Search Results for: ’

A few weeks ago, Paul wrote about the impending return of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to their respective Comedy Central television shows and wondered:

Am I the only one who thinks Jon & Stephen have something up their sly little sleeves in returning to their shows?

[…]

Do we really think they’ll be anywhere near as funny?

I’m a regular viewer of late night TV, and I have to tell you, “Strike TV” has been “Must See TV”.

First of, Jon Stewart was on fire during his recent interview of Jonah Goldberg:

Also, Jon was very classy in changing the name of his show from “The Daily Show” to “A Daily Show” out of respect for his writers. Stephen Colbert, OTOH, relied on some pre-strike taped segments to get him through the week:

Leno, who sucks with his writers, sucks extra hard without them. David Letterman and Craig Ferguson agreed to terms independently with the writer’s guild, so they came back fully staffed. Letterman, however, returned with a crazy “old guy who lives in the woods” beard, and had it shaved off during the show. As guest Tom Hanks remarked, “Dave, that’s the kind of bit shows without writers do.”

More than any other program, “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” takes the cake for strike-related mischief. Whether it’s spinning his wedding ring on his desk, playing German techno set to a laser show, or riding down a zip line from the balcony to his desk, Conan has been making the best of a bad situation. Perhaps the best example of goofy-ass shit on “Late Night” is the giant rat maze that guest Tom Brokaw had to navigate just to get to the stage:

[Unfortunately, the clip won’t embed properly, so click here to check it out.]

Josh Feit:

It seems to me, the real environmental battle in Olympia this session is going to concern tolling.

[…]

The battle will be over this: What percentage of the money that’s generated from tolls should go to roads and what percentage should go to transit? The annoying negotiating starting point is a 90/10 split—90 for roads.

The transportation chairs in both the senate and the house […] are reportedly leaning toward keeping the dollars funneled toward roads for now.

Tolls collected by bridges should be spent replacing or maintaining bridges. I don’t know what kind of transit Josh is alluding to here. Light rail? Buses? Light rail is too expensive to be paid for with tolls on bridges. Maybe Josh is talking about “transit as mitigation” during construction. (Lots of new buses, getting stuck in traffic through Kenmore as they go around the lake. A sight to see!)

How about this: Spend bridge tolls on the bridge. Then, continue tolling, putting that money in a bank account. Then, in 50 years, when that 520 bridge is falling apart, we can just write a check to replace it. That way we can avoid the whole “90/10” argument, the whole “roads vs. transit” argument, and other dumb arguments that keep our region from getting shit done. I’m no Jim Vesely, but that seems like a good way to go.

John McCain is one wild and crazy guy:

At an event this morning in Michigan, John McCain joked that going on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show is “dangerous experience”:

I also want to assure you that from my encounters with young Americans in the military and Google and colleges, universities, high schools, even — I even went on MTV Town Hall — interesting experience. Going on Jon Stewart: That’s a dangerous experience. Letterman, Leno — I try to reach out to young people. And every time I’m around a group of young Americans, I am enthusiastic and my faith is restored.

McCain is, of course, joking. But I think it’s funny that a conservative Republican, running for President, thinks that going on a cable show somehow wins him points with his GOP base. McCain has always been somewhat of a media whore. Take, for example, his turn hosting Saturday Night Live, for which he missed a critical spending vote.

I also find it odd that McCain says that his “faith is restored” by the young people who show up for The Daily Show taping. Those kids are high. Either McCain is one hip guy or he’s not paying attention.

Actual voter suppression in the works, thanks to the Bush Court:

There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.

One of the big problems I have with folks who cry “vote fraud” is that it isn’t nearly as common as voter suppression. Requiring voter ID at the polls, which is what Indiana has done, creates greater barriers to voting, and Republicans push for these laws because they know that Democrats are more likely to not have proper ID with them on election day. Another trick is to put fewer (or broken) voting machines in black neighborhoods. Mix in the occasional purge of the voter rolls in Democratic neighborhoods and you have a recipe for actual, honest-to-God voter suppression. All of this is far, far easier to pull off than some sort of big voter fraud conspiracy.

