Of course, we could just spend all of our transportation dollars building and expanding roads, as Dino Rossi and Tim Eyman would have us do, or we could actually give commuters more options… you know, before steadily rising gasoline prices takes our only option away.
Does Dino Rossi believe what the BIAW believes?
The Anti Defamation League (ADL) denounced the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) yesterday for a bizarre and offensive newsletter article comparing environmentalists to Nazis (“Hitler s Nazi party: They were eco extremists“), demanding an immediate apology:
“This article showed a deplorable lack of judgment on the part of the Building Industry Association of Washington,” said Ellen Bovarnick, ADL Pacific Northwest Regional Director. “Any attempt to compare the policies Hitler and the Nazis, which led to World War II and ultimately the death of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust, to the actions of environmentalists is inappropriate and offensive and has no place in a debate over environmental regulation.”
ADL calls on the organization to repudiate the article and to apologize to anyone who may have been offended by the comparison, especially Holocaust survivors and their families.
“While the industry may have concerns about regulation, it is outrageous and false to compare environmentalists and government regulators to Nazis,” said Ms. Bovarnick. “Such comparisons only serve to trivialize the history of the Holocaust.”
Ironically, at the very same time the ADL was drafting its sternly worded press release, Republican Grand Old Party Party candidate for governor, Dino Rossi was a featured speaker at the BIAW’s annual membership meeting at Skamania Lodge, where he was introduced by BIAW president Brad Spears as a “candidate who believes as BIAW believes.”
[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/rossi_biaw.mp3]Um… the BIAW believes a lot of things Dino, some more offensive than others. So if you don’t believe as they do, that DOE’s stormwater regulations are the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, isn’t it time you set the record straight and denounce your patrons at the BIAW (an organization that has made your election their top priority in 2008) for their violent, offensive and over-the-top rhetoric?
I’m just askin’.
Open Thread
This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is posted
Also, Jonathan Gardner longs for the days of slavery
Open thread
Report: light rail on I-90 is no big deal
Putting commuter trains on the Interstate 90 bridge will require protecting the structure against damage from stray electrical current and may require innovative ways to attach the rails to avoid damaging the span, a panel of experts told state lawmakers Wednesday.
A Sound Transit project manager said the trains would likely have to slow for a few seconds while crossing joints between the floating bridge and its approaches. And who would pay for what part of the project is still being worked out.
“This is very new to us, the idea of putting light rail on a floating bridge,” said state project manager Theresa Greco.
I think the idea of transit in general is new to our state’s Department of Highways Transportation. These guys see that center span as theirs, and they look at any project that doesn’t rely on cars or buses as suspect.
During the meeting, Rep. Judy Clibborn compared installing light rail on I-90 with The Big Dig. Really? Putting rails on a floating bridge is the same as the most ambitious public works project in American history? Making “Big Dig” comparisons is a sort of “Godwin’s Law” of transportation arguments: every project you oppose is the same as the “Big Dig.”
How can something be a “Big Dig” when we’re not even digging?
The debate that wasn’t
I wasn’t sure what to expect facing off against conservative uber-strategist Grover Norquist Monday night at the invitation of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), but I was game to find out. It was essentially a no lose situation for me, a lowly local blogger debating a national figure like Norquist. This was a debate that I would win even by losing, elevating my prominence by association, while inherently lowering his.
Indeed, when I first posted that I would be debating Norquist, at an Outback Steakhouse of all places, several readers just assumed I was joking. I wasn’t. My how the mighty have fallen.
The evening started off in a surreal fashion, exchanging friendly handshakes with Norquist, one of the criminal masterminds of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and Washington State Republican Party chair Luke Esser, a man I once facetiously accused of “fucking pigs.” Pleasantries completed I vigorously washed my hands before proceeding to dinner, where I was seated at the end of a table with Norquist, Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey, and EFF president Bob Williams, an outspoken advocate of settling policy disputes by taking political prisoners. You know… my homies.
Having never been to an Outback Steakhouse before, I of course ordered the salmon, as did Norquist. (Ramsey, the dirty fucking hippie, ordered the vegetarian pasta. What’s up with that?) As the VIP crowd of EFF faithful munched on cheese fries and Outback’s signature “Bloomin’ Onion” (Australian for “onion rings”), Ramsey conducted an informal interview with Norquist, and, well, how could I not listen in?
