HorsesAss.Org

I don’t always agree with with the P-I’s Joel Connelly, but I do respect him, so when he tells me that Tim Eyman’s latest for-profit initiative “deserves a look,” I decided to do exactly that. And you know what…? Connelly’s right; with I-985, Timmy may actually be “on to something.”

Or, on something as the case might be, considering much of what he’s proposing achieves the exact opposite of what he’s promising voters. Ah well… plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Of course there’s a lot of stupid, selfish crap in Eyman’s initiative—that goes without saying—like opening HOV lanes to all comers outside the narrow hours of 6-9AM and 3-6PM weekdays that newly self-anointed transportation expert Eyman defines as rush hour. I’m sure that will win a bunch of votes from SOV drivers who fantasize about riding in the fast lane without the unbearable burden of a passenger… but if you think opening an extra lane to general purpose traffic is going to move things any faster on 520, there’s a shady fellow named Dino Rossi who has an eight-lane bridge to sell you.

Then there’s the popular synchronize traffic lights provision—a kinda silly, redundant mandate that reminds me of when my mother used to ask me to take out the trash as I was already halfway out the door with the bag, thus stripping me of an credit for taking the initiative. And of course there’s the “Reduce Congestion Fund,” a typically Eymanesque display of something for nothing legerdemain that fixes congestion without raising taxes by you know… stealing money from other stuff that taxpayers like.

But my favorite provision in I-985, the one that earns my endorsement, is the one that requires that tolls only be used to pay for the construction of the particular section of freeway or bridge on which they’re levied. I suppose Eyman supposes that this’ll tie the congestion pricers up in knots—which it will do—but take heart fellow enviros, for it will also result in less new road construction and fewer new miles of general purpose lanes built throughout the Puget Sound region and the state.

Let’s be clear: the 520 floating bridge is going to be replaced before it sinks into the lake (or perhaps, shortly thereafter); that is perhaps DOT’s number one priority. And all the current financing plans heavily rely on tolling both the 520 and I-90 bridges to pay for it. Remove I-90 tolls from the equation, and we not only lose a big chunk of federal funds that were predicated on tolling I-90, we also make it impossible to put any substantial toll on 520 without shifting the bulk of the traffic to its toll-free alternative.

This means we’re going to have to find a billion or so dollars elsewhere to pay for the new 520 bridge, and that money is going to come at the expense of other DOT projects throughout the region and the state. Yeah, that’s right all you Seattle haters on the other side of the mountains… if you vote to to prevent us from tolling ourselves to build our own bridge, the state will have no choice but to suck transportation dollars over the pass in our direction for a change.

And that Reduce Congestion Fund that pulls money out the general fund? Um… where is all this congestion that needs reducing? Why, in the Puget Sound region of course, meaning yet more tax dollars will be flowing East to West, courtesy of everybody’s favorite Mukilteo initiative impresario. But don’t worry Eastern and Central WA voters… Timmy’s going to synchronize all those traffic lights and open up all those HOV lanes that, you know… you don’t have.

Ironically, if I-985 passes it will largely be on the back of the “Fuck Seattle” vote, despite the fact that the end result will be a net inflow of tax dollars to our region. And doubly ironically, while Eyman claims to be addressing traffic congestion, the anti-tolling provisions will most definitely result in less road building, not more.

So if, like me, you want less road construction, not more, and you believe that increasing traffic congestion through stupid proposals like Eyman’s will only further incentivize voters to build more transit, then yeah, Joel’s right, I-985 does deserve a closer look, and perhaps, your very cynical vote.

With today’s endorsement of incumbent Brian Sonntag in the State Auditor’s race, the Seattle Times editorial endorsement scorecard now stands at Republicans 5, Democrats 0. Or figuring in the “Johnson Factor,” perhaps its 4-1… either way, Republicanism is still in the lead.

Sure, Sonntag technically “Prefers Democratic Party,” but since he’s become Tim Eyman’s bitch, even that vague label has become pretty damn meaningless. I mean, how many times is he going to audit Sound Transit? I guess if he audits long enough and often enough he’ll eventually catch Joni Earl lying about a blow job or something, but there must be some other state or local agency that deserves his undivided attention.

But I’ll be generous and split the difference, moving to an indecisive, NHL-style scorecard that awards two points for a win, and 1 point for a tie. That gives the R’s two points each for Reed, Martin and Bond, while awarding one point each to both teams for Sonntag, Johnson and the inexplicable Dorn-Bergeson dual endorsement in the SPI race. (I mean, what’s the point?)

So here are today’s revised standings:

Seattle Times Endorsements	GP	W	L		T	Pts
Republicans	6	3	0		3	9
Democrats	6	0	3		3	3
Third Parties	6	0	6		0	0

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We begin at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some of us will show up early for Dinner.

Tonight’s theme song might just have to be a torturous number by the most recently declared presidential candidate:

For tonight’s activity, we’ll pass around and evaluate McCain’s recently announced health care plan:

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Not that I’m keeping score or anything, but the Seattle Times has started publishing their editorial endorsements, and with the addition today of top-two fellatrix Sam Reed for Secretary of State and licensed mortician Allan Martin for State Treasurer, so far it is Republicans 4, Democrats 0. Or maybe it’s 3-1… I can never keep my Justice Johnsons straight.

