Seattle police are trying to negotiate with a man who has holed up in a Crown Hill home after pouring gasoline over himself.
“He’s very upset and agitated,” police spokesman Mark Jamieson said.
I would be agitated too, what with gas topping $4.15 a gallon throughout much of the city. At that price, why not just douse oneself with Dom Perignon?
As Goldy mentioned below, things got pretty heated in the podcast last night over I-1000, the Death With Dignity initiative in Washington State. This initiative would bring Oregon’s assisted suicide law to this state. While Oregon remains the only state with such a law, the predictions of innocent old people being preyed on by doctors and alarmingly high levels of suicides never materialized. In fact, less than 300 people have taken advantage of the law to end their lives on their own terms in the decade it’s been on the books. More data here from Oregon shows that the law has been effective and has served the function that it was meant to serve.
On my way over to Drinking Liberally yesterday, I found an I-1000 petition to sign along Pike St downtown, and a few hours (and vodka tonics) later, I was berating Joel Connelly over his opposition to the measure, which I find to be extremely hypocritical for someone who is pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I want to elaborate on why that’s the case here.
Here’s what he wrote in today’s edition of the PI:
The view here: I oppose allowing the state to sanction a decision by people to kill themselves.
It’s part personal, a father who wanted to “go quietly” after a cancer diagnosis, but who lived and was loved for 2 1/2 more years. And we’re not Sparta. The state exists to protect its most vulnerable citizens, the very young and the very old.
While I agree that the state has a duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens, I do not automatically equate the very young with the very old. Not all individuals at the end of their lives are incapable of making informed adult decisions. Many people, when faced with the prospect of imminent death, are extremely clear in their thinking and their choices.
And beyond that, I strongly reject the idea that the state exists to protect citizens from their own moral decisions. This is the foundation that leads to my pro-choice beliefs and my overall libertarian outlook. One could easily argue that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is “vulnerable,” and could in turn use the same logic that Joel uses here to demand that the state make the decision for her.
During the podcast, I had to point out to Joel several times that he was using arguments that were identical to arguments I’ve heard and read from anti-choice activists. There’s little distinction between the value judgement that a person makes towards their own life and the value judgement that a pregnant mother makes towards the life that is growing inside of her (even though the latter is technically not a human life yet). Both value judgements are for the individual to make, and the state should not be involved. Believing that one judgement is sacred to the individual, while the other is not, is a hypocritical stance. Either human beings have domain over their own bodies or they don’t.
There’s a lot that Joel and I agree on in the political realm and I still enjoy talking to him, but I’m profoundly disappointed that he’s allowing emotion to get in the way of reason here and working against establishing a right in this state that should be as fundamental as the right to an abortion.
Mr. Mark Ginther
Executive News Director
KING 5 Television
333 Dexter Ave. N
Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Mr. Ginther,
As I’m sure you agree, Robert Mak leaving KING5 News is a great loss to both the station and its audience, but every crisis presents an opportunity, and in this case it is an opportunity for KING5 to continue its proud tradition of public-affairs programming, while producing a show that you and others might actually “get.” Specifically, I humbly propose that you replace Mr. Mak… with me.
Think about it. As a freeloader on the public airwaves, you have a moral obligation (if not a legally enforceable one anymore) to serve the interests of the local community, and yet you also have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for your Texas-based corporate overlords. So what better way to meet both these responsibilities than by putting your 24 minutes a week of public-affairs programming in the hands of our region’s most outrageous and influential blogger?
Imagine angry shouting matches over arcane details of Washington state’s tax structure, or Democratic consultant Cathy Allen spewing an endless stream of profanity as former state GOP chair Chris Vance assaults her with a folding chair. And trust me; they’ll do it. They’re both self-promoters trolling for clients, and they’ll do just about anything to get themselves on TV.
With a nod to Mak’s legacy and a wink toward my own, I call my show Up Yours with David Goldstein, signaling KING5’s ongoing commitment to thoughtful political coverage and analysis while adopting the snarky and somewhat irreverent attitude of the Daily Show, the blogosphere and the other new media outlets that have been steadily stealing audience (and advertisers) away from traditional news organizations such as your own.