McCain’s VP choice? Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Norquist says Jindal has more experience than Obama, yet at 38 years old beats him in youth (and I suppose, brownness.) As for McCain himself, Norquist argues that he isn’t in as bad a position as many pundits think, down only a few points to Obama, while by comparison, Dukakis led Bush I by 17 points in August of 1988. (Note to Norquist… this isn’t 1988.)
Norquist also expounded on the electoral advantages of his vaunted conservative coalition versus the relative chaos of the fractured hoards on the left. (Note to Norquist… this isn’t 2004.)
As dinner was served, Norquist stood to say a few words to the pre-debate crowd, and while he may have been eating fish and broccoli himself, he tossed plenty of red meat to the rhetorically ravenous EFFers; in fact, until that moment, I had never realized how incredibly evil I and my fellow travelers are… at least in the paranoid fantasies Norquist peddles to the true believers. Sure, I’ve grown accustomed to the usual assortment of trolls, talk monkeys and (u)SPers attributing our ideological opposition to stupidity or lunacy or both, but according to Norquist, we’re not just wrong, we’re downright bad people… “competing parasites” and “child killers” motivated solely by greed, envy and actual malice. And that’s just the rhetorical poo he flings at public school teachers.
In preparing for the debate I had struggled to settle upon a stylistic approach… wonky? Passionate? Sarcastic? But through his pre-debate remarks Norquist had set a combative tone, and I was only too happy to follow his lead.
Michael and Lee have posted their own review of the proceedings, as has Ramsey, and lost in the moment, I’m incapable of providing a better blow by blow account. I’ve no idea if I won or lost on points, but that was never my focus; my goal was to back Norquist into a rhetorical corner, and on the issue of school vouchers he gave me the opportunity I’d been looking for. Borrowing a technique I’d honed during my encounters with Tim Eyman, I disintermediated the moderator and posed a question directly to Norquist, asking him to explain why spending tax dollars on education, even vouchers, is at all consistent with his philosophy of limited government?
As expected, Norquist refused to answer the question, skillfully changing the subject to his own advantage, but I did not demur, instead rephrasing my question to ask him why it was appropriate for government to force me to pay to educate another family’s child, but not to provide that child health care? And again, he refused to answer my question.
Round and round we went, me relentlessly following up, and Norquist refusing to answer, his responses growing ever longer and repetitive as he all but filibustered the remaining minutes. Afterwards, Ramsey came up to me and said, “He never answered your question,” to which I replied, “That’s because we all know the answer.”
Of course, public education, vouchers or otherwise, is not consistent with Norquist’s philosophy of limited government, and he knows it. Norquist could not possibly reconcile spending tax dollars on school vouchers with his ideologically rigid “small government” framework, yet if he conceded the point it would reveal his advocacy for vouchers to be cynical and manipulative. It would also be extremely unpopular with voters, who overwhelmingly support education spending. Norquist supports vouchers as a calculated step toward initially reducing government education spending, and eventually eliminating it. And that is why I oppose them.
But my ultimate point was that on this, as on so many other issues, Norquist is fundamentally dishonest. Oh, he’s brutally frank when it comes to discussing strategy, but his comments both before and during the debate were peppered with intentionally misleading and factually incorrect statements. For example, when Norquist argues that Obama would raise the capital gains tax, thus raising taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans who own 401K plans, he neglects to mention that 401Ks are tax exempt, and that the profits are only taxed when the money is withdrawn during retirement, when one’s income is generally lower. And yet it is on bogus assertions like this that he vilifies the opposition. And “vilify” is no overstatement: there is an underlying violence to his metaphors that seems to come from the heart.
The truth is, there was no debate Monday night, and there wouldn’t have been regardless of the tact I’d chosen. (Reading Ramsey’s comments on his Times blog, a debate between me and him would have been more challenging and engaging.) Norquist came to plug his book, and was unwilling or unprepared to reach beyond his familiar talking points, regardless of the question… in the end, it wasn’t much different than taking on Eyman. No doubt with a little effort Norquist would have proven a more formidable foe, but given his reputation as a political genius, I didn’t really find him all that.
