HorsesAss.Org

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:

• The budget
• Transportation projects
• A repeal of the cost overrun provision
• A repeal of drug war legislation
• Marriage equality
• Universal healthcare
• K-12 funding
• Higher Ed Funding
• A progressive income tax

Now you may say, “Carl, isn’t that just stuff you’d like to see in the regular session?” Yes, yes it is.

I’m glad the Democrats chose Patty Murray as Co-Chair of the bullshit deficit reduction committee*. To the extent that it’s almost certainly going to be an all cuts affair, I trust that the cuts she makes won’t be as godawful as some of her colleagues would make. It’ll probably be impossible to make cuts that aren’t godawful.

Her commitment to working people hopefully means that they won’t take quite the hit they’d take otherwise. And her work for veterans hopefully means that the military cuts will be things that ought to be cut and not the things that actually keep soldiers safe, or hurt their reintegration into society when they get home. She’s not really a firebrand, so hopefully she won’t draw the ire some people might in that position. Patty Murray: as good a choice as anyone for a committee that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

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.

[Read more…]

6:30: The polls closed at 6:00 West coast time, so the results are slowly trickling in. As of 6:30, the advantage goes to the Republicans, who lead in every race with a small proportion of the precincts reporting.

You can follow the results here or here.

In a normal election I would point out that early returns typically favor Republicans. But this is no normal election!

6:50: Hmmm…the 32nd Senate District between Kapanke (R) and Shilling (D) is now a tie with 21% reporting. (But no time stamp change?) Kapanke is considered the most vulnerable of the six Republicans undergoing a recall.

6:55: Another results page.

6:57: Results are given as cool graphs here. (Well…they’ll be cool when more results come in anyway.)

6:59: With 24% reporting, Kapanke (R) surges to +2….

7:12: And with 26% reporting, Shilling (D) surges back to lead Kapanke by +2.

7:15: With 67% reporting in the 2nd senate district, Cowles (R) is leading Nusbaum (D) 59% to 41%. Cowles is obviously going to win. This is a seat that nobody thought was winnable for Democrats anyway.

7:19…in fact, I just saw a Tweet saying the AP has called it for Cowles. Score: Democrats 1, Republicans 1.

7:29: The Harsdorf (R)-Moore (D) race in the 10th district has been called for Harsdorf. Again, no surprise in this race.

7:34: In district 8, with 18% reporting, Pasch (D) is leading Darling (R) 57% to 43%.

7:36: Back in the 32nd, with 45% reporting, Shilling now leads Kapanke 53% to 47%. If results hold, Dems will take two seats away from the Republicans.

7:42: In the 18th, with 19% reporting, King (D) leads Hopper (R) by less than 1%. The exact tally: King 7,464, Hopper, 7,368.

7:54: With 95% reporting in district 14, I think we can call Olsen (R) over Clark (D). The score is 54% to 46%. This gives Republicans three wins. One Democratic incumbent is safe (from a previous election). The three remaining races tonight are the ones people thought would be close. Two look favorable for the Democrats and one is exceedingly close.

8:15: The race in the 32nd has now been called for Shilling (D). The current total is Shilling 55, Kapanke (R) 45% with 82% reporting.

8:37: In the 18th, King (D) now leas Hopper (R) by 27,123 to 25,951, which is 51% to 49%. That is with 97% of precincts reporting.

8:17: With 87% reporting in the 18th, the race remains incredibly close with King (D) 24,458 leading Hopper (R) 24,321.

8:31: Now with 63% reporting in the 8th, Pasch’s (D) lead over Darling (R) has shrunk to 51% to 49%.

It’s an election night!

Not so much in Washington. But it is in Wisconsin, where a series of recall elections are taking place against six Republican incumbent state Senators. The latest polls suggest that two, and maybe three, Democrats will win. But the elections are unprecedented in the modern era of polling, so anything could happen.

Please join us tonight for an evening of election-watching under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but a few folks will show up before then for dinner and early election returns.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? There are 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including thirteen in Washington state and six more in Oregon. Here are some other meetings over the next week:

• The Tri-Cities chapter meets tonight beginning at 7:00pm.
• Drinking Liberally Bellingham also meets tonight beginning at 7:00pm.
• And the Vancouver, WA chapter meets tonight, as well. Starting time is 7:00pm.
• Tomorrow night (Wednesday), Drinking Liberally Bremerton meets at 5:00pm.
• Also tomorrow, Drinking Liberally Portland Metro West meets from 7:00pm to 10:00pm.
• On Thursday, Drinking Liberally Portland is meeting from 7:00pm to 10:00pm.
• Next Monday, Drinking Liberally — Shelton meets at 6:30.
• Also next Monday, the Olympia chapter of Drinking Liberally meets at 7:00pm.
• Finally, the Yakima chapter meets on Monday, as well. Starting time is 7:30.

If none of these works for you, consider starting a new chapter that does.

– Want!

– Moochers.

– I chose to blame you for not stopping me earlier.

– Metro will cut well used routes without the $20 increase in car tabs.

– Aside from the idea early on that Costco and Kemper Freeman are somehow exactly as ungrassroots as SEIU, this is an interesting piece on Eyman’s latest shitty initiative (h/t).

– I love Thrifty Thursdays.

I.

Hate.

Mike.

Mc.

Ginn.

And.

Taxes.

Do you remember what we learned about Jane Hague the last time she ran for the King County Council sixth district seat?

KUOW‘s Amy Radil has an interesting profile of the candidates for this seat. The story begins with a reminder:

Jane Hague was first elected to represent the Eastside on the King County Council in 1994. She’s always won reelection fairly easily, despite some personal mishaps. Mostly recently, in 2007, she was arrested for driving under the influence. And her then–opponent revealed that Hague, King County’s former elections director, did not have a college degree from Western Michigan University as she’d claimed.

Hague denied ever intentionally deceiving anyone about her education.

But a public records request from King County shows that Hague put a Bachelor of Science degree from Western Michigan University on her resume when she applied for the elections job in 1986.

You can listen to the audio version here:
[audio:http://www.kuow.org/mp3high/mp3/News/20110808_ar_hague.mp3]

So, besides getting pulled over and arrest after blowing a 0.14, an incident in which she verbally abused the arresting officers, we also learned that Hague got her career in government started by lying about having a college degree on her application for King County’s manager of records and elections.

And somehow the fake degree perpetuated:

But Hague denied intentionally providing incorrect information and initially said she was puzzled at how several “Who’s Who” books, The Seattle Times, the Municipal League of King County and the National Association of Counties all reported erroneously that she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan University.

Two things. First, let’s not forget the real victim here. Until this became public, the lack-of-degree secret must have been a horrible burden for Jane. Imagine knowing you built your entire career on a fabrication that your political opponents could easily uncover.

I mean, a burden like that can drive one to drink!

Second, electing Jane Hague to King County Council after she lied to get an appointment to King County Elections Director, seems akin to…well, sort of like hiring the person who just robbed you as your Head of Security.

I think it’s likely that Jane Hague and Richard Mitchell will be the top two coming out of the primary. But let’s not make it easy for Hague. If you’re eligible to vote for this race, be sure to vote…for someone other than Jane.

Get that ballot off your kitchen table and into the mailbox!