Search Results for: ’

Go to this:

Join Friends of Seattle for a Celebration of Summer!

Now that summer is here, Friends of Seattle wants you to come out and play. We’re having a Summer Meet ‘n’ Greet to say thanks and to let you know what we’re up to in ’08.

And, with Friends of Seattle working to get the Pro Parks Levy on the 2008 ballot, we’re excited to celebrate in one of our exceptional City parks.

Need more reasons to come? We’ll have hot dogs and veggie dogs, it’s supposed to be 79 degrees and sunny, and it’s free! This is our way of saying thank you for your support.

Where: Golden Gardens Park , Shelter #2
When: Sunday, July 13th, 3:00-5:00 PM
Who: Members and non-members alike
Questions? Contact events@friendsofseattle.org

Hope to see you there!

A month ago, I briefly mentioned a visit I’d made to some medical marijuana patients near Tacoma who went through an arrest ordeal that was so over-the-top I felt compelled to follow up. Brad and Kristie Choate are a married couple who live in the Spanaway area. Brad, who is in his late 20s, lost his leg in a diving accident and Kristie, who is in her mid 40s, is partially disabled with a number of serious ailments. After I met with them and recorded an interview, I was told by a patient advocate not to write anything until they put something up online themselves. On Wednesday this week, that happened, as Kristie recounts what happened:

[Read more…]

The episode begins with an air of disappointment and disgust as the panel anticipates today’s Senate FISA/Telco-immunity bill vote. The topic changes mid-stream to Plum Creek and the raping of the Montana environment. From there, they take up rural land use issues in Washington. The panel revisits the assisted suicide death with dignity initiative, and then switches tracks to a discussion of light rail. Next they reveal the secrets behind the not secret ballot currently in use in some Washington state counties.

This week Goldy was joined by HorsesAss’ and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ (and now Slog’s) blogger Will, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, DailyKos uber-blogger Joan McCarter (mcjoan), and Mr. Tim White.

The show is 61:31, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_8_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Via Think Progress:

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.”

I’m guessing Osama is sending a big bouquet of flowers to George W. Bush, without whom none of this would be possible.

In this episode, Goldy and friends offer condolences to congressional candidate Darcy Burner over the loss of her house (and cat) earlier in the day. Next they dive into a multi-threaded discussion of the Washington state gubernatorial rematch, surrogate attack dogs, fake scandals and all. The podcast ends with a brief (roughly…seven word) tribute to the late George Carlin.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle’s blogging pioneer N in Seattle, HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ former blogger emeritus Will.

The show is 51:19, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_1_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

In 2004, Washington state witnessed the closest gubernatorial election in history, as then Attorney General Christine Gregoire defeated then real estate broker salesman Dino Rossi by 129 votes (later changed to 133 by a court).

A year and some later (April, 2006), the now defunct East Side King County Journal asked about Rossi What’s his shelf life?:

The charismatic and smooth conservative came within a whisker of winning the governor’s mansion in 2004 and is widely expected to seek a rematch with Democrat Chris Gregoire in 2008. Will it be “Dino Who?” by then?

In politics, it is said that a year is an eternity. So what does that make Rossi’s four-year hiatus with no political office or bully pulpit while Gregoire relentlessly dominates news cycles week after week?

It was an interesting time to ask the question. At the time, Rossi was leading Gregoire by 51% to 38% in a Strategic Vision poll asking about the 2008 election. In fact, Rossi had led Gregoire by more than 50% to Gregoire’s less than 40% in the five other polls taken after the election contest and before April 2006.

The Republicans resoundingly lost the legal battle in the election contest of 2005, but they won the PR battle. Governor Gregoire began her first term polling as less popular than the loser of the election. After a highly contentious, close election, followed by a multi-million dollar Republican dis-information campaign (a.k.a. the election contest), Gregoire’s approval–disapproval spread started out strongly negative, and remained in negative territory for her first year in office. Then, after a 6 months period of nearly even approval (Jan 2006 until June 2006), Gregoire emerged from negative approval-disapproval territory.

