HorsesAss.Org

The P-I just posted a pretty good rundown of the latest stats, cheerily buoyant if you really believe the realtor “now is the time to buy!” malarkey that the story’s author does little to countermand, grimmer if you check out the better-informed Soundoff section. The reality, as we’ve noted before, is that our trailing-edge market is just catching up with other meltdowns, notably the Bay Area. Subprime numbers are not as relevant here because a lot of the boom was fueled by actual wealth. Example: A townhouse on the market for nearly three months here is owned by a guy living in Arizona who bought it two years ago with no intention of ever living in it. Purchase price then: $420,000. Selling price now: $590,000.

Sure, he’s dreaming. He may unload the thing, but if I was negotiating, my pitch would be, Hey, I can only go $450k. I know that’s low, but I’m taking it off your hands and you’re gonna take a bath if you don’t flip it now. Etc etc. Would such a sale translate into housing values going down? Not really. But from a perception standpoint, oh yeah. And that cycle is just as potent downward as the boom cycle was upward.

Fasten your safety belts, we’re in for a ride. Still to be addressed: Now that the crash has begun, why is so much building still going on???? Might be a story there…

I know you HAs aren’t techie but this was too good to resist…

Pimp yo iRide

King County Executive Ron Sims and former Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald are both in favor of congestion pricing.

Sims seems to be vacillating on whether congestion pricing is designed to reduce throughput of vehicles, or increase it. Doug MacDonald definitely believes in the latter. After all, would Kemper’s White Guys and the Discovery Institute support the idea if it cuts down on driving? (My guess: no) I don’t think the Sierra Club has thought this through. If variable tolling makes the existing freeways work more efficiently, doesn’t that mean you get more volume and more throughput? Add in the issues raised in that Willamette Week article (linked below), where environmentalists are raising red flags on charging per mile instead of per gallon (because of how each system might affect vehicle choice) and you have an even weaker “green” case for tolling.

This raises some fundamental issues and contradictions – which may explain why both greens like Ron and roadwarriors like Doug, Kemper and others all seem to like the congestion pricing concept – it can be all things to all people. The fact Discovery has attached themselves to it should be the first warning sign…

Ron Sims:

Sims: That’s really interesting. We have tolls on the Narrows bridge. We’re going to have hot lanes on 167, that goes through the Kent Valley. One thing we know is that traffic… it really affects traffic. When we have congestion pricing, it reduces traffic volume 15 to 20 percent, because people begin to use those roadways smartly. And it’s also complemented by increasing the transit service that we’re going to have there. So we expect that people are going to move much better. You know our goal is to have an average speed of 45 miles per hour, which is a lot faster than they’re going now.

Doug MacDonald, who sponsored a competition to put the transpo-nerd term “through-put maximization” into regular-person language:

Haase wrote in his winning entry: “The physics of car-flow in a highway resemble those of rice poured through a funnel. If you pour slowly, you get little out, but if you pour too fast, the rice clogs and you get little — or nothing — out either. Car-flow involves similar thinking. For any highway there’s a particular in-between speed that moves the most vehicles under typical conditions.”

[snip]

While “through-put maximization” — moving the maximum number of vehicles through a stretch of highway at the maximum speed — might sound good to transportation technophiles, much of the public doesn’t understand it, said MacDonald.

The Willamette Week did a story on Oregon’s consideration of congestion pricing:

Environmentalists question why the state would switch to a system where a Hummer owner would be treated the same as a Prius owner. And civil libertarians raise alarms about the mileage tax’s underlying technology—an electronic collection system that uses a global positioning system to count the number of miles driven. That information would get uploaded and recorded at service stations.

“We must be cautious and understand how information can be linked and how information can be used in a way that is not intended or foreseen,” says Andrea Meyer, legislative director of ACLU of Oregon.

I wonder how much it would cost to equip every car in Seattle, King County, or Washington state with the “homing beacons,” or if that would even be possible to do in the next few years? I’m a fan of the Logan’s Run-style bar codes on human beings, but without the ritual killing on your 21st birthday. You know, because that seems at least plausible to achieve within the next few years.

I hate to keep picking on the P-I, but really, does anyone edit that thing? Today’s story on the SLUT’s impending debut contained a gem of a non-sequitur:

Why did we build this thing? The answer isn’t quite as clear as, say, the monorail, which promised to whisk people over city traffic until it was scuttled in 2005. But at least the streetcar got built.