As John Amato says:

Get off the voter stuff in NH and focus on a real threat to our democracy. With huge turnouts more than likely this election, what will happen at the polling stations when Americans are turned away because of these new rules? We’ve had to fight for our right to vote and we must continue to do so.

What?! Lee voted for Dino Rossi?!!! I never knew. I guess that’s just one of those uncomfortable questions that never comes up in polite society… you know, like, “Do you find your sister sexy?” or “Who’s your favorite actor on the sit-com Two and a Half Men?”

As for his anti-Gregoire screed, Lee warned me last night that he had this particular post in the hopper, giving me the opportunity to edit or nix it in advance, but I chose not to even read it before it went live. Lee has the same deal here as the rest of my HA co-bloggers: he can write on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and in exchange, I can yank his posting privileges without warning. Nobody edits me, and I’m not about to edit them. I always knew Lee was one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys, and I never expected to agree with everything he posted, but he’s a sharp analyst and an entertaining writer, and that’s exactly what we shoot for here on HA.

But, you know, it is possible to go too far.

The impetus for Lee’s post is Gov. Gregoire’s comment on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s proposed assisted suicide initiative: “I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.” To Lee, the governor’s position is hypocritical or worse:

I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.

[…] As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, you’ll find that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lee in supporting assisted suicide legislation, but I think he jumps to conclusions regarding Gov. Gregoire’s position, and in general fails to display his usual sense of nuance. Gov. Gregoire told reporters that “on a personal level” she finds it difficult to support assisted suicide — but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would actively oppose Gov. Gardner’s initiative. Likewise, I find no hypocrisy in an elected official personally being “against abortion” yet fully supporting a woman’s legal right to choose. In fact, I’ve always assumed that as a practicing Catholic Gov. Gregoire accepts her church’s teaching that abortion under any circumstance is a sin. The significant difference between Rossi and Gregoire on this issue is that he would seek to impose his own morality through force of law, whereas she would not.

Without a doubt, the modern American politician I admire most is former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, a liberal icon and a devout Catholic who spoke thoughtfully and eloquently on this very issue. It has been well over a decade since I last read the text of the speech he gave at the University of Notre Dame on September 13, 1984 — “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” — but with the GOP having since transformed itself into the Pro-Life Party and the defender of a Christianist America, Gov. Cuomo’s remarks are more pertinent now than ever. In this speech the governor reveals himself to be profoundly reverent of unborn life, and yet he distinguishes between his private role as a Catholic and his role as a public official:

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and – more than that – both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That – to my less subtle mind – by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed…reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda.

[…]The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.

We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.

I do not ask Gov. Gregoire or any other politician to endorse my moral perspective or keep silent on their own, I only expect that they respect my right to act on my perspective freely. Likewise, I don’t expect Gov. Gregoire to hold the same legislative priorities as I do, and given the political reality, even a legislative attempt at codifying assisted suicide would not only be unlikely, it would almost certainly come back to voters in the form of a referendum. Gov. Gregoire was asked about assisted suicide and she honestly answered that “on a personal level” she would find it very difficult to support. I have no problems with that as long as she does not use the power and influence of her office to oppose the initiative.

As for Lee’s further critique, that Gov. Gregoire ran “a hollow campaign with no ideas,” and “nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions”… well… I think he overstates the situation. She did not run a very compelling campaign in 2004 (hence Rossi’s near victory) and she’s not the kind of progressive champion most of us bloggers would prefer. But overall, within the pragmatic scheme of things, she’s been a good governor… and certainly far, far better than the alternative.

Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either. On this point and others, Lee is wrong. But as long as he doesn’t try to impose his beliefs on me, I’ll gladly permit him to continue posting his wrong beliefs here on HA.

Jerry Cornfield writes about the effort by former Governor Booth Gardner to bring Oregon’s assisted suicide law to Washington. His “Death with Dignity” initiative will be filed this morning at 10am.

