HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle Times has an interesting piece on an unusual political split:

The Washington Association of Realtors has launched a $1 million campaign aimed at squashing a proposed tax increase on real-estate sales.
…
The group has started running TV, radio and newspaper ads warning that the tax increase would cost homeowners thousands of dollars in “hard-earned equity” when they go to sell.

But in their fight, the Realtors face an unlikely foe: the typically anti-tax Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW).

The homebuilders group, which

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

A couple weeks ago I quipped:

What do Judy Miller and Stefan Sharkansky have in common? They’ve both been booted from their respective papers.

Truth is, I hadn’t bothered to look into the circumstances surrounding Stefan’s departure from The Stranger… my unsupported insinuation was just a little friendly dig, mostly intended to serve as a springboard for linking to the Judy Miller story.

But a couple of “the Shark’s” sycophants expressed displeasure in my comment thread, so in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d point you towards BlatherWatch, where Michael has the inside scoop on the sudden end to Stefan’s strange tenure at The Stranger.

This came to a halt, we’re told by someone inside The Stranger, when Sharkansky attended a pair of press conferences wearing a different hat to each.
…
According to our source, Sharkansky attended the Republicans’ press conference first, where he was hailed as a hero; invited to stand up in front, got the “googly eyes from Kathy Lambert” (not that hard to get, actually, if you’re of the male species) and perhaps even spoke to them. Then shoving his Republican political operative hat back in his pocket, he donned his journalist hat, (made with duct tape and Superglue on PhotoShop, no doubt) and as a Stranger reporter, went to the Elections Department presser, where he presumably asked searing questions ala Mike Wallace.

That a reporter would stand as a party operative, and then be a reporter on the same afternoon would embarrass any news organization. Feit was not amused to say the least, according to our source. He decided then and there to kick him off the paper after the election.

So, apparently Stefan was dumped by The Stranger. Lucky guess.

But gee… I sure hope I had something to do with it when I wrote about his fake press conference back on 10/13.

But perhaps the most embarrassing detail for Irons and his GOP comrades is that they seemed unembarrassed to stand there side by side with WA state’s most famous conspiracy theorist, our friend Stefan of (un)Sound Politics, whose tireless efforts to find patterns of fraud in KC’s voter databases borders on numerology, and whose aluminum-hat-analyses have earned him every last drop of incredulity he enjoys. Stefan actually had the temerity to stand before the assembled media throng and claim he was one of them, ignoring the fact that real journalists cover press conferences… they don’t conduct them.

Whatever.

It was bound to end sometime. Stefan was never a very good fit at The Stranger, not so much for his politics, but because he’s such an extraordinarily godawful boring writer. The Stranger’s hip cultural coverage is totally lost on me (I’m hip-challenged), and I occasionally find their political analysis a tad annoying, but Dan Savage has certainly populated the staff with gifted and entertaining writers… and, well… Stefan… not so much.

So am I happy to see Stefan lose his weekly soapbox? Hell yeah. And is it unprofessional of me to rub salt in his wounds this way? Yeah, sure… I suppose. But then, unlike Stefan, I’ve never pretended to be a professional journalist.

UPDATE:
In the comment thread, Dan Savage (or at least, somebody claiming to be Dan Savage… how should I know?) claims that Stefan was not in fact dumped for the “two hats” incident. I suppose Dan (if it is Dan) would know.

Whatever. The Stranger is still better off without him.

I just flew in from Philadelphia… and boy are my arms tired.

Unable to achieve their agenda through the legislative process, the BIAW and other conservative groups are attempting to pack the bench by spending huge sums on low-profile judicial races:

For the first time in this state, a political action committee has been formed to help elect candidates to the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The Constitutional Law PAC has a right-of-center orientation.

The development alarms some court observers, who say an agenda-driven PAC for judicial elections could threaten the independence and impartiality of the state’s judiciary, and that the emergence of one will lead to other, countervailing PACs.
…
It’s especially troubling, he said, since Washington is one of only four states that elect judges but have no finance limits on their campaigns. Contributions to candidates for other statewide offices are limited to $1,350 per donor. A bill to place that limit on judicial candidates passed the state House this year but died in the Senate.