Yeah, sure, the Supreme Court is technically nonpartisan, but as in all nonpartisan races we all know who the Democrats and the Republicans really are (unless they’re named “Johnson”). For example, Justice Mary Fairhurst, let’s be honest, she’s a Democrat, and perhaps the most liberal member of the court. Which is exactly why the Times endorsed her opponent, Michael Bond.

Perhaps Bond really is qualified to serve… I’m no lawyer, so I dunno. But every other paper in the state thus far—including those from such liberal strongholds as Yakima, Tri-Cities and Walla Walla—have endorsed Fairhurst. So despite the Times’ tortured effort to explain away their endorsement, the truth is that they oppose Fairhurst for the exact same partisan reasons that I support her. The difference is, I’m honest about my bias.

Elway Research has released a new Washington state poll that includes some interesting races. The big one, of course, is the Washington state gubernatorial race.

The poll shows Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) leading challenger Dino Rossi (GOP-Party) 52% to 36%, with 12% “undecided”. This relatively small poll of 405 people was taken from July 27th to July 31st, and has a margin of error of 5%

This is the fifth July poll in this race. Rossi has led in none of them. In fact, Rossi has not led in a poll since the end of February—going back 14 polls.

As usual, I’ll analyze the results using a Monte Carlo approach (1,000,000 simulated elections with 405 voters, but this time the analysis is modified [upon prodding by scotto and Richard Pope] to include an additional uncertainty term. Technically, now I am drawing counts of votes from a beta-trinomial distribution and using uniform [uninformative] prior distributions on the preference probabilities).

Result 1: Gregoire won 992,024 of the elections and Rossi won 7,115 times. This suggests that, if an election were held now, Gregoire would have a 99.3% chance of winning and Rossi would have a 0.7% of winning.

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections (blue bars are wins for Gregoire and red bars are Rossi wins):

You may recall that there was a recent Strategic Vision poll of this race that gave Gregoire a slimmer 47% to 45% lead. That poll was taken from 25th July to 27th July. Given that the Elway and Strategic Vision polls were taken back-to-back, a combined analysis would seem in order.

Result 2: This time, Gregoire won 955,951 elections and Rossi won 41,842 of the elections. The analysis using both polls suggests that Gregoire would win with a 95.8% probability and Rossi would win with a 4.2% probability. A statistician would point out that, even using both polls, Gregoire’s win is slightly outside the margin of error.

Here is the plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections for the combined polls:

Elway Research also polled for the presidential election in Washington state. Sen. Barack Obama (D) leads Sen. John McCain (R), 47% to 35%. This +12% margin is notable because, if I’m not mistaken, this is the first time that Gregoire has polled better against Rossi than Obama has against McCain.

Other results of note in the Elway poll include the Commissioner of Public Lands race where Peter Goldmark (D) barely leads incumbent Doug Sutherland (R) 31% to 30% (well within the margin of error, obviously). In the Attorney General race, incumbent Rob McKenna (R) leads John Ladenburg (D) 41% to 30%.

(Cross posted at Hominid Views)

I particularly like the headline in the online edition, “Rich are feeling pinched too,” but the simple fact that this story makes the front page of the Seattle Times tells you all you need to know about the life experience and day to day perspective its publisher.

Oh no… the rich are “spending less on luxury goods and are being more thrifty with their credit cards!” In fact, I understand that things have gotten so tough for the ultra wealthy, that some are even being forced to sell off their extensive newspaper holdings in Maine! Can you feel their pain? (I suppose the Blethens might chafe at my description of them as “ultra wealthy,” but that just shows how out of touch they really are.)

And… that the Times editors thought this fabulously wealthy human interest story worthy of front page placement is even funnier in light of the tiny little teaser they squeezed into the bottom right hand corner:

Grow your food City dwellers across the country are planting gardens to save money

Yeah sure, the working and middle class are farming their backyards so that they can afford to feed their families… but at least they’re not being forced to suffer the humiliation of shopping around for the best deal on private jets.  I suppose that explains the relative placement of the two stories.

Over at EffU, I conducted a reality check on the Washington Policy Center.

Call me a curmudgeon, but this Southeast Seattle resident has grown to dread Seafair.

As a 16-year transplant I’ve never quite understood the local fascination with watching boats run around in circles, and even the thrill of the Blue Angels eventually wears out its welcome after years of having one’s house rattled by Navy jets. (If I had a nickel for every time the Blue Angels buzzed my backyard in full formation, I could buy myself a latte.)

Still, it’s not the annual festivities I begrudge, even if I usually choose not to participate. It’s the goddamn traffic.

My part of the city is normally blessed with multiple routes in, out and through the downtown, enough to cope with nearly any traffic situation, but for one weekend each year I might as well be living on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. Up over the hill to the East of me is the lake, where absolutely everybody else in Seattle is now headed. To the North, the main thoroughfares and the surrounding side streets from Lake Washington Blvd. to Beacon Hill Ave. and everything in between, are blocked by an impassable glacier of traffic. And my usual western route to I-5 and the many options of the Duwamish Valley beyond is transformed from a five-minute sprint into a 45-minute slog through a swamp of equally pissed off drivers.

