HorsesAss.Org

Lewis Black on religion:

Darryl thought I’d find this amusing. I did.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Rant-a-rama Bush wants more troops, Scooter wants a pardon, and Dori wants me to stop teasing his girlfriend… those and other rants tonight at 7PM.

8PM: What do sex ed, children’s healthcare and dogs in bars have in common? While Seattle focuses on the fight over the Viaduct, lot’s of legislation is being passed in Olympia. Jon Gould from the Children’s Alliance joins me to talk about a huge legislative victory, as I do a roundup of the some of this session’s most important and controversial legislation

9PM: What’s up down in Oregon? Gordon Smith tells an audience that Iraq’s top general gives a 25% chance of success… Oregon’s Legislature gets ready to pass an anti-escalation bill, while Washington squelches theirs… and the rainy day fund that wasn’t, then was, then wasn’t again, and looks like it might be after all…or not. All that and more as Blogger TJ from Loaded Orygun joins me for our monthly update on what’s going on south of the (WA) border.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Following up on Goldy’s earlier post, I considered titling this “The body of contemporary conservatism.”

This is part II of Max Blumenthal’s unauthorized CPAC documentary:

When the Nevada Democrats and FOX News decided to host a debate for the Democratic candidates, some folks wondered… why? FOX is openly hostile to Democrats. They are biased against Democrats, and go out of their way to lie about Democrats.

So John Edwards told them to fuck off.

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada — and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There’s a surprise – Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes – the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel – said that any candidate “who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake” and “is impeding freedom of speech and free press.”

[…]

Fox News has already proven they have no intention of providing “fair and balanced” coverage of any Democrat in this election.

In recent weeks they have run blatant lies about Senator Obama’s background. And Fox was only too happy to give Ann Coulter a platform to spew more hate a few days after her bigoted attack on Senator Edwards and the gay community.

Now it’s time for Democrats to stand together and send a clear message to Roger Ailes, Fox News and all the rest of them: bias isn’t balance, but turning tables is fair.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, when faced with the facts, weren’t able to decide before the debate was canceled. Bill Richardson accepted the debate invitation only to decline hours before the Nevada Democrats pulled the plug. While I understand Richardson’s hesitation (he’s betting the farm on a good showing in his neighbor state), Obama and Clinton have no excuse. FOX News has called Obama a Muslim terrorist, and their crimes against the Clinton family are well known.

I’m an Edwards guy, but I hope all the candidates get some clarity about who’s on our side and who’s not. Or maybe they’ll just get some “brass ones.”

Hmm. And all this time I thought people like Zell Miller were angrily opposed to abortion because they thought it was morally wrong.

“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asked. “Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed.”

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been ‘killed’ since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

“If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” he asserted.

(note: this is my two cents on Goldy’s earlier post)

I hope Ross Hunter runs for Congress. I’m guessing that Darcy Burner will give it another shot, too [UPDATE BELOW]. Tony Ventrella is already saddled-up and on the trail. Unlike Goldy, I’m not committed to supporting a single candidate. At least not yet.

I think Ventrella is going to have to really earn the support of Democrats. Being a celebrity is not enough to win. Hunter has the resume, but is a “moderate” guy like him going to “fire up” liberal suburban Democrats while reaching out to “guns and butter” conservative Democrats? Does Burner even want to run again, considering her biggest opponent wasn’t even Reichert, but the lying-sack-of-shit Seattle Times editorial page?

I’m excited to see how this thing plays out. It seems all the big shots are lining up behind Hunter, with Andrew and Goldy (and more) with Burner. Tony Ventrella… well, what about Tony? Come to Drinking Liberally, Tony!

In other news, the GOP has a 2-to-1 “precinct committee officer” advantage in the 8th Congressional District. Perhaps this might be more important than the horse race stuff.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s in, according to Postman.

It seems like the 2006 race just ended, and already the Democratic field is coming together to take on Rep. Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

I ran into Tony Ventrella last night at Chocolate for Choice, and immediately asked him if he was really running for Congress in WA-08, and he gave the kind of definitive, confident reply a real candidate is supposed to give: “All the way through November, and beyond,” he insisted. Well, he’s got that part down pat.