But perhaps best of all, Up Yours would provide KING5 with an affordable and stable means of fulfilling its public service requirement. Having been out of a job since losing my talk show at 710-KIRO back in January, I’m willing to work for cheap. And, you can rest assured that with me behind the desk nobody, but nobody, is going to offer $160,000 a year to lure away your host. I even have an idea for my first segment that I bet you’re going to love: a tantalizing expose on wasteful government spending. For example, did you know that Seattle bizarrely pays the mayor’s communications director a higher salary than the mayor himself?! Shocking, I know. And after we hear what Mak has to say for himself, I plan to hit him with a chair.
Now that’s showbiz.
I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this opportunity further.
Sincerely,
David Goldstein
HorsesAss.org
Dan Savage um… savages the Seattle Times for today’s editorial on the shooting at Folklife. It’s worth the read.
(As for me, I blame the victims.)
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation just sent me my invite via email:
Please join us
for a debate with special guest
GROVER NORQUIST
and
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Political blogger and former KIRO radio talk show hostMonday, June 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Outback Steakhouse
701 Westlake Ave N
Seattle, WA 98109
FREEPlease RSVP to Denise Brandt, 360.956.3482
That’s right, I get to debate neo-con, arch-villain Grover Norquist, courtesy of my good friends at the EFF. The man behind the Bush tax cuts debating a lowly, local blogger like me, at an Outback Steakhouse…? My how the mighty have fallen.
I’m expecting to have a lot of fun… especially if a few of my own supporters show up to cheer me on. So RSVP today and join me at the Outback Steakhouse for an evening of red meat, literal and otherwise.
In this week’s podcast, Goldy and panel lament the departure of Robert Mak and simmer over the end of local political TV. The heat is turned-up with a discussion over Sen. Hillary Clinton and the never-ending Democratic nomination process. Things come to a full boil during a discussion of assisted suicide. (No pundits were harmed in the production of this podcast.)
Goldy was joined by our Seattle Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss & EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss, EFFin’ Unsound, & Blog Reload’s Lee.
The show is 40:49, and is available here as an MP3:
[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_27_2008.mp3][Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]
The Seattle Times editorial board lauds WA’s confusing new top-two primary today, assuring us that…
Voters are smart. They will figure this primary out.
Um… are they referring to the same “smart voters” who just three days ago the Times claimed “were misled” by Initiative 297? And are these the same well-informed voters who Joni Balter says will get caught up in Obamania, to the detriment of Dino Rossi, because…
… voters who don’t know or care much about either Rossi or Gregoire will break in favor of the governor.
So… um… according to the Times, WA voters are smart enough to “figure this primary out,” but too stupid, uninformed, or uninterested to actually cast their ballots the right way. Huh.
Perhaps the Times really does think “voters are smart.” But they certainly don’t have much respect for the intelligence of their readers.
A poll of more than two thousand executives finds that 36% have issued a formal warning, and 6% have actually fired an employee for using foul language in the work place. According to the survey conducted by TheLadders.com, the five most egregious violations of workplace etiquette…?
1. Bad language (38.4%)
2. Excessive workplace gossip (36.5%)
3. Drinking on the job (35.2%)
4. Leaving the office without telling anyone (33.6%)
5. Too many personal calls (28%)
Jesus… that pretty much describes the average workday of the typical blogger.
Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.
Tonight we’ll just celebrate a brief break from those infernal primary races.
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.
Because you can’t get any more conscience-driven independent than Newt Gingrich.
I received several emails over the weekend, from both the left and the right, suggesting (or goading) that I write a Memorial Day tribute of my own. And I would have… that is, if I had anything particularly relevant to say on the subject.