I guess I expected a little better.
Open thread
GAO grants Boeing challenge
The Government Accountability Office has granted Boeing’s challenge of a lucrative refueling tanker contract, citing numerous errors by the Air Force.
Officially challenging the contract was widely considered to be a risky move on Boeing’s part, as the GAO is not known for lightly granting challenges, and Boeing risked its relationship with military officials. But the GAO decision now gives more ammunition to members of Congress seeking to overturn the $40 billion contract that largely went Europe’s Airbus.
I guess John McCain has some further explaining to do to WA voters.
Courage
Jim Webb (D-VA) is once again showing that he’s in a league of his own in the U.S. Senate. Tomorrow, he’ll be convening a hearing on the drug war and exploring the damage it’s doing to our country.
Don’t let Rossi slander Seattle
Via The Other Side Online, a photo of the Rossi signs that have been popping up all over Eastern Washington. Notice there is no “paid for” notice as required by law, allowing Rossi to deny responsibility, but really… we all know these professionally printed signs are as much a part of the Rossi campaign as the BIAW’s multi-million dollar media blitz.
But you know, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s okay for Rossi to stoke anti-Seattle passions in Yakima, while the media covers for him back here, then I think Seattle voters deserve to see the same message, paid for by equally anonymous benefactors. So I’m going to anonymously check out what it costs to put up this sign on a prominent billboard in downtown Seattle, and then anonymously launch an anonymous fund drive to pay for it.
Just Leave the Man Alone
I made it out to last night’s debate between Goldy and Grover Norquist at the South Lake Union Outback Steakhouse. The event was videotaped by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and will be available sometime next week. I was hoping to live-blog as it was happening, but there was no available wi-fi for me to use. So instead I drank some Toohey’s and enjoyed the spectacle.
My take on the debate was that Goldy had an advantage in that he knows Norquist much better than Norquist knows Goldy (and Washington State politics). Goldy used this edge to provide some local examples of why Norquist’s ideas of taxation being antithetical to freedom don’t quite match up with the history of this region, while Norquist could only respond with some lame strawman arguments and occasional outbursts of yelling that gave his appearance an unhinged quality at times.
I imagine the EFF folks who were in attendance saw things differently, but Norquist looked bored and annoyed while Goldy generally made his points and easily responded to the wild accusations from Norquist that people on the left are parasites.
Probably the most striking point that Goldy made was pointing out that Norquist’s support for having government provide money to families to use towards school choice seemed to fly in the face of his overall opposition of wealth re-distribution. Even following the debate, a group of EFF members continued to argue this point, totally unable to grasp it. One man in his twenties finally tried to make the point that educating kids could conceivably be a matter of national security. Thankfully, none of the EFF people stuck around long enough to ride that train of thought to its logical conclusion and watch their entire ideology unravel in front of them.
Norquist was also there to plug his new book “Leave Us Alone.” The title of his book certainly sounds like a political sentiment I can go along with. I strongly feel that government at all levels in this country has gotten too big and has accrued far too much power for its own good. I worry that we don’t exercise enough oversight over how government spends our money and that we’re starting to believe in false choices between security and freedom that will end up with us having neither. But Norquist sees both demons and virtue where none of either exist. It’s hard to take seriously a man who helped elevate the current Bush Administration into power but is still convinced that the threat of big government is unique to the political left.
Even during the debate, there were a number of issues that Norquist brought up that I agreed with (and even Goldy made it clear that he agrees with Norquist on our sugar policy), but by seeing those on the left as “parasites,” he remains lost in a world that exists only in his own mind. Yes, there are unions backed by the left that don’t act in the best interest of the greater public and screw taxpayers. But there are corporations backed by the right who do it as well. And in recent years, corporations that have acted irresponsibly have screwed taxpayers out of far greater sums of money that every single welfare recipient in the country combined.
Both sides of the political divide in this country are driven by interests that – when left unchecked – can end up with attempts to curtail our freedom or to divert taxpayer money towards foolish or dangerous things. Believing that a desire to use taxpayer money in the first place is inherently foolish is the false notion that leads Norquist (and not to mention Jonah Goldberg in his recent laughable book) to conclusions that fall far outside the realm of common sense. Norquist wants to equate the desire for 51% of the population to enact a levy to the desire for 51% of the population to strip individuals of a particular moral choice or to subjugate a subset of the population. When it comes to regulating an economic system that everyone must share, the system’s rules must be determined by the aggregate of the population’s moral outlook, whether that means more government involvement or less. However, when it comes to individual liberty, that should never be subject to a “tyranny of the majority.”