This development makes it clear that we absolutely need to pass legislation applying campaign limits to judicial races; if we can’t get it through the Legislature, we need to (gasp) run an initiative. These races have already been heavily politicized, and we simply cannot continue to allow wealthy special interests to pack the bench with judges that favor their agenda.

It also makes it clear that progressives need to create their own version of the BIAW… a blatantly self-interested, partisan organization that exploits a loophole in the state workers compensation system’s “retro rebate” program, to fund candidates and causes.

What we need is a Progressive Industry Association of Washington, that hires away a retro manager from one of the other groups, and competes for business and influence on an even playing field. If we can’t change the rules to make them more fair, then we need to start competing using the rules in place.

Last week I mentioned that the list of 1944 voters who had their registration challenged by Lori Sotelo and the GOP included a prominent local musician. Well, WashBlog’s coverage of Wednesday’s hearing revealed him to be former Soundgarden lead guitarist, Kim Thayil.

Thayil spoke in his own defense:

“I am concerned about people in my situation

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

On this Thanksgiving Day — as on all days — I am thankful for the greatest run-on sentence in human history:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing more American than dissent.

Once again, WashBlog’s got great coverage of the voter registration challenge hearings, with a firsthand account of last night’s session. Anonym’s cross-post to Daily Kos is currently sitting in the recommended list, but please recommend it yourself so that this story can get as much exposure as possible. The rest of the nation needs to know the kind of underhanded bullshit the GOP is trying to get away with here.

As WashBlog reports, some of the same Democratic attorney’s who kicked Dino Rossi’s ass in his doomed election contest trial are playing tag-team on behalf of challenged voters. On Monday, Kevin Hamilton took Lori Sotelo and the GOP to the mat, and last night it was David McDonald’s turn:

McDonald: Do you have any personal knowledge that Ms. Harriet can’t vote?
Sotelo: I won’t answer that question.

McDonald: Do you have any personal knowledge about Ms. Harriet’s age, which could affect her ability to vote?
Sotelo: I won’t answer that question.

McDonald: Do you have any personal knowledge about Ms. Harriet’s status as a United States citizen that could affect her ability to vote?
Sotelo: I won’t answer that question.

McDonald: Do you have any personal knowledge that Ms. Harriet doesn’t meet any of the exceptions laid out in the Washington State Constitution in regards to her voting registration?
Sotelo: I won’t answer that question.

McDonald: Do you know where in this storage facility the resident manager lives?
Sotelo: I won’t answer that question.

McDonald: I move for dismissal. Her statement that she has a “reasonable idea of where she (Ms. Harriet) lives” doesn’t meet the requirements laid out in the statute. These “drive by challenges” will enormously burden the public. If you let these challenges to forward, then you’ll be allowing future fishing expeditions.

McDonald received an ovation when he returned to his seat.

All this should make fascinating viewing, thanks to the camera the Democrats brought to tape the proceedings… despite strenuous objections from GOP Attorney Diane Tebelius. According to one observer, the Republican table totally “freaked out” when they saw the camera being set up, and demanded that cameras be barred from the hearing room.

Hmm. They didn’t seem to mind the camera our good friend Stefan brought to snap pictures of the infidels for the illustrated purge list he’s working on. And they didn’t seem to mind all the TV cameras that showed up at the hearing last Thursday. But then, that was before they knew how badly the hearings would go for the GOP, and how terrible their ill prepared, erroneous and extra-legal challenges would look to the general public.

When KCRE representative Bobbie Egan defended the Democrat’s right to tape the event by saying it was a public hearing, Tebelius demanded to know what part of the RCW allows cameras in the hearing room. Of course, perhaps if she had done her legal homework, Tebelius might have been able to tell us what part of the RCW bans camera. (Hint: that’s the part of the RCW that doesn’t exist.)

In any case, the GOP’s PR disaster continues, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see clips of Sotelo’s legal undressing in future Democratic campaign ads, for as McDonald made clear, Sotelo had no personal knowledge about the residences of any of the voters she challenged… despite the fact that she testified to such knowledge on her surreptitiously altered challenge affidavits.

Whether this rises to the level of perjury or not, I’m not sure (technically, the blame may lie on the auto-pen that was apparently used to put an identical signature on all 1944 affidavits), but the charges certainly deserve at least as thorough an investigation as she is demanding of the challenged voters.