Oregon’s law has functioned as expected since its inception 10 years ago. Despite the howling of those who claimed that the law would lead to mass suicides, only a tiny fraction of Oregonians take advantage of this law each year to legally end their lives on their own terms. Unfortunately, as David Postman reports, this initiative will have opposition from the Governor’s office:

Gov. Chris Gregoire is talking to reporters in Olympia. She was just asked her position on the assisted suicide initiative that former Gov. Booth Gardner will file tomorrow. Gardner, who has Parkinsons, has been a mentor to Gregoire. Gregoire’s voice cracked when she answered the question:

“I love my friend Booth Gardner and my heart goes out to his condition and what he’s had to face. He was my motivation for the Life Sciences Discovery Fund. I pray every day that we will find a cure. But I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”

That’s interesting, because back in 2004, when she was running for governor, the following appeared in the Seattle PI:

State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, said she does not see a conflict between her Catholic faith and protecting abortion rights, said Morton Brilliant, her press secretary.

Gregoire is “deeply faithful and also strongly committed to a woman’s right to choose,” Brilliant said. “And she believes a woman’s right to choice is a fundamental right.”

Directly bucking [Seattle Archbishop Alex] Brunett’s edict, he added that Gregoire does not believe abortion is immoral.

“(Gregoire) does not see her role as governor as requiring her to impose her faith on the entire state,” he said. “Washington is clearly a pro-choice state, Gregoire will not shy away from that belief and will not waver in her support of that right.”

[Emphasis mine]

I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.

I catch some grief from my friends for having voted for Dino Rossi in 2004, but it’s days like this (and there have been many recently) that remind me why I just couldn’t fill in that circle next to Gregoire’s name. She ran a hollow campaign with no ideas and has since become a governor that nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions, rather than being concerned with the state constitution, the rights of Washington State citizens, or even the foreseeable results of her actions. In almost everything we’ve seen, she seems more interested in doing the symbolic than the sensible.

As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, I found that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.

Dino Rossi is the only openly anti-choice politician I’ve ever voted for in my life, and as the election was unimaginably close, I became overly concerned about casting what was essentially a protest vote over Gregoire’s lethargic campaign that could’ve been the deciding vote in the entire election. After watching the entire Republican Party establishment act like a bunch of toddlers in the months after the election, I seriously doubt I can vote for Rossi again – but at this point, I can’t vote for Gregoire either. As the Bush era collapses into itself and gives Democrats incredible gains in Washington DC, we’re heading into a new progressive era where civil liberties actually matter again to voters, but this November Washington State residents won’t have anyone on the ballot who reflects these values.

UPDATE: Back in October, the Seattle Times had a nice story of someone in Oregon who took advantage of their right to choose.

New Yorker Political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the National Popular Vote plan.

The National Popular Vote plan is the state compact that, if enacted by enough states, would have member states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Essentially, the plan is a constitutional way of creating a national popular vote without the difficulties of amending the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan has been championed by Dr. John R. Koza, who is Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc.

Hertzberg looks at Koza’s research into the “wrong winner” problem, in which the winner of the electoral college vote loses the popular vote (like happened in 2000). Koza uses national head-to-head general election polls and compares them to state head-to-head polls. Hertzberg writes:

A 2000-style disaster for democracy could easily befall us again this year, as Koza has just written an interesting analysis to show.

By compiling state-by-state polling data, Darryl Holman, a University of Washington social scientist, has run eight mock general-election pair-ups between Democratic and Republican candidates, showing who would win and who would lose in the Electoral College if the election were held today. What Koza has done is to compare Holman’s findings with a calculation of what the national popular vote would be, using national polls taken in the same time periods.

Koza’s startling finding: In three out of Holman’s eight head-to-head face-offs, the national popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote—and with it, of course, the mock election.

(Hey…I’m glad someone found those analyses useful!)

Hertzberg provides Koza’s entire analysis.

It is hard to argue in favor of our current system of electing our Presidents via the winner-take-all Electoral College approach. (Well…ignoring the “It’s how we’ve always done it!” argument, anyway.) Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.

One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon. But since the Constitution give the states control over how electors are selected, the National Popular Vote compact (if enacted by enough states to control the majority of the Electoral College votes) would effectively and legally create a popular vote for President. And with no need to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Think of the advantages to this system…. First, candidates will no longer spend the vast majority of their time pandering to a few important swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Right now, a voter in Ohio has far more influence in electing the President than you have. It just shouldn’t be so. In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.

A popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign more broadly so as to reach as many voters as possible. It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!

Finally, a popular vote gets rid of the embarrassing (albeit rare) situation—like we saw in 2000—where the loser of the popular vote ends up being President.

The Washington state legislature is about to take up work on a National Popular Vote bill:

The 10 legislative sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington State include Representatives Joe McDermott, Shirley Hankins, Mark Miloscia, Mike Armstrong, Fred Jarrett, and Tom Campbell and Senators Eric Oemig, Darlene Fairley, Craig Pridemore, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. The House bill is HB 1750 (Status of HB 1750), and the Senate bill is SB 5628 (Status of SB 5628).

If you like the idea of Washington state participating in the compact, contact your Washington state Senator and Representatives. Here is a good place to start.

To learn more about the progress of the compact in other states, visit the National Popular Vote web site.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is not likely to be unsolved for very long.

Dominic Holden has an article in The Stranger this week that deserves as wide an audience as possible.

Also, Jim Miller is not clear on why no Democrats have responded to his request. I think my colleague Carl already covered this when he explained, “Maybe it’s Because You’re An Idiot?.”

I’m afraid I have to take exception to this statement by Goldy:

Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.

I suppose Goldy is relying on national head-to-head polls like these. The problem with such national polls is that they don’t reflect the way we elect our Presidents.

Rather than looking at the national head-to-head polls, we should be examining state head-to-head polls and take into consideration the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College.

In fact, I have been doing just that for a number of months. Essentially, I’ve collected the state head-to-head polls taken in 2007 and have been analyzing the polls as a way of evaluating the relative strength of candidates.

Now I am going to switch into statistical wonk mode and explain my analyses. If you just want to see the results, skip over the Methods section and pick up from the Results.

Methods

To analyze the poll data I take the last month of polls for each state as a way to increase the certainty and (hopefully) minimize biases inherent in individual polls. If there is no polls taken in the last month, I use the most recent poll available in 2007. The analysis could stop at this stage after simply tallying the number of Electoral College votes each candidate would receive for each state based on the poll data.

The one problem with this approach is that it doesn’t account for the uncertainty in the polls. For example, suppose a poll in Pennsylvania of 500 individuals gives Clinton 51% and Giuliani 49% of the vote. Clinton’s lead comes from only five individuals who went for Clinton instead of Giuliani. In fact, statisticians would tell us that there is substantial sampling error because of the small sample size and the very close percentages. The statistician would do some calculations (or simulations) and tell us that the poll indicates that Clinton has only a 69.9% chance of winning, and Giuliani has a 30.1% chance of winning.

In simulating a national election, I do this same evaluation over all states. Here is how it works. I simulate elections using only information from state head-to-head polls (with one exception discussed below). Each single election proceeds state by state, pooling polls from the last month (or the most recent poll if no polls were taken in the last month). For each person polled in the state, I randomly draw votes according to the observed probabilities found by the state’s poll(s).

After conducting such elections in all fifty states (plus Washington D.C.), the electoral vote is totaled and a winner determined from the electoral vote count.

This process is repeated 10,000 times. The result is a distribution of electoral votes for the pair of candidates that fully accounts for the sampling error in the polls used. For example, here is the distribution of electoral votes for a Clinton—McCain match-up from a few days ago:

In this example Clinton won 9,167 simulated elections and McCain won 779 simulated elections. (There were also 54 ties that would go to the House of Representatives and almost certainly result in a Clinton victory.) Thus, the poll data suggests that, if the election were held today, Clinton would have a 92.2% chance of beating McCain.

Oh…about that exception I mentioned above. Some states have had no polls taken at all. In that case, I always assign the electoral votes for the state according to the 2004 presidential election outcome. For the most part, states that have had no polls taken are not likely to hold any surprises. In any case, this procedure slightly favors the Republican candidate (since Bush won in 2004).

Results

Here are the results after simulating a variety of match-ups. (Additionally, I provide a link to my most recent analysis. In most cases the published analysis is slightly older than the analysis from today given in the table below, but the numbers are close.)