This distinction is crucial for understanding why those, like Norquist, who view taxation as being akin to prison, seem unconcerned and oblivious to the fact that the people who’ve been promising lower taxes for years have now built up the largest prison system in the world. I’m sure he’s convinced himself that the people being locked up are just parasites and need to be taken out of society. When one believes that only the other side is a threat to our freedom, it just makes it easier for his side to become the greater threat to our freedom. This is Norquist’s legacy, and it’s why he’s gone from being a key political player in this country to getting slapped around by a local blogger in a small room at the Outback Steakhouse.
Rossi’s Boys
The BIAW plans to spend a shitload of cash, circumventing campaign finance laws in an attempt to open up a second front against Gov. Chris Gregoire’s re-election campaign. But don’t take it from me:
If you’ve listened to drive-time radio in recent weeks, you’ve doubtless heard an anti-Gov. Chris Gregoire radio spot sponsored by an outfit called “ChangePAC.” It’s really the BIAW in disguise.
On a June 2 report, ChangePAC reported a $245,000 donation from the BIAW, enough to more than pay for a radio campaign that to date has totaled just over $200,000.
The BIAW has since brought that number up to $500,000. That’s a half million in radio ads in June. I haven’t heard much about this from the legacy media; I know that “pointing things out” and “drawing conclusions” is icky icky blogger stuff, but when a special interest group flaunts campaign finance rules, I expect to read about it. You know, in the paper.
Take away my freedom, please!
Yesterday I was driving back to Seattle from the Eastside. I hopped on SR-520 at north Bellevue, and immediately took my place in the line of cars waiting to cross the bridge. The freeway was at a total standstill.
Without AC, my ’88 Chevy POS was getting hotter and hotter. At the same time, I was getting more and more pissed off. I never got this pissed off when riding the commuter bus across the lake. The longer I waited in traffic, the more my mind started to wander.
Right-wingers see transit as an attempt by the “elite” to “force” people into making choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. In the Puget Sound region, our two options are bus or car (or commuter train, for some people). Since our transit system is built on buses which get stuck in traffic, there is little incentive to leave your car at home. Because of this, I’ve been “socially engineered” back into my Chevy. So it’s really the anti-transit folks who take away my choices, and limit my freedom.
We lose productivity and efficiency when we have people in hour-long backups on our freeways. The absence of real alternatives to driving takes away freedom from hardworking folks. Looking at the Sound Transit maps of East Link, I would have been 3/4 of a mile away from a train station, easily in walking distance from my Eastside starting point. Studies show that people will walk much further to a train station than they will a bus stop. From that still-only-on-paper light rail station, it would have been a scant 20 minutes to downtown Seattle.
When we spend big bucks on transit infrastructure, we increase freedom, not decrease it. And you know who understands this better than any Seattle lefty? Try a born-again culture warrior:
Various free market think tanks state that Americans love their automobiles and do not desire rail systems as an alternative. Really?
Each year Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), D.C.’s subway and bus system, reaches a new high in ridership. I have an employee who drove to work. He often was upset upon his arrival. He now lives less than one block from a Metrorail station. He comes to work smiling and continually points to the virtues of the Metrorail system. Metrorail carries close to 600,000 riders per day. Some are tourists but most are workers. If these riders were stranded on the streets of Washington there would be gridlock beyond comprehension.
Many of Free Congress Foundation’s visitors live in the suburbs and take Metrorail and Metrobus. They sing the praises of mass transit. Sure, Americans love their cars. But cars are only good when they are moving.
Open thread
I’m heading down to Vancouver for a day, and hope to use the train ride to write up a few observations on last night’s debate with Grover Norquist. No doubt my co-bloggers will help fill the void during my travels.
UPDATE:
BlatherWatch has a review of last night’s debate.