Starting from a very bad position, Gov. Gregoire genuinely won over the electorate.

But what about Rossi? When he launched his 2008 gubernatorial campaign (umm…for the second time), Rossi routinely quipped:

“Last time I started with a 12 percent name identity statewide. Most everybody thought Dino Rossi was some kind of wine at that point. A cheap wine at that,” Rossi said….

But name recognition isn’t enough. On the public’s perceptional palette, had Rossi matured into a vintage wine? Or had Rossi’s cheap wine turned to vinegar?

In 2005, Pollster Stuart Elway pointed out:

“’We wuz robbed’ won’t be a strong campaign theme, and Dino will have to present a credible challenge to an incumbent this time. It won’t be like he’s a challenger coming from out of nowhere, but my question is how he stays on the radar screen when he doesn’t hold any office.”

Elway’s concerns were prophetic. Rossi was never able to remain an important player in Washington politics. (Hell…he wasn’t much of a player in Washington state Republican politics, either.) For example, Rossi refused to take a stance in Initiative 912 that would have repealed a state gas tax increase. Neither has Rossi grown in the interim. His campaign stump speech has evolved minimally since 2004. And, at least early in the campaign, Rossi was still running on the “We Wuz Robbed” platform.

The inevitable result is that Rossi has squandered his position of great strength from 2005 and 2006. Just look at the polling. Here is a compilation of every publicly-released head-to-head Gregoire–Rossi poll for the 2008 election:

(Note: different pollsters probe undecided voters to very different degrees. To make the numbers comparable, I have normalized the results so that the Gregoire% + Rossi% sum to 100%.)

After leading in the first 15 polls in a row (through November 2006), Rossi has lost all but one of the most recent 15 polls. A running average puts Rossi about 7% below Gregoire. At this time during the 2006 election cycle, senatorial candidate Mike McGavick, running against an incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell, had just peaked at 9% below Cantwell. In other words, beginning with a huge advantage in 2005, it looks like Rossi’s residual advantage of the 2004 election (and contest) has shrunk to, roughly, a 2% advantage over McGavick’s unimpressive performance.

The electorate just isn’t taking a liking to the Rossi-brand whine. (Perhaps Rossi shouldn’t be building a campaign on sour grapes.)

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

In the comment threads, HA reader Phil K posts the contents of two emails he received as a fan and online ticket purchaser of the Everett AquaSox. The first is an invitation to a $100 per person “special fundraiser” for Republican Grand Old Party Party candidate for governor, Dino Rossi. The second is a red-faced email from AquaSox majority owners Peter A. and Peter E. Carfagna, apologizing for violating their fans personal privacy:

We recently learned that our personal privacy policy was compromised in an attempt to solicit your support for a partisan political fundraiser.

In that regard, on behalf of our family ownership group, we would like to express our sincere apologies.

Although we did not authorize this communication nor were we aware of it in advance, we have justifiably received numerous complaints from you expressing your displeasure. We take full responsibility and again beg your pardon.

How did this violation happen? Postman reports that “Dino Rossi’s campaign misused the mailing list of the minor league baseball team.” And how did Rossi’s campaign get ahold of the list? Well, Dino Rossi is a minority owner.

Rossi campaign spokeswoman Jill Strait blames the whole affair on Rossi’s Snohomish County Finance Chair, Tom Hoban, who’s also a minority owner, and claims that Rossi “was unaware that the list had been requested or used” (you know, for an event he’s scheduled to appear at in less than a week), telegraphing the kind of buck stops elsewhere management style we might expect from a Rossi administration.

For their part, the Carfagnas appear sincerely contrite, promising to take immediate steps to ensure an incident like this never happens again.

We take your personal privacy seriously. We will remain vigilant in protecting your email address from solicitors and vendors…

… and Republicans.