Sotelo and the GOP are seeking to disenfranchise (even prosecute) otherwise eligible voters based on poorly supported allegations of errors in their voter registrations. Yet Sotelo herself has failed to follow the statute in filing these challenges, and has knowingly misled elections officials as to her personal knowledge.

And so I urge all of you to sign a petition to King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, asking him to investigate Sotelo’s actions, and prosecute her if warranted. At last count, 72 people had already signed the petition… it would be nice to collect at least 1944 signatures before turning it in.

Sunday’s tragic shooting spree at the Tacoma Mall prompted exactly the type of response you’d expect from the ardent Second Amendment Libertarians on the right. The solution to gun violence? More guns.

As Michael reported over on BlatherWatch, right-wing talk radio was all aflutter with the lessons to be learned from this tragedy.

… one caller told Carlson (who agreed) that the whole darn thing would have never happened if one out of three citizens in the mall was carrying a firearm.

Well, as it turns out, at least one citizen in the mall was armed that day.

The man who was critically wounded during Sunday’s shooting rampage at Tacoma Mall drew a pistol and confronted the gunman before he was cut down by gunfire, his family said Tuesday.
…
Witnesses told McKown’s family that he was shot after he pulled his own handgun during the shooting.

“Our understanding is that Dan drew his weapon and confronted the gunman,” his stepmother, Beverly McKown, said during a news conference Tuesday at Tacoma General Hospital.

McKown is the only one of the six victims to be critically wounded. He was shot twice in the abdomen and may suffer permanent paralysis due to spinal damage.

Now I don’t mean to necessarily criticize McKown for choosing to draw his weapon; it may have been a courageous, selfless act. But it certainly didn’t end up making him any safer.

In fact, statistics consistently show that the number one risk factor for death by handgun is owning one. A gun in the home increases household members risk of homicide by 3 times, and the risk of suicide by 5 times. Indeed, of our nation’s 30,242 gun deaths in 2002, 56 percent were suicides.

I myself know how to handle a weapon — taught by Quakers, oddly enough — but choose not to own one for exactly these reasons. Guns tend to make their owners less safe, not more. (Though I suppose arming myself might slightly decrease my risk of harm from right-wing death squads, so perhaps I should reconsider?)

So if there is any lesson to be learned from the tragedy in Tacoma, it is certainly not that more citizens should be armed. If your concern is personal safety, knowing exactly how and when to use a handgun is much more important than simply carrying one.

[Cross-posted to Daily Kos]

Jesus’ General has let his “inner Frenchman” get the better of him:

Forgive me for interrupting, but for the last few hours I’ve been struggling with a post juxtaposing the Christian right’s obsession with sexual morality and theocracy with their lack of concern about torture and murder. I can’t finish. It’s too painful to address satirically.

“America has lost its soul,” The General writes, and then goes on to chronicle our nation’s horrific use of torture, death squads and chemical weapons in the name of fighting terrorism and promoting freedom.

He grimly concludes:

I can’t bear the thought of my grandson living in the world these bastards are creating. We have to do all we can to defeat them.

Which raises the question… are we progressives really willing to do all we can to defeat them? I mean… everything?

Ooops… almost forgot. The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

But I’m on the other coast, so I won’t be there.

Apparently, our good friend Stefan wants King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng to prosecute homeless people who listed PO boxes on their voter registration forms. Stefan also repeated his demand that Dean Logan be prosecuted, and failing that, thinks Maleng should prosecute himself.

Hmm. Who’s next? After he’s cleaned the streets of government officials and the homeless, I suppose he’d turn his prosecutorial powers towards ridding society of scum like me… after all, he did once accuse me of “abetting a government cover-up.”

I’m not quite sure what makes Stefan so angry (he’s got a nice house, a lovely family, a clean car with personalized plates), but I wonder if he’s ever pondered the potential fiscal impact of his vindictive approach to politics. King County already spends about 70 percent of its general fund on criminal justice (sheriffs, courts, prisons, etc.) and a major purge of Stefan’s enemies list would severely strain the county budget. The cost of incarcerating an additional 284,510 people would be astronomical, but by golly, that’s a sacrifice Stefan is apparently willing to make.

