on ESPN3 and MLB.com, I think Fox News cutting out like this is their website and not me. Step up, guys.
… Who wants to use the power of the federal government to force women to stay pregnant the most? Everyone on stage claims its them.
… Mittens, do you hate people who are unemployed? Yeppers.
… John Huntsman wants education to go back to local people because nobody cares more than local electeds and parents. Um, students and teachers?
… Closing comments. Let me just say that this sammich is really good. You guys, I can’t recommend living near Pike Place Market highly enough.
– The survivor of the South Park rapes and murder speaks up in her own name for the first time.
– I don’t know what to say about the UK riots.
– US Bonds have been downgraded. We need to find something safe. Like US Bonds!
– GOP celebrates it’s ability to lose seats in Wisconsin.
– Middle Man.
– Eyman’s latest dumbass initiative may cost us federal money.
Seattle Weekly’s medical marijuana columnist Steve “banned in China” Elliott has put up two posts about the internal conflict in the marijuana legalization movement in Washington state. This conflict has been my #1 source of headaches for the past year or so, and it’s starting to look like I need to invest in a lot more Excedrin.
With the failure of Sensible Washington to make the ballot for the second year running (disclosure: during the most recent signature gathering effort, I volunteered to help with their media relations and some IT projects, but have stepped back significantly since starting a new job in June), a new group called New Approach Washington (NAW) emerged with an impressive roster of supporters. NAW is headed up by Alison Holcomb and the ACLU of Washington and has some big names on its side, including Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, former U.S. Attorney John McKay and TV personality Rick Steves. This should be good news for everyone who wants to see the end of marijuana prohibition, but as Elliott points out, there’s a bit of a problem.
The initiative that NAW put together includes some provisions that aren’t perfect, but still a step forward – like the fact that individuals still won’t be able to grow their own plants unless they’re a medical patient – but it has one big provision that is absolutely toxic. The NAW initiative introduces a Delta-9 THC limit (5 ng/ml) that would become the equivalent to the .08 BAC limit for alcohol. The problem is that Delta-9 THC isn’t an accurate measure of impairment the way that a BAC reading is. As Elliott explains:
According to Alison Holcomb of New Approach Washington, fact sheets found on the FAQ portion of New Approach’s website [PDF] address [Sensible Washington’s Douglas] Hiatt’s objections.
The fact sheets assert that a 5 ng/ml THC level “is analogous” to a .08 blood alcohol content, but that assertion is unproven and quite debatable — with possibly hundreds of patient DUI arrests hanging in the balance.
Cited as evidence on the NAW site [PDF] is a scientific study which, crucially, measured THC levels of recreational — as opposed to medicinal — marijuana users. Typically, medical marijuana users, especially those dealing with heavy nausea and pain, smoke much, much more than recreational users, resulting of course in higher acute and residual THC blood levels.
For example, Denver Westword medical marijuana dispensary critic William Breathes tested three times over the proposed legal limit of 5 ng/ml while completely sober and unimpaired.
Breathes took the test when an identical limit of 5 ng/ml was proposed for Colorado. The Colorado Legislature backed away from the DUI limit when presented with the scientific evidence.
As a result, the reaction from some corners has been downright visceral. Some members of Sensible Washington disrupted a volunteer meeting for NAW last month, and the more moderate factions of the group have been trying to dial back the group’s rhetoric.
At the last monthly public meeting of the Cannabis Defense Coalition, an NAW representative heard an earful from a few folks, but it wasn’t quite as bad as I expected it to be. And CDC founding member Ben Livingston defended the NAW’s approach by pointing out how the issue of driving while stoned can be a difficult one politically. Although he also pointed out how someone he knew – a medical marijuana patient – had been written up for a cannabis-related DUI that morning merely by having a tail light out. Under the law now, any competent attorney can beat that charge. If NAW’s initiative passes, that likely won’t be possible any more.
And now an offshoot of former Sensible Washington members calling themselves Yes End Penalties (YEP) has filed their own initiative to the legislature. YEP’s initiative uses the language from last year’s Sensible Washington initiative (which lacks the part that directs the legislature to regulate it), and they’ll be collecting signatures soon. NAW’s initiative is I-502. YEP’s is I-505.
The conflict will continue to play out at next weekend’s Hempfest. NAW will insist that YEP’s approach is too radical while YEP will insist that NAW’s attempts to appease fence-sitters will alienate the motivated supporters you need to win. Both sides may be right, and that makes me as pessimistic as I’ve been about getting a legalization initiative passed in 2012. An initiative that can both end prohibition in a smart way and win at the ballot box is possible, but I’m not so sure we have one yet.
5:43: It’s just started, and Tom Rasmussen his speaking and I think I’ve already fallen asleep. Since it’s what journalist do: I’ll note that Nick Licata and Jean Godden couldn’t be bothered to show up.
5:54: 4 speakers, all for putting transit on the ballot but it’s been from $40 to $80.
5:56: Nobody likes the funding mechanism. I’d also rather it be progressive. But compared to the sales tax, well at least people who can’t afford a car don’t have to pay for it. If the legislature ever decides to let locals have a progressive income tax, I’ll support that more.
6:02: I feel like I used to go to more of these things until I was a more regular writer at HA. Now when I see one I think I have to grab my laptop and take it with me to do a post like this. So then I’m too lazy to go at all. This is a neurosis, I think.
6:11: First person wanting sidewalks. It’s still been overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot. John Fox was the only one opposed.
6:16: I should have mentioned but Jean Godden came in a while ago. Nick Licata still couldn’t be bothered to even show up to his job.
6:21: A lot of people talking about how this might be the only opportunity for a long time.
6:24: Also, a lot of mention that Seattle voters have been willing to support transit in the past.
6:27: Of course there’s a large difference between the $40 package with all or mostly roads and the $60 or $80 that has public transit, pedestrian, and bike funding.
6:38: A woman from the Low Income Housing Institute (I didn’t catch her name) speaking in favor of the full $80 is the first person of color speaking in the hour or so. Seattle process, I’m afraid.
6:46: I don’t know if they look down to write or the angle I’m at, but it looks like Jean Godden and Tim Burgess are nodding off.
6:50: There’s a baby outside the council chambers. Hi baby. Hi.
7:00: Overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot and overwhelmingly pro that being transit.
7:05: A lot of people mentioning that the higher package means that we have better projects. And better projects will sell the package better than a lower price tag.
7:13: Does more applause mean we take more time? Because I’ve been applauding most people, but I guess I don’t have anywhere else to go after the meeting.
7:24: A lot of people who own cars making a point of it, and of their willingness to pay. It’s something I’ve made a point of in the past.
7:27: Also, people made the point that we’re in competition with other cities. The ability to get around is a selling point for attracting people to work here, to go to school here, etc.
7:40: We’re done. Here’s my recap of the testimony: Most people want the full $80. The funding mechanism is bad, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate it. In terms of priority, I’d say transit was the most, then sidewalks, and fewer people spoke in favor of bike and road infrastructure, but I don’t think there’s opposition to those things.
Is this sort of thing helpful in a world where we have The Seattle Chanel, etc?
Some other things Rob McKenna could use a special session to pass:
Now you may say, “Carl, isn’t that just stuff you’d like to see in the regular session?” Yes, yes it is.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!