HorsesAss.Org

Sen. Brian Hatfield at Postman:

In the 28-19 Senate vote last week for the domestic partnership bill only one senator’s vote was likely in question. Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, had a pro-gay rights record while in the House. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998. But Thursday he was one of four Democrats who voted against Senate Bill 5336.

“Something I didn’t appreciate and understand 12 years ago (as a freshman lawmaker) was that people of faith are very concerned this is going to hurt our society,”

I respect the Senator a great deal, and I don’t want to pick on him. He’s not being hateful like the batshit insane Sen. Val Stevens (R-Old Testament). But I must ask, Senator Hatfield:

Who’s getting “kicked in the teeth” when longtime couples have the chance to exercise rights of inheritance? Who’s personal and deeply held beliefs are trampled when one gay parent cannot make health decisions for the couple’s child in an emergency?

As a fellow straight guy, I’m not a natural advocate for the rights of gays and lesbians. I mean, I’m straight. I already have all the rights I want. But it seems an affront to common decency that we haven’t, until now, afforded our gay friends the kind of common sense legal framework all us straights take for granted.

When I think “kick in the teeth,” I think about families with two dads or two moms, and what they’ve endured. Do domestic partnerships hurt society? Hardly. In fact, I believe they make it stronger.

What…? The recent firings of eight U.S. attorney’s may have been politically motivated?

The Justice Department said today that Republican Sen. Pete Domenici called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his deputy four times to complain about a U.S. attorney who claims he was fired for not rushing a corruption probe.

Hmm. I wonder if any Washington state Republicans complained to the Justice Department about John McKay? Cathy McMorris? Dave Reichert? You’d think maybe the local media might be a little more curious about the circumstances regarding McKay’s firing. But then, you know, this is just the sort of hardball politics we’ve come to expect from the GOP, so I guess it really wouldn’t be news.

UPDATE:
McKay in his own words, over on BlatherWatch.

There has been a lot of noise recently in the blogosphere (local and nat’l) concerning Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, and their statements regarding Iran.

Hillary Clinton: “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

John Edwards: “ALL options must remain on the table.”

Barack Obama: Iran “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace”

If Iran developes nuclear weapons and declares an intention to use them against Israel, I would expect any President, Democrat or Republican, to use military action as a last resort against this threat. The difference between the Democrats running for President and Bush is that the current President has no credibility on the world stage. Clinton, Edwards, or Obama, if elected, will have the chance to use the diplomatic tools Bush and Company have declined to use for most of his seven years in office.

There are some on the Left who are, post-Iraq war, a bit gunshy when Democrats use tough terms to describe the nature of our relationship with Iran. I have heard nothing from Democratic contenders that would lead me to believe that a new administration would be anything other than a total 180 degree change from what we’ve seen under Bush.

Why does the Seattle Times hate Seattle?

People who own downtown real estate in the viaduct’s shadow suddenly would gain an equity-boosting view of Elliott Bay. The poor plebe’s view of the bay — that jaw-dropping, soul-raising drive on the viaduct — would be lost. People would sit longer in traffic everywhere and pay more for the honor of it.

Meanwhile Gov. Christine Gregoire has a less-lofty but more-pragmatic mission — replacing existing traffic capacity with a safe, affordable alternative — and a broader constituency, the whole state. Already, at least two far-flung newspapers, in Vancouver and Spokane, have editorialized in support of the governor’s position, urging Seattle to get over its costly fantasy and let the elevated option proceed.

Let me just say — and I mean this in the most respectful way possible — that I couldn’t give a flying fuck what editorial boards in Vancouver and Spokane have to say about their vision for Seattle.

Apparently, having worn out its own credibility, Times editiorial board members like Kate Riley are now reduced to citing editorial boards at far-flung newspapers to support their arguments. But then, editorialists in Spokane and Vancouver probably have as much affinity for and knowledge of our city as Riley, whose most “soul-raising” experience of Seattle comes from driving through it at 60 miles-per-hour.