Republican	Democrat	Probability the Democrat wins	Average electoral votes for Democrat	Link
Giuliani	Clinton	100%	342	Analysis
Huckabee	Clinton	100%	335	Analysis
McCain	Clinton	92.1%	293	Analysis
Romney	Clinton	100%	385	Analysis
Thompson	Clinton	100%	354	Analysis
Giuliani	Edwards	4.90%	237	Analysis
McCain	Edwards	99.4	303	—
Romney	Edwards	100%	388	—
Thompson	Edwards	100%	358	—
Giuliani	Obama	27.7%	258	Analysis
Huckabee	Obama	88.7%	277	—
McCain	Obama	4.4%	237	—
Romney	Obama	100%	376	Analysis
Thompson	Obama	100%	329	—

Right now Clinton does better against Republican challengers—she beats every one of them with a high degree of certainty. Edwards does very poorly against Giuliani, although he does a little bit better than Clinton against McCain. Obama doesn’t do well against either Giuliani or McCain right now.

Keep in mind that the analysis only suggests what would happen if the election were held right now. (Interpret this the way you might the speedometer on a long trip—it gives you some idea of your progress even though you know your speed is going to change along the way.)

Things will certainly change in the next ten months, but what we can say now is that Clinton has some advantage over both Obama and Edwards in a general election. Is Clinton’s advantage right now important in the long run? It’s hard to say. It’s not even clear to me that her advantage should be considered over more fundamental characteristics like political philosophy and policy positions. Perhaps some readers will use this information as a tie-breaker.

As for me? I still have no idea who I will support at tonight’s straw caucus. Maybe I’ll pretend to be a Republican….

I’m not talking about the sculpture of Chief Sealth, which I like just fine. (It’s the one in the middle) But what the hell are those boards behind him on either side? They look like they were done by a bunch of eighth graders drunk on grape soda.

Leaves, dollar signs and crosses. Lemme guess… dollars signs and crosses are bad, leaves are good.

Really, folks. Chief Sealth was a great Native American, to whom the current residents of this area owe a great deal. We certainly owe him more than this underwhelming art installation.

What bugs me the most was that somebody approved this. Since this is Seattle, the decision was probably made not by an individual but by a group of people.

To be a fly on the wall at that meeting…

1st Guy: Look folks, we’ve got to finalize a design for this Chief Sealth art thing. Any ideas?

2nd Guy: How about something in bronze with ornate inlays, done by skilled craftsmen with an eye for detail. Creative consulting work by members of the Duwamish tribe. Something classic yet modern, accessible and informative. Something that remembers Chief Sealth for who he was and preserves his memory for years to come.

1st Guy: That’s good, I’m liking it. Anything else?

3rd Guy: How about we run down to Home Depot, get some paints and some plywood, and have my kid’s eighth grade class crap something out for us. I’m thinking something like-

1st Guy: Stop there, Bob, you’ve struck gold. Don’t say another word because that is genius.

While some of you might say, “hey asshole, who asked you to be the big critic guy of all the art?” Folks, we’re not talking about the crappy turd-shaped ash trays you made for your parents in ceramics class. This art display is in a city park. A park you pay for! That means it’s fair game for me, or anyone else, to have a go at.

Some bureaucrat approved this thing, and it’s my right (no, duty!) to speak truth to power. Downtown residents like myself deserve better than this!

UPDATE [Lee]: What is written on those things anyway? I can’t find anything using Google. I’m pretty sure there are no actual languages with question marks and superscript w’s.

UPDATE [Lee]: OK, I found it now, it’s definitely a real language. Check this page out.

What do the signs say? I have no idea.

UPDATE [Lee]: This is the last one, I promise. I’m learning a lot today. From commenter “Smartypants”:

The languages are Lushootseed (front) and English (back). Lushootseed is the local dialect of the Coast Salish language that was used by the Duwamish people.