The Little Black Cat’s Big Catch
Early Sunday, on Father’s Day, my daughter and I awoke to a distressing break from our normal morning routine, which typically begins with a changing of the guard at the kitchen door as our dog and our cat tentatively pass each other in opposite directions. The dog went outside as usual, but Wompus, our smallish, nine-year-old black cat, was nowhere to be seen, failing to return from his usual nocturnal rounds.
This in itself would not have been so alarming if not for the evidence of a commotion throughout our property. A jerry-rigged section of fence had been pushed over from the outside, apparently ripped from its posts; paw marks were clearly visible where the moss appeared to have been scraped at high speeds from what passes for a front lawn; and the “bee cooler” had been knocked several feet from the side of the house, the lid having slammed shut on the angry hive inside. (Yes, we have Coleman cooler filled with bees… but that’s another story.) For her part, the dog sniffed ferociously throughout the crime scene, occasionally peeing on invisible scraps of evidence, an obvious sign of unwanted canine intruders.
All this, combined with recent news of cat-killing coyotes in Seward Park, led us to immediately fear for the worst. I kept reassuring my daughter that it was too soon to jump to conclusions, that the cat would sometimes come home a little late, but that hadn’t really happened in years, and I never really believed it. I followed the dog for a while, hoping at least she might sniff out the remains, but nothing. By noon my daughter had dug a small grave for the cat’s spirit, and tearfully marked it with a stone.
When you adopt a cat from the animal shelter they make you promise to keep it indoors, sternly repeating the grim statistic that the life expectancy of outdoor cats—exposed to disease, cars, and wild animals—is fully half the 14-year average span of those that live their lives entirely indoors. Wompus was a Christmas kitty, and I honored my promise through the winter and spring, but as the sun came out during the early days of summer, so gradually did the cat. At first he just joined us in the garden, before eventually enjoying longer yard adventures on his own. But his annoying, relentless, door-side yowling, and growing proficiency as a mouser, soon earned him permanent in-and-out privileges.
We loved Wompus, and always understood that our permissiveness would likely cut his life short, but it seemed to me a reasonable quality of life trade-off. I had previously owned an indoor cat, from ages 11 through 25, a beautiful calico who proved as neurotic and bored as she was pampered and beloved. As affectionate and playful as cats can be, they are also natural born killing machines, thus locking them indoors condemns them to a life that runs counter to their very nature. I found it impossible to do this to Wompus, especially against his very loudly expressed will.
Wompus had a job—to rid my garden of rats and other rodents—and he joyfully executed his mission with brutal efficiency. On one fall morning alone, after setting the clocks back for daylight savings, we let the cat in to discover five rats laid out by the back door… an incident that came to be mythologized in our family as the “Fallback Massacre.”
And now the predator had become prey, which I told myself was a more noble death for a hunter—a circle of life kinda thing—than being crushed by a car… and far quicker than that of my childhood cat who at the ripe old age of fourteen simply stopped eating, slowly starving herself before dying in my arms, a veterinarian’s needle stuck in her leg. Nine years old—two years past the average life expectancy of an outdoor cat. But at least it was a happy, productive, cat-like nine years, we consoled ourselves.
And so depressed and wracked with guilt (I could have heeded the coyote warnings, though I don’t live all that close to the park, and we’ve heard rumors of coyotes before), I sat down at my computer to write Wompus an appropriate memorial… when in he walks through the open back door, disheveled and agitated and six hours late, but surprisingly, very much alive.
What really happened in those early morning hours we’ll never know, though the physical evidence, the cat’s sudden reluctance to head outdoors, and his renewed nervousness around our dog (who has a more than passing resemblance to a coyote) suggest that our original supposition might not be far off the mark. For now Wompus will remain indoors, at least at night, but once his PTSD wears off and his late-night demands for egress once again escalate into a struggle between life and sleep deprivation, no doubt he’ll return to his usual nocturnal routines, perhaps wiser and more wary, but with every passing year a little slower and less agile. Some might argue with my decision to let him choose life over longevity… but not my cat.
After the jump, the memorial I had planned to post in celebration of Wompus’ life and death, a poem he had inspired me to write for my daughter back in 2002: “The Little Black Cat’s Big Catch.”
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 726
- 727
- 728
- 729
- 730
- …
- 1032
- Next Page »