Cut off from even local amenities, my only escape lies to the South, where I intend to head off soon, before the annual Seafair sclerosis clogs those arteries too

I mention all this not just to complain (though I do like complaining), but rather to make a couple points. First, mine isn’t the only neighborhood subject to occasional or even regular invasions due to special events or local amenities. I live walking distance to a couple of pretty spectacular parks on a lake, a luxury that is well worth the occasional street closure or traffic nightmare. So I have no sympathy for folks who, say, choose to live near the Woodland Park Zoo, and then bitch about the parking, or who live near Gas Works Park and fight planned concerts there out of concern about the crowds. I have empathy, but no sympathy. Like me, complain all you want… but then suck it up and deal with it.

Second, this is likely the last Seafair in which the northern frontier is virtually walled off from me. This time next year light rail will be operating through the Rainier Valley, providing yet another route in and out for us luck Southenders… a route mercifully not subject to the whims of local traffic. A route, by the way, that will prove a fast and affordable alternative for Seafair celebrants from outside the neighborhood, who’d rather avoid traffic than help contribute to it.

Keep that in mind this November when you’re asked to tax yourselves to extend light rail through other neighborhoods.

(…and almost ninety other media clips from the past week in politics are posted over at Hominid Views.)

Some items of interest in the world of energy research…

There was a major breakthrough this week that could revolutionize solar power technology. Researchers at MIT came up with a way to cheaply and efficiently split water molecules using a catalyst consisting of cobalt and potassium phosphate. Paired with a second electrode that converts the resultant hydrogen ions into hydrogen gas, it opens the possibility for having solar panels that can store energy – in the form of hydrogen gas – for when the sun isn’t shining.

Also this week, my father-in-law (who maintains an alternative energy website) sent me this video of the prospect of using algae as a source of biofuel. One of the benefits of using algae is that it can be grown and harnessed in any type of structure, and in the video, the closed bio-reactor system there can produce significantly more biofuel than what can be produced through conventional farming methods and just needs sunlight and carbon dioxide. There are still some cost barriers to doing this on a large scale, but the improvements in the reactor technology and the price of oil is making that investment seem more and more worthwhile.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asks:

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

Paris Hilton and Britney Spears aren’t just “sexually provocative.” These are women whose celebrity, to a great extent, was shaped by very public airing of their sexual exploits and parts. These women have become cultural icons of the infamy that arises from celebrity mixed with unrestrained sexuality.

At the same time, images of nubile, promiscuous women juxtaposed with Barack Obama churn up stereotypes and primal fears held, largely beneath the surface, by many Americans: Black men with their uncontrolled sexuality are out to steal and rape “our” women.

Don’t fool yourself. Hilton and Spears were not simply chosen because of their celebrity. The same ad makes no sense whatsoever with other scandalous celebs substituted in for the starlets.

Take Martha Stewart…a scandal-ridden white woman who is closer in age to Obama than is Spears. Umm…no, doesn’t work. The ad becomes incomprehensible. But why a woman? How about pairing up Keith Richards and Steven Tyler, celebrities who are both closer in age to Obama than are Hilton and Spears, and have well publicized substance abuse problems and public personas of hypersexual rockers. Obama has confessed to drug use as a youth, so isn’t the Richards/Tyler imagery a much better way to paint Obama as an empty celeb?

This doesn’t work at all. We expect our rock stars to engage in hedonistic self-destruction and take on a hyper-sexual persona. It’s in the job description. Obama, by comparison would come out as clean cut, self-restrained, and rigorously responsible. Besides, they look old. The ad would invoke universal puzzlement (if not ridicule).

Let’s try Michael Jackson, who matches the Hilton/Spears celeb-gone-wild bits, but has the advantage of demographic accuracy: Jackson is male, is close to Obama in age, and is black. Surely, this must make for a better ad than using much younger, white women to exemplify indiscretions of celebrity.

This still doesn’t make any sense. Nobody believes Obama is on the Wacko-Jacko track, which is obviously pathologically bizarre. But, when it comes right down to it, nobody really believes that Obama is on the Hilton or Spears pathologically slightly-less-bizarre tracks, either. The analogy is deeply flawed. Obama has become a celebrity as a result of his skills as a politician and orator, not because his sexual imagery was successfully marketed. An certainly not because he was born, like Hilton, fabulously rich.

The fact is, the Hilton/Spears imagery fails any kind of test as a sensible analogy. (This is one reason why the media is all abuzz about it.) Superficially, the ad was supposed to paint Obama as a shallow celeb. The real function of the ad is identical to that of the infamous NRSC hit advertisement on Harold Ford : frame Obama as the frightening “sexual savage.”

Why would the McCain campaign use hateful, racist messages in a political contest against a sitting U.S. Senator whose only scandalous vice is chewing Nicorette? Because the tactic still works, as was demonstrated by the Republican’s smear ads against Harold Ford in 2006.

One thing that emerges clearly from this episode: John McCain has become a shell of the man he was in 2000.