OK, if the answer isn’t as clear, then it would follow that the monorail should have gotten built and the streetcar shouldn’t. So where are you going with this? A clearer-headed friend from West Seattle had a more utilitarian assessment. The streetcar buys him nothing, whereas the monorail would have gotten him all the way home, completely plastered, from a night at the Tractor.

Redeemingly, the story contains a great quote: “Right now, it just seems like a toy for tourists.” Now why would someone say that? The car I saw yesterday on a test run was purple, just like Barney. The other one is reddish orange, like Boober Fraggle’s hair. Come to think of it, has anyone tested those paints for lead?

Anyway, real soon now SLUTs will become official, even if the nickname Nazis keep up their censorship campaign. My take: SLUT will stick, and not only because of the streetcar. Think about Hutchinson & Others (including Group Health) being the hos, and the Mayor and city council being Vulcan’s bitches, and the whole mix starts to resemble an upscale First & Pike. Anything that costs $40M or so per mile to build is paying off a lot of people, let’s face it. Even the P-I is sniffing that coffee: “Some residents are also concerned that Vulcan may be allowed to move forward with 12-story buildings before a neighborhood-wide discussion about taller buildings, view protection and urban design occurs.” Here’s a little tip, passed along from a lawyer friend in commercial real-estate: The stuff already built isn’t selling. Could be a story there.

So here’s a PR inspiration: Invite all the folks around the city complaining about flooding (especially those whiners in Madison Valley, where someone actually died in another one of those 100-year-floods just last year) up to SLU to ride the trolley during its grand debut…for free! Then they’ll understand exactly why it’s more important to build a 1.3-mile amusement-park ride than waste valuable taxpayer dollars on expanded storm sewers. The latter, after all, would be pointless: “The city is not going to spend ‘billions and billions of dollars’ to construct a larger system, Nickels said.” If they did, there might not be anything left over for purple streetcars, developer kickbacks and the grand corrupt miasma of SLU, aka Allentown.

Also, further proof that news media get wet just thinking about flooding: More, so much more, coverage. Good thing this only happens once every year or two. That’s all for now, I’ve got a trolley to catch…

Hillary’s video, the funniest with the best production value:

Edwards’, decent video, good art and narration:

Obama’s video has that “3-2-1 Contact” vibe I remember back from elementary school, and is the most informative:

The Swift Kids for Truth strike again:

The Justice Policy Institute released a report [PDF] today on the racial disparities in drug law enforcement, and their findings are some of the most comprehensive I’ve seen on this subject. Here’s the report introduction:

Over the course of the last 35 years, the rate at which the U.S. places its citizens in jails and prisons has risen dramatically. For the first 70 years of the twentieth century, U.S. incarceration rates remained relatively stable at a rate of about 100 per 100,000 citizens. Since 1970, the U.S. has experienced a large and rapid increase in the rate at which people are housed in federal and state correctional facilities. Currently, the U.S. incarceration rate is 491 per 100,000.1

The exceptional growth in the prison population has been driven in large part by the rate at which individuals are incarcerated for drug offenses.2 Between 1995 and 2003, the number of people in state and federal prisons incarcerated for drug offenses increased by 21 percent, from 280,182 to 337,872.3 From 1996 to 2002, the number of those in jail for drug offenses increased by approximately 47 percent, from 111,545 to 164,372.4 This does not include people imprisoned for other offenses where drugs, the drug trade, or other drug activities were a feature of the offense.

The increase in incarceration of drug offenders translates directly to an increase in prison expenditures. The American Correctional Association estimates that, in 2005, the average cost of incarcerating one person for one day was approximately $67.55. The cost of incarcerating drug offenders in state or federal prisons amounts to a staggering eight billion dollars per year.5

There is little evidence to suggest that high rates of incarceration affect drug use rates or deter drug users. Researchers have previously found that decreases in crime in the 1990s were not attributable to an increase in the number of prisons or the increase in the incarceration rate.6 A Justice Policy Institute (JPI) study further substantiated these findings by investigating the relationship of incarceration to the rate of drug use in states. In fact, when observed over a three-year period, states with high incarceration rates tended to have higher rates of drug use.7