Hmm… I’m guessing the Seattle Times is going to want to editorialize on this latest campaign scandal… not!

Darcy Burner issued the following statement on the fire that destroyed her Ames Lake home:

“As many of you may be aware, early this morning my home was destroyed by a fire. It appears to have been caused by a faulty lamp in my son’s room. Unfortunately, our home and all of the possessions in it are a total loss, but I am so grateful that my family and I escaped safely. We may have lost our home and our possessions, but for the most part they can be replaced, and I feel like a true tragedy was narrowly avoided today. Please rest assured that while we have been a bit shaken by what happened, Mike, Henry and I are all okay.

“Particularly, I am grateful to the wonderful men and women of the Redmond and Kirkland Fire Departments, and the investigators from the King County Fire Investigation Unit. Their rapid response and incredible professionalism brought the fire under control and kept it from spreading to our neighbors’ homes. And these brave first responders even miraculously rescued my son’s puppy, who we initially thought had perished in the flames. Sadly, our cat, Charlotte, did not survive the fire.

“I am also deeply grateful for the expressions of support from friends, supporters and others who have called to express their condolences and offer their generous and heartfelt assistance. I am so moved by all of the offers of a place to stay, or clothes to wear, or all of the other offers of help that have poured in throughout the day. While we are fine for now, your kind expressions of support and concern have helped to sustain me through what has been a long and difficult day.

“For those who would like to do something to express their support, let me suggest making a contribution to your local humane society or animal shelter in memory of Charlotte, or to the Washington State Council of Firefighters Benevolent Fund.

“Thank you all for being there for us in my family’s time of need.  It means so much to us.”

I’ve added in the links, but feel free to choose your own charities that fit the spirit of the request.

The preliminary 60-day supply limits for medical marijuana patients in Washington have been released:

Patients authorized to possess or grow marijuana for medical reasons under Washington law would be limited to 24 ounces of harvested marijuana, plus six mature plants and 18 immature plants, according to an official draft rule filed by the state Department of Health today.

The filing of the draft rule starts a rule-making process and a public-comment period. A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 25 in Tumwater, Thurston County.

As I mentioned below, this is lower than earlier numbers proposed by the DOH, but it’s also higher than the 3 ounces that law enforcement considered “reasonable.” Why these numbers? Probably because they’re exactly the same as what Oregon allows.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, the prime sponsor of the bill tasking the State Department of Health to set the limits, has released a statement:

We have a responsibility to stay true to the values of compassion and empathy that are at the basis of this law, which was passed by voters in 1998. While I appreciate the Department of Health’s efforts to address this complex issue, I am concerned that today’s proposed rule is more restrictive than what had been previously discussed and may be unclear regarding a physician’s role in making a recommendation for a patient’s use of medical marijuana. Since the rule is not yet final, I encourage all stakeholders to continue providing written input and participate in the upcoming public hearing on August 25 to ensure a full consideration of their concerns.

Mankind has witnessed a number of horrors in recent decades—the Rwandan genocide… the ongoing tragedy in Darfur… DOE’s stormwater regulations—but none, according to Seattle Times editorialist Kate Riley a few weeks back, matched that of a state Democratic Party press release criticizing Dino Rossi for deliberately attempting to hide his Republican affiliation:

Oh, horrors! Stop the presses. Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is trying to “rebrand” himself as a member of the Grand Old Party. How sinister.

The real horror here is the state Democratic party’s attempt, in a press release today, to invent a scandal out of nothing — and, worse, the premise for their argument is founded on an apparent belief that voters are too ignorant to know that “GOP” and “Republican” are the same thing….

Really, Kate? Well, I hate to say “I told you so”… so I’ll just let Postman say it for me:

Dino Rossi’s rebranding effort may pay off with voters who say they don’t know what it means when a candidate declares himself a member of the “GOP Party.” […] A recent poll by Stuart Elway says that about 25 percent of respondents didn’t know what GOP meant.