It’s a jam-packed schedule of inside politics and policy wonkery tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: What’s driving Peter Steinbreuck? Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck shocked supporters this week when he announced he would forego reelection so that he could devote his energies towards opposing an elevated rebuild of the Alaska Way Viaduct. His surprise announcement also immediately raised speculation about his future political plans. Mayor? County Executive? Congress? Peter will join me in the studio for the hour to talk about the Viaduct and his future.

8PM: Is Oscar-winner Al Gore running for President? Washington insider Michael Feldman, a founding partner of the Glover Park Group and a former top aide to the former Vice President, joins me at the top of the hour to give us the inside scoop on his old boss, and how the crowded field of presidential hopefuls is shaping up. What’s the inside the beltway, DC punditocracy take on the 2008 election? Tune in and find out, then call in with your predictions and preferences of who you’d like to see facing off in the general election.

9PM: Is the state doing enough to educate foster kids? Less than two-percent of WA’s foster kids will go on to get a college degree. Less than two-percent. Reuven Carlyle, a Harvard educated high-tech entrepreneur — and former foster child — thinks we can and should do better, and has helped craft HB 1131, creating a Passport to College Promise Program that would provide outreach and scholarships to former foster youth, while providing incentives to colleges to enroll and retain these students. Reuven joins me in the studio along with Janice Avery, the founder and executive director of Treehouse, to talk about the challenges facing foster youth, and how we can do a better job preparing them for success.

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

What really went on at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, the preeminent conservative gathering of the year? Michelle Malkin goes unhinged, Ann Coulter defends her privacy, a “curiously pale black Republican” explains why black Republicans can’t get elected, and Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and “Flipper,” the anti-Romney dolphin, discuss the conservative movement. A must-see bit of film-making from Max Blumenthal of The Nation.

And get this gem from right-wing hate-mongerer David Horwitz:

“The left is driven by envy, resentment and a ferocious hatred of anybody on the other side. And that’s because it’s a religious movement which believes that the world can be redeemed, we can end world poverty, we can end racism, sexism and homophobia, if only those damned conservatives would die. And so every leftist has in his heart, is consumed with hate.”

Pot, meet kettle.

Rarely do politicians just come out and say it. This is Kline in a letter to an ATV rider:

There is nothing sporting — athletic, physically demanding — about riding any machine anywhere. And it’s a damned annoyance to folks who see the outdoors as a place to go for quiet and solitude and self-exploration. I would be happy to ban the use of the internal combustion engine off-road, by anyone without a handicapped sticker, subject to a stiff fine. Maybe we could call this an anti-obesity measure.

Please circulate this to all motorized sports enthusiasts, so they can remember never to vote for me.

Adam Kline

I may not agree wth Kline, but that’s not the point. Kline telling the ATV crowd to ‘fuck off’ is the coolest thing ever. Our local politcians are so boring. Thank God the Klinester is out there keeping it interesting.

If you really want to have a laugh, read the comments on this post over at Postman’s blog. Here are a few:

A great example of tolerance on the left. If it’s not something that he agrees with, Kline would simply legislate it out of existence. Senator Kline, how about legislating the banning of dogs as pets. After all, sometimes they bark loudly. Or maybe another Senator would like to propose a law banning an activity that Senator Kline enjoys to help illustrate why he is wrong.

Posted by Jeff B. at 06:39 PM, Mar 02, 2007

Amazing that a politician could alienate so many people in such a brief letter! To be honest, that takes serious talent.

His elitist attitude is truly disgusting and is well beyond acceptale even when applied to the conduct of politicians. I sincerely hope he is called to the carpet over this matter.

Posted by Moe at 09:45 PM, Mar 02, 2007

Good stuff.

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

7PM: Is John Edwards a faggot? That’s what cuddly, conservative pundit Ann Coulter said at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference, where she was the featured speaker:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot–so….’”

The audience at this preeminent conservative event of the year gave Coulter an enthusiastic ovation. Does Coulter (who has endorsed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney) really represent, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, “the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism”…? And if so, what does this say about contemporary conservative activism?

8PM: Should Reichert and McMorris give back their terrorist money? 22 Republicans representatives have benefited from money the NRCC raised from indicted terrorist financierAbdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari — including WA’s Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris-Rogers — and yet none have offered to give the money back. Republicans talk tough on terrorism, but I guess even a federal indictment doesn’t make your money not good enough for the NRCC.