Yesterday was also the day DraftRossHunter.org kicked off an effort to draft state Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) for a run against Reichert. I suppose calling it a “Draft” campaign might suggest to some an aura of grassroots activism, but I’m told it is largely the initiative of King County Democrats Finance Chair Sharon Mast. Ross was informed of the effort, and didn’t object, but said he couldn’t deal with it until after the session. When asked for his biographical information, Hunter pointed Mast to his consultants at Moxie Media, who gave her what she needed. It’s not exactly grassroots provenance — and there’s nothing wrong with that — but it certainly doesn’t represent a broader movement.

Also at Chocolate for Choice last night was the 2006 Democratic nominee, Darcy Burner, and like the experienced politician she’s become, she would neither confirm nor deny her candidacy for a second run at “the Sheriff”. (A self-designation Reichert reminds us at the start of nearly every sentence, as in: “If I can look Gary Ridgeway straight in the eyes, I can look you in the eyes and tell you that I want a tall, double-shot, low-fat latte.”)

So where does that leave us? Perhaps my allegiance is showing, but if I were a betting man, I’d guess Darcy will run. And if Burner runs, I’m pretty damn confident we’ll be looking at a Reichert/Burner rematch in 2008.

Tony’s a nice guy and all, and from our brief conversation it sounds like his politics are a good match for the district, but I’m not sure he fully groks the immense amount of hard work and begging fundraising required to make a viable run. Sure, he’s the only one of the three who can go on Dori’s show without being totally trashed, but Dori isn’t exactly known as a Democratic primary kingmaker. There is a finite reservoir of political dollars, and the unfortunate reality is that money in the bank is the primary yard stick by which donors judge political viability. Sometimes newcomers surprise you (ie, Darcy’s $3 million-plus in 2006), but I’m guessing Tony will be out of the running by this time next year, if not sooner.

As a several term legislator, Ross is the most experienced politician of the three, and if he had run for the nomination in 2006, he might have kicked Darcy’s ass. But this ain’t 2006.

After running an insurgent, come-from-nowhere campaign that raised unprecedented money, and coming within a few thousand votes of an incumbent despite the more than $6 million spent against her, Darcy is undoubtedly the frontrunner, and by far. Darcy has the advantage over Tony and Ross in almost every category: she has the district-wide name ID, the media exposure, the volunteers, the professional organization, and perhaps most importantly, the fundraising list. She also has the advantage of having been thoroughly vetted, with no skeletons exposed, despite the best efforts of Karl Rove and his evil minions.

And finally, Darcy not only has the support, but the love and respect of the netroots, a growing political force that only began to flex its muscles in 2006. If Darcy runs, she will have the bloggers on her side, almost to a one.

Nothing against Tony or Ross. I like both of them. But that’s just the way it is.

As for the general election I remain confident that the Democrats have a decent shot at unseating Reichert regardless of the nominee. The political landscape should remain tilted towards the D’s in a district that is growing bluer year by year, and Reichert won’t have a majority party leadership to puff up his profile during an election year. A presidential election will also greatly increase Democratic turnout in a district that has gone strongly Democratic the past few presidential elections.

And while the conventional wisdom is that Reichert should be harder to knock off now that he’s established in a second term, Darcy’s prospects are also buoyed by a pattern of challengers winning on their second try. Melissa Bean, Brian Baird, Stephanie Herseth, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, Joe Donnelly and others are all candidates who built on their first campaigns to come back and win the second time out. And knowing what I know about Darcy, how dedicated, hard-working, and most of all, how incredibly smart she is, I’m confident that she has what it takes to learn from her mistakes, and come back and win.

All she has to do is tell us she’s running, and the race is on.

Surprise! The FBI is abusing controversial “National Security Letters,” underreporting their use by at least 20-percent.

The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department’s Inspector General.

The report, in classified and unclassified versions, remains closely held, but Washington officials who have seen it tell ABC News it documents “numerous lapses” and describe it as “scathing” and “not a pretty picture for the FBI.”

[…] Civil liberties groups have long opposed the provision, saying the lack of oversight could lead to the kinds of problems apparently uncovered by the inspector general.

[…] “Expect a weekend firestorm,” said one Justice Department official.

See, this is why we have a Constitution. And this is why the Bush administration is so eager to undermine it.