Elway asked respondents which party they thought a candidate who “prefers GOP Party” is associated with. 15% didn’t know, 7% said Democratic and 3% other. And of that 25% who didn’t know or got it wrong, 27% identified themselves as Independents and 26% as Democrats. Only 18% of Republicans were confused.

This came as no surprise to Postman, who adds:

That’s where the greatest benefit of rebranding could come for a Republican trying to buck a 24-year gubernatorial losing streak for the party.

And you can trust Postman on this, because he’s one of those credible corporate media bloggers.

Anybody who knows anything about initiatives knows that a good ballot title can mean a couple extra points at the polls, and no doubt Rossi took advantage of the new top-two primary to jigger the ballot to his advantage. You can’t really blame Rossi, I guess, for this calculated deception—he is a politician after all—but neither can you blame the Democrats for their efforts to educate voters by pointing it out.

It is at the very least ironic then, that Riley, a member of an editorial board that has argued persuasively for government openness, should so vehemently defend Rossi’s deliberate obfuscation, while hyperbolically attacking a Democratic press release on the subject. But as I wrote at the time…

[T]hat’s the sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” partisanship we’ve come to expect from an amen editorialist who applauded Dave Reichert’s sexist dismissal of Harvard grad Darcy Burner as a ditzy blond, while condemning Burner as the reincarnation of Karl Rove.

No doubt I can be just as much a partisan propagandist as Riley and her colleagues on the Times ed board. The difference is, I admit it.

Earlier this morning, Postman wrote:

I was talking to a smart friend over the weekend who bemoaned the oh-so-careful approach Gov. Chris Gregoire is taking to governing. He’s a supporter. But he worries that out of fear of alienating someone, somewhere, Gregoire has traded activism for near-paralysis.

The topic of that post had nothing to do with drug policy, but with the deadline for having the State Department of Health establish the 60-day supply limits for medical marijuana patients coming up tomorrow, I find myself in the same boat as Postman’s unnamed friend – if not even more critical of the Governor.

As of my typing this, I still have no idea what the released limits will be. Earlier this year, it was revealed that preliminary numbers of 35 ounces and a 100 sq ft growing area caused the Governor to get more involved in the process and demand more feedback from law enforcement and medical professionals. Many patients and advocates within the medical marijuana community saw this as an attempt by the Governor to derail the process in support of the state’s law enforcement union, while the Governor’s dishonesty about why the process was derailed didn’t exactly convince people that she was acting in good faith.

At the follow-up meeting (which the DOH attempted to keep closed to the public, but failed), the two parties who the Governor claimed were underrepresented in the initial round of workshops were in attendance. The law enforcement officials again iterated that the decision should be left up the medical professionals, and the one medical professional who showed up said that 35 ounces might be too low of a limit for some patients who ingest it within food. Law enforcement officials also asserted that the limit shouldn’t be so high that criminals could hide behind it, but believing that someone with a small growing area in their basement could launch a massive criminal enterprise is more than a little absurd, considering that marijuana is already the most lucrative cash crop in the state of Washington.

The released limits tomorrow (if they’re even released) will go a long way towards showing whether or not Governor Gregoire is someone who can put politics and special interests aside and do what’s right for the citizens of this state.

Earlier this month, I visited a partially disabled medical marijuana patient in Tacoma who spent over a week in jail this winter. She was kept from receiving the special liquid meals she requires for nearly the entire time. In her mid-40s, she was a former nurse who told me she was staunchly anti-drug before discovering that marijuana worked best for her illnesses. She and her husband then became active in helping other registered patients learn how to grow for themselves.

Stories like that one are common. The list of other patients being hauled into court across the state has been growing. At Drinking Liberally and other events, I occasionally talk to people close to the Governor, and they rarely seem to understand that this is more than just a number. It could be the difference that causes someone to lose their house, their livelihood, or what’s left of their health, should they be sent to jail without adequate medical needs being met. Hopefully, the Governor herself doesn’t suffer from her own paralysis on this one.