Still, while Stefan would surely have Dean, Norm and I swing from the rafters for our crimes against the state, I think he may be jumping the gun a bit on the homeless voters thing. So as a courtesy to Stefan, Lori, and the befuddled Esquire Tebelius, perhaps I better reiterate and clarify the main point from my previous post on this issue: nothing in the WAC, the RCW or the voter registration form itself explicitly prohibits a voter from providing a PO box as his place of residence.

Stefan’s confusion may stem from the fact that the voter registration form requires applicants to provide the address of their actual residence. Since one cannot physically reside inside a PO Box, it seems reasonable to infer that one could never be properly registered at such an address.

But to protect the rights of the homeless and other citizens with “nontraditional residence”, our election statutes also wisely include provisions that permit such individuals to use the address of the location “the voter deems to be to be his/her residence.” For a homeless person, whose residence may in fact include an entire neighborhood, as opposed to a single park, shelter or doorway, their PO Box may be their one link to stability, and thus in their mind, more of a permanent residence than any other place. Imagine being homeless yourself, with no other address than the PO Box where you collect your mail — what address would you put down on the voter registration form, given no instructions to the contrary? (My guess is, “the parking lot at the Renton Walmart” wouldn’t be the first thing that comes to mind.)

But what of the provision that states such voters “will be registered” at a public building? To construe this as an instruction to voters would place it in contradiction to the sentence that precedes it, for the registration form simply does not permit a voter to list the address he deems to be his residence and the address of the nearest public building, unless the voter truly deems them to be one and the same.

As I’ve previously noted, this provision is clearly an instruction to election officials, not to voters… an interpretation that Stefan himself inadvertently and ironically confirms with his detective work on the “notorious Precinct 1823.”

Precinct 1823 has 763 registered “Active” voters. 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave — the King County Administration Building. 241 of these voters specifically note their apartment number as #553, which is the room number of the … King Ukraine County Records and Elections office .

Over 300 of these alleged “voters” give 500 4th Ave. (with or without the Elections office room number) as both their residence and mailing addresses. Several of the other Elections Office residents give overseas mailing addresses, such as Anuj Rathi of Mumbai, India ,Rayko Suzuki of Tokyo, Japan , and Pascal Engi of Bern, Switzerland.

Stefan chose to interpret this as proof of fraud, and for a few days right-wing talk radio got itself all puffed up over his conspiratorial analysis. But in reality, this was merely evidence of individual election workers attempting to follow the statute. When a registration form with a nontraditional address came in, KCRE correctly registered the voter at a public building. And what more obvious building for elections workers to use than the address of the office in which they worked?

It is not surprising if in the course of processing the tens of thousands of registration forms received each year, elections officials occasionally fail to recognize an address as nontraditional… but it certainly is not grounds for disqualifying a voter’s ballot, let alone prosecuting anyone for a Class C Felony, as Stefan demands.

Though I believe it misguided and ultimately self-destructive, I understand the GOP’s anti-democratic strategy; if they had managed to purge a couple thousand King County voters from the rolls before the 2004 election, Dino Rossi might be governor today. But I have trouble wrapping my mind around the anger and hatred of people like Stefan and the EFF’s Bob Williams, whose thirst for political payback has prompted them to repeatedly call for the jailing of elected officials, government workers and ordinary citizens.

Recently we had a lively debate in the comment threads over the impact of uncivil language on civil discourse. But when those on the other side start echoing — however mildly — the eliminationist rhetoric of the hard right… I wonder if there can be a debate at all?

UPDATE:
WashBlog has excellent coverage of yesterday’s challenge hearings, including a wonderful grilling of Sotelo by Democratic attorney Kevin Hamilton. An absolute must read.

Initiative profiteer Tim Eyman had a guest column in Saturday’s Olympian, and Daniel at On The Road To 2008, thoroughly dismantles it. Daniel starts with one of Timmy’s more glaring lies, his attempt to characterize Initiative 912’s stunning defeat as a “narrow loss.” As Daniel points out, I-912 actually failed by a whopping 9 percent… a landslide defeat for an anti-tax initiative.