Sen. Pam Roach has an anus problem. Last night as the Senate passed bill 5297 that requires medically and scientifically accurate sexual health education, Sen. Roach clenched her…her…fists, and proclaimed:

What does the word anus have to do with sex ed when we’re talking to fourth graders? No parent wants their child to be talking about sex and anuses.

Sen. Roach was outraged by instructional materials for a 4th-6th grade curriculum she found on the King County website that includes the word “anus.” (Sen. Roach has a point—hearing your kid talk about sex and anuses is probably not high on the list of parental moments to savor. But it helps if your kid at least uses scientifically accurate terminology….)

Roach’s problem is that she, apparently, doesn’t understand the difference between sexual health education and “talking about sex.” Apparently, there is no room in her world view for an objective discussion of other anatomical structures as part of an education in reproductive anatomy. Might this attitude come from a belief that sex is only for procreation?

Here is a figure from the King County website that is part of a typical lesson in the 4th-6th grade curriculum that includes “talking about sex and anuses.”

Clearly, there is a leftist agenda at play here–I mean sneaking the bladder, urethra, and anus into the same diagram as the female reproductive system is a pernicious attempt to promote promiscuity and homosexuality (while giving in to the terrorists). The agenda could only have been more blatant by including the G-spot….

I think it’s revealing that Pam Roach found “anus” objectionable in the anatomy lesson, but not “bladder”—revealing about the state of Pam Roach’s own anal sphincter. And I think we can all agree that thinking about Pam Roach’s sphincter is inappropriate at any age.

UPDATE:
Sen. Roach may have a point. From what I understand about trends in teen sex, the diagram emphasizes the wrong end of the alimentary canal. [–Goldy]

Some upcoming events of interest:

• Chocolate for Choice — Join me at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s annual fundraiser tonight (March 8,) 6-8PM at Safeco Field’s Ellis Pavilion. I’ll be the one shoving chocolate into my face.

• Joe Conason at Third Place Books — Reporter, columnist and frequent radio and TV commentator Joe Conason will be signing his new book It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, Friday March 9, from 6:30PM to 8PM at Third Place Books, 17171 Bothell Way NE in Lake Forest Park. In his 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis wrote “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” Conason argues it can happen here, and presents a frightening and infuriating thesis. I’ve read the book, and highly recommend it.

• Saturday Family Science: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ — Lisa Shimizu, of KEXP 90.3 FM and The Climate Project, presents a 40-minute slide show (based on Al Gore’s presentation) especially designed for children 8-12. Local 5th grade science teacher Laura Maier leads an interactive experience that graphically demonstrates the principles of climate change. Every family will receive a copy of The Low Carbon Diet, a how-to guide showing easy ways for families to reduce their carbon footprint. Saturday March 10, 11AM and 1:30PM at Seattle’s Town Hall. (I’m going to the 1:30PM presentation; I’ll be the one with the 9-year-old girl.)

I was tuned in to KUOW yesterday afternoon, listening to callers explain how they intend to vote in the March 13 Viaduct advisory, and I was struck by a number of rebuild supporters who expressed the hope or belief that the final design will be substantially smaller and less obtrusive than the super-sized version that’s currently on the ballot.

I’m guessing this elevated optimism is at least partially fed by the public musings of Seattle City Council President Nick Licata, who recently told the Seattle Times that he preferred a viaduct light option “dramatically reducing the current proposed width of the structure,” and House Speaker Frank Chopp, who continues to insist that a double-decker freeway can somehow be made more elegant and attractive… by adding a third deck.

Yeah… um… except, they’re all smoking crack.

You see, we’ve been repeatedly told that the new viaduct must be substantially taller and wider than the 1950’s model, because of modern building standards, safety concerns, federal law and stuff like that, and maybe that’s true. But as the Times explained on Monday, the primary factor influencing the footprint of the new structure is the footprint of the existing structure, for in an attempt to minimize traffic disruption, WSDOT intends to build the new viaduct on top of and surrounding the old viaduct before tearing it down.

That’s right, the new viaduct must first eat the old viaduct, before it swallows the entire downtown waterfront. New columns will be built outside the footprint of the existing structure. Traffic will continue on the lower deck as the old upper deck is removed and a new upper deck is installed. Then traffic will move to the new upper deck as the old lower deck is removed and replaced. Sounds pretty clever.