I thought I’d done my job yesterday straightening out the confusion over the Spokane gaming compact, and who did or did not “hit the jackpot,” but then somebody forwarded me Ted Van Dyk’s confused and hyperbolic post on Crosscut, and I realized our state’s solemn guardians of the public interest required a little more hand holding.

Van Dyk was “shocked” by the initial newspaper reports, which I suppose shouldn’t come as such a surprise considering how misinformed he is; it isn’t hard to be “shocked” by things one knows nothing about. My instinct is to snarkily fisk Van Dyk’s post, ripping it to shreds line by line, but while that might be joyfully cathartic, I’ve decided a more informative approach would be to simply reprint the heart of my lengthy post from February of 2007, in which I sought to understand and explain the Spokane compact at a level of detail no other commentator has yet attempted. Sure, I could just provide a link, as I did yesterday, but our press corps has proven so lazy on this subject already, I just can’t trust them to bother to take the effort to click through.

To understand the compact and its potential impact one must first understand the basic legal principles governing tribal gaming. Federal law states that tribes may engage in the same gambling activities already legal in the state, and that if requested by a recognized tribe, the state must negotiate a governing compact in good faith. Furthermore, unless otherwise waived, each individual tribe retains favored nation status, meaning they have the right to reopen compacts and negotiate the same terms and conditions granted any other tribe in the state.

The existing tribal compacts grant each tribe an allocation of 675 slot machines each, and with one exception (we’ll get to that later) a maximum of two casinos. As has been widely reported the proposed Spokane compact authorizes the tribe to operate up to 4,700 slot machines at as many as five locations. This would appear to set the stage for a massive expansion of tribal gaming as the other tribes reopened their compacts to demand the same deal: more casinos, more slots, more gambling.

Well… not exactly.

While each tribe is allocated the right to own 675 slot machines, some are authorized to operate as many as 2000 at a single facility using machines leased from smaller tribes that do not operate casinos of their own. In fact the number of casinos and machines authorized in the Spokane compact is actually quite similar to the terms of the compact granted the Colville tribe, which is authorized to operate 4,800 machines at as many as six locations.

So why can’t the other tribes use their favored nation status to demand a similar number of casinos and authorized slot machines? Because they can’t meet the same conditions.

Both the Spokanes and the Colvilles have sprawling reservations, and their compacts stipulate that their casinos be located at least twenty-five miles apart. Fitzsimmons implied that no other tribe can meet that stipulation, and thus no other tribe can demand the same deal. (Though looking at the map, I wonder about the Yakimas.)

Where the Spokane compact does depart from previous compacts is the fact that it grants an allocation of 900 slot machines, not 675. The 27 other recognized tribes can reopen their compacts to obtain the same 900 machine allocation, potentially increasing the total number of tribal slot machines statewide by about a third, from 18,225 to 25,200. In fact, that’s the whole point.

See, most of the existing allocation is already spoken for, so by coming to the table late, the Spokanes would otherwise be unable to lease additional slot machines to fill their casinos. They already operate about 500 Las Vegas style slots (illegally), but there is little the state can do to remove them, so there would be no incentive for the Spokanes to agree to a compact that doesn’t give them the opportunity to expand their operations. It’s not the extra 225-machine allocation that makes the deal work for the Spokanes, its the thousands of additional machines that will now be available for them to lease.

In addition to the increased allocation, the Spokanes have negotiated a number of other new goodies into their compact. Currently, slot machines are limited to a maximum $5 bet, but the Spokanes would be allowed to raise this betting limit to $20 on as many as 15-percent of their machines. Existing compacts require that players use coupons or cards to initiate play, but the Spokane compact for the first time permits using US coins and currency. And finally, the Spokanes have negotiated higher betting limits (essentially, none) at five gaming tables in one facility during a specified time period of up to 120 days each year.