The growing rate of incarceration for drug offenses is not borne equally by all members of society. African Americans are disproportionately incarcerated for drug offenses in the U.S., though they use and sell drugs at similar rates to whites.8 As of 2003, twice as many African Americans as whites were incarcerated for drug offenses in state prisons in the U.S.9 African Americans made up 13 percent of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 53 percent of sentenced drug offenders in state prisons in 2003.10

The report uses data from 2002 from across the entire United States and discovers that a staggering 97% of large-population counties in this country have racial disparities in drug law enforcement, despite the fact that the evidence collected shows no disparity between the races when it comes to involvement with drugs. The report specifically discusses the work done by UW Professor Katherine Beckett:

A recent in-depth analysis of drug enforcement patterns in Seattle57 indicates that African Americans are disproportionately arrested for drug delivery offenses, and that these disproportions are not due to any extraordinary characteristics of those African American arrestees, the behaviors they engaged in, or the communities in which they were arrested. In other words, although African Americans in Seattle were not selling drugs at a higher rate than whites, they were targeted more frequently for drug arrests. Given the racial disparities in drug enforcement practice highlighted in this in-depth Seattle study, it is not surprising that the drug imprisonment rate in King County, WA, was 23 times higher for African Americans (465 per 100,000) than it was for whites (20 per 100,000) in 2002.

What’s even more alarming than the fact that an African American in this county is 23 times more likely to go to jail for a drug crime than a white person (despite similar numbers of people violating these laws) is that King County is only the 49th worst large county in the United States. The grim statistics are in this Excel spreadsheet.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

For tonight’s theme song, we’ll scramble to the roof of the Montlake Ale House, raise a toast to rescue and emergency relief workers everywhere and sing Rescue Me by Aretha Franklin Fontella Bass¹.

Oh…and come prepared with your own ideas for this Comedy Central photo caption contest.

Not in Seattle? Check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

¹Thanks to N in Seattle for the correction.

I’m busy. And tired. So talk amongst yourselves. Or, watch this:

(By the way, if you’re not familiar with The Real News Network, get familiar.)

In the top story of the day, a big storm hit the Pacific Northwest.

In other news, there was a lot of rain in the Seattle area. According to the Seattle Times, it was also windy. The P-I reports this morning that some local areas were flooded. But over at KIRO-TV, instead, their top story was the governor has declared a storm emergency. And, KOMO-TV is reporting that everything is one big mess. And that — I wish I were making this up — everyone should stay calm.

In less interesting, secondary stories, one James Michael McHaney — described as a “former” aide to Sen. Maria Cantwell even though he was only fired on Friday, after he was arrested — has been arrested by the FBI on charges of trying to meet a 13-year-old boy for sex. McHaney worked as a scheduler in Cantwell’s DC office, which raises the question: was he trying to prove that Democrats as well as Republicans can do this sort of thing, or is it just something in DC’s water supply?

In another story of people in DC trying to screw folks they don’t know, it turns out the Bush administration has known all along that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. In other words, they were lying in order to stampede the American public into backing an unprovoked war they really wanted. Sound familiar? Now, hopefully, the MSM will get around to reporting what is fairly obvious to anyone who’s been following the Middle East: that they’ve also been lying about the Iranian government supplying weaponry to the Iraqi insurgency, the other main public Bush rationale for a disastrous region-wide conflagration.

A feared strongman is claiming victory in elections observers claim were rigged. No, it’s not Hugo Chavez — he lost his election on Sunday, and conceded as much, though the New York Times still can’t let go of its Chavez-bashing. It’s Vladimir Putin, the alleged democrat whose soul George Bush approvingly peered into. And we wonder why the world thinks the US is hypocritical?

The Washington Post, meanwhile, in one of those stories headline-writers just love, is reporting today that divorce harms the environment. Honestly, professors get tenure for studying this stuff.

And proving that TV news, despite the rain and floods, is still TV news — like McHaney, they just can’t stop themselves — every Seattle TV news outfit reported last night that McDonald’s is now char-broiling its burgers. The Renton McDonald’s had a fire.

Stay calm, everyone.

As to Goldy’s post this morning, I have not had sex with Larry Craig, but on the other hand, anonymous bathroom sex isn’t my thing.

* It’s so rare that you get a statement that converges so much of the bullshit that’s been going around into one delightful package.

* Bill O’Reilly has a new book out for kids. And if you’re having trouble reading the tiny tiny font, Keith Olbermann channels Fiorello LaGuardia and reads the comics for you.