A skinnier, “viaduct light” option is not possible without scrapping this construction plan, and that’s simply not going to happen. Indeed, one of the primary selling points of WSDOT’s elevated proposal has always been the three to nine month period the viaduct would be totally closed in both directions, compared to several years for a tunnel.

“One of the things this option can do, that others can’t, is keep traffic moving on Highway 99 during construction,” said David Dye, urban-corridors administrator for the state Department of Transportation (DOT). “That was a very, very important factor.”

Construction of a tunnel would close the highway completely for nearly three years.

Elevated-structure supporters such as Warren Aakervik, president of Ballard Oil, call it the only acceptable option, because it would keep fuel, parts and other goods on the move, preserving maritime business.

Sure, the whole convoluted process will take ten to twelve years, but at least it will keep “fuel, parts and other goods on the move.” And oh yeah, people too.

Or would it?

Notice what David Dye says… that this option keeps “traffic moving on Highway 99 during construction.” The revised Environmental Impact Statement uses similar language, stating “SR 99 reduced to 2 lanes in each direction” for about seven years.

WSDOT is very specific. We keep hearing that SR 99 will be reduced to 2 lanes in each direction. But they don’t necessarily say that they’ll be keeping that traffic on the viaduct.

Of course, you can’t fit four lanes on a deck that only holds three, and in fact, if you read the fine print you discover that for four to five years, only the northbound traffic actually remains on the viaduct. The southbound traffic is detoured off 99 at Broad and Denny, follows Broad to the waterfront via an elbow shaped aerial trestle, and than travels along Alaska Way until Pike Street before another aerial trestle connects back into the existing viaduct.

So, I guess you could say that two lanes of southbound SR 99 remain open… as long as you redesignate Broad Street and Alaska Way as SR 99. (And ignore the fact that during this entire time, Alaska Way is apparently reduced to one lane in each direction.)

Hmm. By this rhetorical logic, we could tear down the viaduct and build a tunnel while keeping SR 99 at three lanes in each direction, simply by designating Fourth and Second avenues as northbound and southbound SR 99 respectively. No fancy aerial trestles needed.

Despite what we’ve been repeatedly told, only two lanes of northbound 99 remain open during construction. For nearly five years, southbound traffic gets shunted onto surface streets, and that’s a fact.

Other interesting tidbits from the EIS:

• Columbia on-ramp closed for 45 months (the access point for anyone in downtown wanting to proceed south-bound on the viaduct.)
• Seneca off-ramp closed for 24 months (the access point to downtown for anyone proceeding north-bound on the viaduct.)
• Elliott on-ramps closed for 72 months (the access points in both directions for Belltown residents or Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay and West Queen Anne users who access the viaduct via 15th NW and Elliott avenue.)
• Western ramps closed for 63 months (affects northbound viaduct traffic that needs to exit to Western to access the neighborhoods listed above.)
• Alaska Way reduced to 1 lane in each direction for 10 full years.
• The entire shebang shut down in both directions, nights and weekends, for much the construction period.

Oh, and here’s one I never heard about before. SR 99 will be reduced to three lanes north of Denny — one northbound, two southbound — for 30 months. It’s not clear why, or how far north, but for those of you north of Denny who thought you’d be free from disruption, think again.

Look, no replacement option can be constructed without major disruptions, but if you believe WSDOT’s pitch that the Viaduct will continue to operate at 50-percent of capacity during the construction, then I have a bridge to sell you. Um… make that a viaduct.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates testified before a Senate committee today about education. He did digress, however, into a topic that has perked my interest for some time:

Gates said the nation’s economy depends on keeping the country’s borders open to highly skilled workers, especially those with a science or engineering background. Federal law provides 65,000 H1-B visas for scientists, engineers, computer programmers and other professionals every budget year. High-tech and other employers say that’s not enough.

“Even though it may not be realistic, I don’t think there should be any limit,” Gates said, adding that Microsoft hasn’t been able to fill approximately 3,000 technical jobs in the United States because of a shortage of skilled workers.

In short, Democrats have been cool to the idea of lifting the H1-B cap on basic labor grounds. Letting in foreign workers drivers down wages and take jobs from high-skilled Americans, or at least that’s the common refrain.