9PM: Is it wrong to boo? Apparently.

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

If like me, you love politics and you love chocolate, than you don’t want to miss NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s annual fundraiser, Chocolate for Choice:

Chocolate as far as the eye can see—and all for the right to choose! While our guests eat chocolate to their hearts’ content, our panel of celebrity judges determines the winning dessert entries in various categories. The evening also features a silent auction of fun chocolate-themed items and a live auction of exquisite chocolate creations.

Celebrity judges include such political luminaries as Darcy Burner, Ron Sims, Greg Nickels, Sally Clark and, um… me! Cathy Sorbo is the Master of Ceremonies.

Tickets are still available! Thursday, March 8, 6-8PM at Safeco Field’s Ellis Pavilion.

In the comment thread on an earlier post, Steven writes:

Somebody around these parts had a pretty good suggestion a while back. If you want to see what the surface option looks like, let’s close the Viaduct for a month and see how traffic responds. Then let’s vote.

The implication being that with the Viaduct closed, I-5 will slow to a permanent crawl while the city’s side streets are choked with drivers seeking alternative routes.

Of course, that’s a completely bullshit analysis, no matter how many times people repeat it. First of all, the surface-plus-transit option is not the do-nothing option — it is the s u r f a c e – p l u s – t r a n s i t option, which means it includes a number of surface and transit improvements to move additional vehicles and people through our existing surface streets. Improvements which would presumably include, um, a new, multilane boulevard in the shadow of the existing Viaduct.

Replacing the Viaduct with $2.4 billion worth of transit and street improvements is not the same thing as simply closing it. Would the surface-plus-transit option, whatever it entails, match the vehicle capacity of the existing elevated structure? Probably not. But it would provide a helluva lot more capacity than doing nothing.

The second problem with Steven’s thought experiment is that one month isn’t nearly enough time for local commuters to change their driving habits, especially knowing that things will return to normal after 30-days. But faced with years of Viaduct closure and disruption, well, that’s when all that seemingly superfluous grey matter tucked behind our foreheads really starts to kick into gear. It may not seem like it while they’re blindly cutting you off in traffic, but the average driver is smarter than your average bear, and will eventually adjust their driving habits to fit the new reality. Just as new freeway capacity attracts more traffic, reducing capacity will discourage some trips and reroute others.

So, how long would it really take to conduct Steven’s thought experiment under objective, real-world conditions? Well, according to WSDOT, if we end up rebuilding a new elevated structure, SR 99 will be shut down in whole or in part for up to 10 to 12 years.

That’s right, drivers will be forced to live without the existing capacity for over a decade.

During this decade of disruption, a Downtown Seattle Association comparison matrix shows that SR 99 would close nights and weekends for 5 to 7 years, and be reduced to two-lanes in each direction for 7 years. Various southbound segments will be closed for periods of time ranging from 6 to 21 months, while the entire structure would be closed in both directions for as long as 9 months.

And that’s if everything goes according to plan.

So when surface critics talk about how Seattle’s economy is going to completely collapse if we lose the Viaduct’s current vehicle capacity, I wonder how they think we’re going to survive the decade or so it will take to rebuild it?

Gary Randall of the retardedly-named Faith and Freedom Network:

Randall said, “I think a number of legislators who are not comfortable with voting for gay marriage chose this vote as an alternative. Unfortunately, rather than a helpful compromise, this decision will most likely prove to be an enabling step toward same-sex marriage, as we are seeing in New Jersey.” Randall also said, “As this plays out over the next year or so, some lawmakers may find themselves at odds with their constitutes, in that a majority of Washington citizens do not favor gay marriage.”

Gary is probably right. If put to the voters, marriage equality would likely fail at the polls. That’s why Senator Ed Murray is a smart guy. He’s going step-by-step. If straight people like me can see and understand how absurd it is to discriminate against gays, change will come.

To be honest, I don’t really care about gay marriage. I don’t care about it because it doesn’t affect me. Gay people getting married doesn’t affect me at all. The Gay Mafia aren’t going to kick down my door and force me to watch Project Runway.