* Y’all probably heard that Hillary Clinton’s Rochester, NH campaign office was taken hostage last week. What you might have missed is the freeper reaction.

* So, naming a bear Muhammad is a grave offense? Geez.

* Is Obama a Muslim version of the Manchurian Candidate? Well the fact that he’s a Christian, and that’s insane might lead you to a solid no. But for one of the nation’s most important newspapers, it’s still an open question.

* But the biggest bullshit is the fact that you don’t know what’s going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Locally:

* A local crazy man got to open the Republican debate.

* Doc Hastings sure doesn’t like poor children.

* Faith and Freedom need money.

* Did anyone on this blog mention the special session was bullshit?

This is an open thread

This dispatch is from a friend who is in Iowa. Like me, this person supports Sen. John Edwards, but the behind-the-scenes view benefits anyone who’s interested in the race for ’08. (Emphasis mine throughout.)

I am here in Iowa and the new Des Moines Register poll came out:

Obama 28
Hilllary 25
Edwards 23

But –VERY fluid — over half said they are still willing to change their mind

The fav/unfav shows trouble for Clinton — but good news for Edwards:

Clinton — 68 fav, 30 unfav

Obama — 84 fav, 14 unfav

Edwards – 86 fav, 13 unfav

The papers have been covering another angle here — Obama’s strongest support comes from younger, college age supporters. Because of the earlier date of the caucus, the colleges are still closed for the holiday and the dorms are closed. Obama sent a flier to 50k college age kids — urging them to register here (even if from somewhere else) and find somewhere to stay. So a big question — will the Obama supporters show up, or will they be absent like the Dean supporters ? In 2004 only 17% were under 29.

In fact, last night at the forum, some were saying this Des Moines Register poll could not reflect an up tick for Obama — but an over sample of youth. Their last poll (October) had only 9% in under 35 age group, while this one has 14%

But Obama is cutting in to the Clinton women vote — and Oprah comes to town this week.

So in Iowa — it is still anyone’s race, but Obama has some momentum, Hillary is falling and Edwards is holding steady.

This tracks with what I’ve heard elsewhere. Edwards, discounted by many to second tier status with the likes of Gov. Bill Richardson, is often polled in 3rd place. But it’s a strong 3rd place!

Edwards highlights: he is holding steady though being outspent HUGELY on the airwaves. Clinton and Obama are up and up big. It is odd seeing so many political commercials in December. Edwards also has a lead in previous caucus goers — so turn out is key. January 3rd, kids home and not on the campus, Orange bowl, — all a recipe for party faithful — and that is Edward’s strong suit. Also, almost half of caucus goers traditionally have been in rural areas, and there Obama is running solid third

Saw Edwards a 3 events yesterday: Every child matters forum, Heartland forum , and Black/Brown forum — then later a t dinner. He is connecting to folks. WE will see if it is enough. If I had to predict — I would say Hillary finishes third unless she stops the bleeding.

But — Bill has been in town and was at the forum — so it is anybody’s game.

Edwards has an ace in the hole- or several aces- that give him a change to win Iowa, or at least beat expectations. His supporters are reliable caucus-goers. He’s also loved by party faithful. (At my last 36th District Democrats meeting, Edwards got lots of love from the Ballard liberals and former Deaniacs.)

Also, Edwards has the same advantage he did in 2004 in Iowa. The caucus system rewards candidates who are a good “second choice.” If Obama isn’t viable in a precinct, I don’t think they’ll flock to Clinton, who’s bashing the shit out of Obama right now all over the local media. Clinton supporters will be in a similar situation. I wonder where Richardson’s supporters will go if their candidate isn’t viable. In ’04, Kucinich pissed off loads of Dean supporters when he threw his supporters behind Edwards. Could such a thing happen again, but to a different candidate this time? John Edwards could pick up a lot of votes as the result of being the “second choice.”

“Fluidity” is the word of the day in Iowa. Last time, in ’04, four candidates were within a few points, but on caucus day the participants chose Kerry and Edwards and ditched Dean and Gephardt. Caucus-goers can flips the CW on it’s ear at anytime.

Maybe there’s a reason Thomas’ colleagues voted her to the front row:

What with eight men now coming out claiming they’ve had sex with Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, despite his public protestations that he is not gay, I thought it a prudent time to come clean with my audience and clarify my own role in the Craig affair: I am not gay, and I have never had sex with Sen. Craig. Never.