While I understand the concept of protectionism, and why it’s good for some sectors of the US economy, I don’t see why it’s a good idea to train thousands of foreign students for our technology economy only to kick them out when they graduate. What are these students going to do? Instead of working at Microsoft or Apple, they’re going to start their own companies in Asia (or wherever they’re from) to compete with American companies. Not so great.

It would be as if the Seattle Mariners first round draft picks were allowed to go as high as AAA, only to be cut loose to sign with another team. Dumb.

Ann Coulter, speaking over the weekend at the Center for Reclaiming America, about the seven abortion clinic doctors and staff who have been killed over the years:

“Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened…”

But then, who am I to criticize Ann Coulter? She’s only joking.

There, I said it.

President Bush is a gift to the Democratic Party. When he leaves office in 2009, Democrats have the chance to send at least four new Senators to DC. States MN, OR, ME and NH have vulnerable incumbents. Colorado is an open seat in a state which is trending blue. Hell, even Virginia, Kentucky, or even Mississippi could break our way.

In the House, Democrats are poised to hold seats won in ’06, while expanding their majority. Even the functionally retarded Sheriff Reichert is keeping his head down. This must be why, on the Eastside, you’re more likely to see the Zodiac Killer in public than Dave Reichert.

I understand why some of my Democratic friends are excited about impeachment, even if it’s all but impossible to do. Folks are pissed, and they want justice, Sergio Leone-style. But handing the GOP a stick to bash you with ain’t smart politics.

Besides, for the last six years, it’s been all about George W. Bush. Now that we’ve got Congress, it ought to be about the American people.

Just sayin’.

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign sent out a press release this morning touting support from seven state attorneys general, including our very own Rob McKenna.

Both McCain and McKenna are often portrayed in the media as the kind of straight-talking, moderate Republicans who tend to appeal to WA’s independent and cross-over voters… when in fact they are both ruthlessly partisan political opportunists whose conservative credentials are well established with all but the most far-right-leaning elements of their already far-right-leaning party.

Take for example the quote McKenna provided for McCain’s press release:

“Senator McCain continues to garner support among legal and law enforcement leaders because of his stances on state rights and his role in brokering the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito,” said McKenna. “I’m honored to give John my support and I appreciate his leadership on the issues that count.”

The issues that count.

No, it’s not campaign finance reform that McKenna lauds — the issue that originally earned McCain his faux-maverick status — it’s his role in confirming Justices Roberts and Alito, two of the most far-right-leaning justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court… justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, uphold the President’s suspension of habeas corpus, and vastly expand executive power. These are partisan, right-wing, Republican justices — darlings of the Federalist Society. And McKenna thinks they’re just grand.

I suppose coming from a state GOP that includes the likes of Val Stevens, and has nominated Ellen Craswell and John Carlson for high office, McKenna might come off as a relative moderate. But while our state’s editorialists seem intent on talking up the carefully crafted McKenna and his prospects for governor or the US Senate, they willfully ignore the shrewd realpolitik that has defined his career. How can McKenna be constantly lauded for bipartisanship without mentioning his extraordinarily close relationship with the viciously partisan political thugs at the BIAW? And how can the media continue to accept McKenna’s mildly pro-choice statements at face value, when he applauds McCain’s efforts to confirm Supreme Court justices who would take that choice away?

McCain is the most conservative candidate running with a shot at the GOP nomination, and McKenna has enthusiastically endorsed him because he is the viable candidate who best represents his own values. And what are McCain’s self-proclaimed values?

“I am confident that this nation is not a center — I think they’re right. I think they’re basically conservative, the majority are basically conservatives, and I think that if we get back on our message, get back to the principles, philosophies and messages of Ronald Reagan and others, I think we’ll do just fine. But first we have to get over our state of denial.”

WA’s media has to get over its state of denial too. Rob McKenna is a conservative. That is how he would legislate. That is how he would govern. And as such, he is out of step with the mainstream of WA voters.

UPDATE:
Erica Barnett slogged that McKenna’s “no moderate” back on Feb 23, when the AP first reported he would endorse McCain. In that article, the AP matter-of-factly describes McKenna as “a moderate.”

That’s my point. It is not just the editorialists who should be held accountable for how they are misreporting McKenna’s politics, but the supposedly objective reporters. It is not an undisputed fact that McKenna is a moderate, and thus McKenna should not be described as such in a news report without attribution or citation.