Carl at Washington State Political Report also chimes in on Eyman’s “masturbatory rant”, taking issue with Eyman’s claim that “voters realize that initiatives are their only effective way to influence Olympia.” Carl responds with a list of things voters can do to influence Olympia, from time consuming things like lobbying legislators, to simple things like signing a petition or sending an email, or… um… you know… voting.

But more disturbing is the idea that we only have a say in a few issues. Tim Eyman seems to think that we should have no say in gay marriage. Tim Eyman seems to think that our only options for a smoking ban are a seriously flawed one or none at all. That the only plans for healthcare reform are the one the insurance industry wants, the one lawyers want, or none at all.

It is odd that the one way Eyman thinks we can influence the process is exactly the way that’s earned him so much money over the years.

No, it’s not odd. It’s good business.

FYI, Timmy’s coming back with yet another $30 car tab initiative next year. And this one’s gonna lose.

Apparently, the Seattle Times thinks this is news:

The American Nazi Party has lost its litter-control sponsorship of a stretch of local road after it failed to clean it up.

The other day I received an email from the infamous Lawyer X, who suggested I may have got it wrong in implying that registering at a PO Box is necessarily improper, as the GOP contends. He pointed me towards the WAC:

Registering to vote — Nontraditional address. No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional physical address being used as a residence address. Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status provided the voter designates a valid mailing address.

Let’s parse this, shall we?

The first sentence is absolutely clear that a voter may not be disqualified for using a “nontraditional physical address” as a residence address. The second sentence defines nontraditional addresses as “identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence.” I don’t think there’s much of an argument there.

But it’s the third and fourth sentences that are key to understanding the GOP challenge.

Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided.

It doesn’t take a legal degree to dissect this sentence, just a basic understanding of grammar. “Will be registered” is in the future progressive tense, whereas “location provided” is in the simple past tense. Thus, these instructions can only be understood to be directed at elections workers, acting in the future, based on information provided by voters in the past.

You see, voters don’t register to vote (let alone precinct themselves)… they merely fill out forms applying for registration. The actual act of registering and precincting the voter is then conducted by elections workers, based on information provided by the voter on the form. This brings us to the fourth sentence, the one that the GOP relies on to disqualify many of the challenged voters.

Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence.

In the context of the previous sentence, the future progressive “will be registered” can only be understood as an instruction to elections workers, not voters. I’m not exactly sure what the purpose of this particular provision is — perhaps its merely an accommodation to the computer systems — but the failure of a voter with a nontraditional address to be registered at a public building is not a failure of the voter. Take a look at the voter registration form as defined in WAC 434-324-050: nowhere on it is any mention of nontraditional addresses, or registering at public buildings… or even, an explicit instruction to the voter that he cannot list a mailbox number or storage facility as his address.

Upon close reading, the WAC simply does not require voters with nontraditional addresses to list the address of a public building as his residence on the voter registration form. Indeed, it would be impossible do so, as the form does not accommodate both the address of the location he deems to be his residence and the address of a nearby public building on the same line. If the WAC requires the voter to be registered at a public building, fulfilling this requirement would clearly be the responsibility of the election worker who processed the registration card… and an election official’s error is not sufficient reason to toss out a ballot from an otherwise qualified voter.

Thus, according to Lawyer X, challenged voters like Terri Carpenter and David Combs, who both have nontraditional addresses, are free to register at a PO Box, if that is the location they deem to be their residence… regardless of whether they can physically reside inside.

Residency is a state of mind, not pinned to an exact location. This is particularly true where the person has no other residence. When you are dealing with a homeless person, and where the GOP has made no effort to show the person has any other residence, the residence has to be the address provided by the voter. Every citizen of the state is entitled to vote. They can’t have it taken away because they do not own or lease property. Unless someone shows a voter has some other residence, the one the voter provided is it.

In this context it becomes all the more clear why the challenge statute requires the challenger to provide the actual address of the voter in question, because without it one can never truly determine that the location provided, whatever its dimensions, is not in fact the location the voter deems to be his residence. And so it seems likely that should the canvassing board follow the letter of the law, voters like Carpenter and Combs will survive the GOP’s challenge, as will other voters for whom the Republicans cannot prove, by clear and convincing evidence, their actual address.

And once again, the only thing the GOP will succeed in proving, is that administering elections is a lot more complicated than they pretend.