But since so many men apparently have had sex with the senator, I figure the only reasonable way to get to the truth is by process of elimination, so I urge all my male readers to follow my lead and definitively state in the comment thread whether you have or have not had sex with Larry Craig. As for those of you who choose not to participate in this thread, well… you’re silence will speak volumes.

UPDATE:
I cross-posted to Daily Kos, and included a short poll at the end. Apparently, 24-percent of Kos readers have indeed had sex with Larry Craig. Who knew?

Good morning, HAers! We hope you had a great weekend fighting the crowds in the malls. Funny thing…people tell me it snowed here. I ran some errands Saturday, came home feeling a little flu coming on and took a nap. Next thing I know it’s Sunday morning and wet and rainy outside. Snow you say? Yeah, right…

I am aware, however, that it is the last month of 2007, entering the thick of the holiday season, which means a lot of snow news days, make that slow news days, are on the way. Not that no news is actually happening. It’s just that the real news, the bare hungry sniffin’ truth, is not likely to be covered during this or any holiday season. There are two reasons for this: First, the real truth is kinda depressing and might serve up a real downer during a season to be jolly. Second, reporting real news would usurp space reserved for contest entries. The Seattle Times is particularly aggressive with prize-based, multi-part series this time of year. After all, the many prizes the industry awards to itself (no one else volunteering for the privilege) translate into respect, leadership and the current booming circulation rates that newspapers enjoy.

So yesterday’s and today’s Times are dominated by a series on old people being victimized by mortgage lenders (the headline says “Seniors prime targets…” shouldn’t that be subprime?), focusing on the trials of 96-year-old Frances Taylor, who lost $2 million in a sort of Ponzi scheme of refinancing during the housing boom. Anyone who owns a house, of course, is aware of the lending vultures eager to separate the gullible or defenseless from their life investments, and one wouldn’t wish Taylor’s experience on even the greediest of homeowners. But cynics like me (who was told repeatedly from 1999 on to refinance my home because equity is “dead money”) scoured the news media rabidly during the boom years for even a hint, a shred, a scintilla of skepticism arguing against leveraging equity. Perhaps The Times and other news media would have better served Frances Taylor and the rest of their reading public with a series on the dangers of the lending market in time to save people their homes. Granted, such unpleasantness might have discomfited the real-estate advertising community and probably not won any awards. But it would have saved a lot of readers a lot of grief.

So hark, the herald angels sing: It’s not too late to report today’s news today! Here’s an idea: How about a three-part series, or let’s not be greedy, just one good, hard-hitting story on the overbuilding crisis (all those condos and townhouses still being built while the ones already in place aren’t selling). Or here’s one: Somewhere there must be someone who is dying or already dead because they could not afford medical insurance. Or their insurance company did not cover what they should have. Or because their insurance company did not pay, they lost their house to predatory lenders. And how about Seattle’s war on the homeless, led by our curiously unreproachable mayor — a story rife with political and societal overtones. Oh drat, it’s the holidays. Let’s do a roundup instead of where the homeless can get turkey dinners. Or how about the huge giveaways to Paul Allen’s Vulcan, millions for a useless streetcar serving the rich while affordable housing goes wanting. Oh wait, the Beacon Hill News and The Stranger have that covered. So instead we have the P-I airing the kvetches of the privileged and wealthy, who are squabbling over downtown condos blocking each other’s views. “What Do You Think?” the P-I Web site asks. Um, er, can’t those guys afford lawyers?

Perhaps in this season of glad tidings we should adapt the cheerful admonition of suspected war criminal Donald Rumsfeld: You read the morning headlines you have, not the ones you might want or wish for. So for now anyway we’re stuck with 8 guys saying they had sexual associations with Larry Craig. That’s 7 more than got Clinton impeached, and Craig is still walking tall, with a spring in his wide stance. If only Monica Lewinsky had been male. We wait breathlessly for Matt Lauer’s call-back to Craig (with special guests!).

Or here’s something: Obama leading Clinton in Iowa? If I could do it, I would make that little Chris Berman “Wha….????” squeak. And what about Kucinich teaming up with Ron Paul? Hey, they could have their own debate, networks be damned. Ah but that would be the news we wish for, not the news we have.