I understand why Gary Randall doesn’t like gay marriage. It’s two things, really; one he likes (marriage), and one he doesn’t (homos trying to GET married). Marriage is the bedrock of society, but gays can’t get married because… something about the Bible. I don’t know the passage, as it’s hard to find among all the other passages that talk about poverty. Gary can criticize the “gay lifestyle” all he wants, but does he want to allow lots of normal tax-paying, children-having, house-buying homosexuals to have the benefits of a union blessed not by God, but by a guy in the King County Administration Building?

Like I said, none of this shit affects me. Gays have to spend thousands of dollars to get what I have for free. I can visit a family member in the hospital, inherit a spouse’s assets, and make all sorts of medical decisions for a loved one. Gays? When their partner goes in the hospital, they better pray their doctor isn’t some fundementalist asshole.

The best arguement I ever heard on this issue is by the comedian Louis CK. Click here to see the video.

Last week I urged concrete aficionados to move to Florida, where road-enamored state and local governments seem to operate under the democratic principle of “one car, one vote.” But if your idea of responsible transportation planning is paving your way out of every traffic jam, then you only need to look as far as Arizona to find your Freeway to Heaven.

That’s a crosscut of Arizona’s I-10, which state transportation officials propose to expand from twelve lanes to twenty-four between Tempe and Phoenix. That’s right… twenty-four lanes. And yes, we’re talking about a freeway, not a bowling alley.

Just imagine this baby running along Seattle’s waterfront… and a hundred feet or so out into Elliot Bay.

This is what comes from trying to build your way out road congestion, instead of adopting integrated solutions that include mass transit and rational urban planning.

Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen may be our region’s most famous dog hater, but his colleagues over at the P-I don’t seem to possess much puppy love either, seeing fit to squander yet more precious column inches editorializing against dogs in bars and restaurants.

It probably says something about our legislators, and us, as a community, when we’re further along in the debate as to whether to let dogs into restaurants than we are with such issues as delaying the WASL until 2010 (ah, it’s only our education system, folks) and lowering the cap on payday loans from 391 percent down to 36 percent (the poor can wait another year). Clearly, those concerns aren’t as urgent as being able to take dogs to bars.

Or, maybe what this bill’s legislative progress says is exactly what the P-I’s editorial says by example — that it’s a helluva lot easier to encapsulate and move on a simple issue like dogs in bars than say… reforming education?

What exactly is the P-I suggesting? That the Legislature prioritize every issue in order of importance, and not move on down the list until the top-most issue is settled? If we had to wait until we reached a legislative consensus on reforming education before we moved on to any other issue, we might as well just disband the Legislature.

What a silly argument. At least as silly as the issue itself.

I’m doing some system maintenance. If things go down, or look strange, don’t complain. Yet.

UPDATE:
Well how about that. WordPress 2.1.1 requires mySQL 4.0. Which I don’t currently have.

Anyway, everything should be back to normal. If it’s not, let me know.

Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Hypocrite) makes a weasly argument for maintaining the 60-percent supermajority requirement on school levies:

Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said that Republicans are leery of making it easier to raise property taxes. She noted that the supermajority requirement stems from a 1932 citizen initiative.

And, um… of course, we should honor the will of these voters, despite the fact that nearly all of them are now dead.

I see this argument trotted out a lot — that because a measure was approved by voters by whatever margin however many years ago, its provisions are now somehow inviolate. But of course, this is just an argument of convenience to be used whenever it suits ones needs. For example, the 1932 property tax initiative that Holmquist venerates also capped levy rates at 40-mill, rather than the much lower 10-mill cap now in place. And it was just one part of a larger tax reform package that included a measure creating both a personal and corporate income tax… a citizens initiative that passed with 70-percent of the vote, but was thrown out a year later in a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

So I don’t suppose there’s something so special about that 1932 election that Sen. Holmquist would be willing to support an income tax and a 40-mill levy cap? Or that there’s something so insufficient about modern voters that they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to amend a provision passed by their counterparts 75-years ago?

Initiatives enact laws like any other law, and once the two-year moratorium is up, they can and should be amended to fix poorly thought out provisions or address changing times. It is true that initiatives are voted on directly by citizens, but then, so are our representatives.