I’ve never served in the military, nor have any of my closest friends, nor anybody in my immediate family. Not my siblings nor my parents nor my grandparents nor my first or second cousins. I had a great uncle who served as an MP during World War II, guarding German prisoners of war, I believe stateside, but to my knowledge that’s about as close to combat as anyone on either side of my family has ever come. In fact, it seems clear that some of my ancestors emigrated to the U.S. specifically to avoid service in the Czar’s army.
As a child of the sixties, growing up watching the Vietnam War on TV, I vowed never to enlist, even if drafted. I would not give my life to fight what I believed to be an immoral war… and besides, I always thought I’d make such a crappy soldier that my risk of court martial for insubordination would far outweigh any chance that I’d ever do time for draft evasion. I was never a pacifist per se, but I’ve never believed in such a thing as a “just” war. Necessary perhaps, but never just.
Over the course of my 45 years I have come to know people who have served, some who even served in combat, but I’ve never known anybody who has sacrificed his life in service to our nation, nor am I aware of any close friend or relative to have lost a close friend or relative as such. The tragedy of war — Iraq, Vietnam or any other — has never directly touched my life.
I have both empathy and sympathy for those who have not been so fortunate, but my personal experience of Iraq is little different than that of Vietnam: it is something I watch on TV.
So who am I to memorialize our war dead when I know nothing of what they or their families endured? How can I adequately memorialize something for which I have no personal memory?
I am not a soldier. I do not come from a military family, nor from a cultural milieu were military service is common or even encouraged. Like President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and so many of the other hawks who foolishly led us into Iraq, I would have done almost anything to avoid military service. (The difference is, I admit it.) In this context, what words of commemoration could I have given, however heartfelt, that wouldn’t have come off as hollow?
Some of the fallen we honor each Memorial Day gave their lives willingly, others not. Some died defending freedom, others fell defending the folly or pride of their leaders. Some causes are more noble, some deaths more honorable… that is the nature of war, a nature reflected in the historical roots of Memorial Day itself, which arose after the Civil War to honor the dead of both those who defended the Union, and those who fought to preserve a Southern economy based on slavery.
While I may not know war firsthand, I know my history. I know that for every Yorktown there is a Gallipoli… for every Afghanistan there is an Iraq. The same armies that risked their lives to liberate the Nazi death camps, incinerated the city of Dresden and tens of thousands of innocent civilians—women, children, babies—with it.
I’m not a politician, and so I do not have to pin a flag to my lapel, place my hand over my heart and pretend that patriotism always trumps history or common sense. And so on Memorial Day I honored our war dead in the best way that I knew how: by keeping silent. It is simply not in me to ignore my own internal dissonance, but it would have been disrespectful to voice it on a day that means so much to families who have sacrificed so much for our nation, whatever the cause… and so much more than I myself have ever been asked to give.
Although state officials had predicted single-party contests would be rare under the new system, there could be a half-dozen legislative races this year with candidates from the same party running against each other in November.
Couldn’t see that one coming, could you? In fact, I’m surprised it’s only a half-dozen legislative races.
Supporters of the top-two primary, like Sec. of State Sam Reed, keep arguing that it offers voters more choice. Well, in the 36th LD, the district highlighted in the article, voters will be given the choice this November between a progressive Democrat and a liberal Democrat.
How’s that working out for you, Sam?
Bob Barr captured the nomination of the Libertarian Party this weekend in Denver. Most people remember Barr as the very non-libertarian conservative who served Georgia’s 7th District starting in 1994, but the story of how he was defeated and how that led to him becoming a Libertarian is not as well known. Gary Storck writes about how Barr was ousted from Congress in part by the Libertarian Party running ads against him after he was forced by the Georgia legislature (which was controlled by Democrats) to face another incumbent Republican in a re-districting.
Barr’s conversion to his current political outlook is pretty drastic. He has gone from being a staunch supporter of both the Patriot Act and the drug war to working with both the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project in opposition. He has renounced his former support for the Defense of Marriage Act and wants us out of Iraq. It’s hard to tell what kind of support he will actually be able to get this year, but if there’s anyone who understands how the Libertarian Party can exercise some influence, it’s Bob Barr.
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!