Like the higher 900-machine allocation, the other tribes would have the right to reopen their compacts to obtain the same terms.

But… only if they agree to the same conditions. Like other compacts the Spokanes have agreed to pay 2-percent of net receipts into a local mitigation fund, and to contribute another 1-percent to charity. But the Spokanes have also agreed to contribute 0.13-percent to problem gambling treatment and prevention programs (the same contribution now required of commercial card rooms,) and have the option of either contributing an additional 0.13-percent to smoking cessation programs or make all of its facilities smoke free.

So… what does all this mean?

When it comes to the number of facilities and authorized machines, the Spokanes demanded the same sort of deal negotiated by the Colvilles. Given the Spokanes’ favored nation status, the state really couldn’t do anything about that. But this authorization would be totally worthless to the Spokanes without a larger universe of slot machines from which to lease, so while nothing requires the state to bump up the allocation from 675 to 900, there’s a certain irrefutable logic to doing so.

And you can be sure that the 27 other tribes will most definitely reopen their compacts to obtain the higher allocation, even if it means agreeing to the new problem gambling and smoking cessation contributions. Slot machines are the lifeblood of the gambling industry, accounting for the overwhelming majority of casino profits. This is money in the bank.

What the state gets from this is an end to the Spokanes’ illegal operations, relatively uniform compact terms across all 28 tribes — and assuming all the tribes seek the same deal — about $2.6 million a year in additional funding for problem gambling treatment and prevention programs.

This is what Gov. Gregoire gave the Spokanes: in number of locations and slot machines per location, essentially the same deal enjoyed by the Colvilles… as she was required to do by federal law. And anybody who understands the economics of the gaming industry will tell you that it’s all about the slot machines, which account for the vast majority of casino profits.

Van Dyk and others talk about the 22 states that have negotiated revenue-sharing into their compacts, but leaving aside a discussion of whether or not this is good policy (it isn’t), that horse left the barn long before Gregoire became governor. The state has absolutely no power to reopen compacts unilaterally, and Washington’s tribes have no incentive to give up a portion of their profits without receiving substantial concessions in return. And indeed, this is exactly what the rejected 2005 compact would have done: establish revenue-sharing in exchange for a dramatic expansion of gambling statewide.

How dramatic? Instead of a maximum of 2000 slot machines per location the Spokanes had negotiated 4000, and instead of a 675 or 900 slot machine allocation the Spokanes had secured a staggering 7,500! And that’s in addition to zero betting limits, casino credit, 24-hour operations, off-reservation casinos and more. Now that’s what I call “hitting the jackpot.”

Again, like the issue of revenue-sharing, there is a legitimate public policy debate to be had over the pros and cons of permitting such a dramatic expansion of gambling, but there is no question that in rejecting the 2005 compact—one which would have increased the number of permitted slot machines more than tenfold—Gov. Gregoire acted consistently with the will of voters, who just a year before had overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have merely doubled the number slot machines statewide… as they did similar slot machine initiatives twice before. Washington voters simply don’t want to turn our state into Nevada, not even in exchange for $140 million a year in shared revenue, and that’s why Gov. Gregoire wisely rejected the 2005 compact.

I’ve actually read the two compacts and the federal statutes, as well as numerous scholarly and government studies on the economics and impact of casino gaming, and I suggest that Ted Van Dyk, Chris McGann and other media know-it-alls either do the same and prove me wrong on the facts… or publicly apologize to Gov. Gregoire for misrepresenting her record and unfairly attacking her ethics.

It’s a Drinking Liberally double feature for me tonight as the Columbia City chapter meets from 6PM to 8PM at the Columbia City Theater, 4916 Rainier AVE S. (next door to Tutta Bella’s), followed by the Seattle chapter which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM onward at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.