English translation Panel on Left: Chief Seattle Now The Streets Are Our Home

English translation Panel on Right: Far Away Brothers and Sisters We Still Remember You

Here’s the explanation of the work: “With the sculpture Day/Night the theme of the porcelain panels seeks to proclaim that for many transient inter-tribal people the streets of Seattle are home. Secondly it is declared that although these tribal citizens have sought refuge in the urban centers which have sprung up on Indian Territory around them, the far rural tribal communities from which the originate hold each and everyone’s memory in close and high regard.”

Hey, have I ever mentioned that Clay Bennett and the rest the Sonics’ Oklahoma City based owners are a bunch of fucking liars? I mean, really… look at the facts, and you’d have to be naive and/or an idiot (or the Seattle Times editorial board) to believe for a minute that Bennett ever had any intention of keeping the team in the region.

Generally, good faith negotiations require a little give and take, with both sides seeking a mutually acceptable middle ground, yet just weeks after 74-percent of Seattle voters approved I-91’s prohibition on the use of public subsidies for sports facilities — and with it, rejected $200 million of taxpayer money to re-renovate Key Arena — Bennett responded with his last, best offer: a half-billion dollar, publicly financed hoops palace in Renton. (Look in Roget’s under “haggling” and you’ll find the Renton proposal listed as an antonym.) When, as expected, the state Legislature failed to deliver a suitcase full of unmarked bills, billionaire Bennett sadly shook his head and announced that he just couldn’t afford to continue losing money at Key Arena, and thus had no other choice but to break the lease, and move the Sonics to Oklahoma City.

Damn. Oklahoma City’s Ford Center must be one fancy arena to economically justify moving the Sonics from Seattle to a market fully one-third its size. According to the Oklahoman:

Walk inside the Ford Center, however, and you’re greeted by cold concrete, completely wrapped around a dark and dull 100 level concourse.

There aren’t any swanky clubs and lounges that make up so many NBA arenas. The VIP area for the high rollers that sit courtside is set up in a hallway outside of the restrooms, not in a more typical private and posh locale.

The average fan is treated to subpar concessions and merchandising stands and few interactive games and entertainment options throughout the concourse.

Oklahoma City’s 5-year-old facility just isn’t fan friendly. Not when you compare it to the palaces found in our neighboring states, and certainly not when compared to many of the country’s other venues.

That’s why Oklahoma City Mayor Mike Cornett has proposed $100 million in taxpayer-funded upgrades to include such spectacular innovations as sit-down restaurants, larger locker rooms, a larger team store, improved bathrooms and “general visual upgrades to the 100 and 300 concourse levels’ floors, walls and ceilings.” Wow… sit-down restaurants and improved bathrooms. That should surely make up for the dramatic reduction in fan base and broadcast revenues that comes with moving from the nation’s 14th to 45th largest market.

Of course, this was never really about economics, was it? Oklahoma City has long had a nagging Basketball Jones, and Bennett et al are the hometown heroes who will finally deliver their fix:

An Oklahoma City energy tycoon says the group that purchased the Seattle SuperSonics hopes to move the NBA franchise to Oklahoma City, but he acknowledges the team could make more money in the Pacific Northwest.

“But we didn’t buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here,” Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, told The Journal Record for a story in Monday’s edition. “We know it’s a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it’s great for the community and if we could break even, we’d be thrilled.”

Yeah, well, it’s a free market, and if Bennett would rather play in a “subpar” facility in a much smaller market, well, I suppose he’s free to take his ball club and go home. But when he and NBA Commissioner David Stern wag their fingers at Seattle and tell us it is somehow all our fault, that’s just adding insult to injury.

Which makes me, and others, fools.

Local politico Sandeep Kaushik is ready to throw down a prediction for the Iowa caucuses—with one big caveat:

Only a fool would try to predict the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. It’s a suckers bet.

Having said that, Kaushik offers a prediction, and even a point-spread. He says:

Edwards wins Iowa cleanly:

Edwards 34

Clinton 27

Obama 25

I think Sandeep has it pretty much nailed. There are, however, a few days to go, so the numbers might move a little bit.

My prediction:

Edwards 34

Obama 28

Clinton 28

Richardson or Kucinich comes in 4th

On the GOP side, I’m a little less specific:

Huckabee BEATS Romney, with McCain coming in 3rd

I invite my fellow HA contributors to add their predictions to this post!

UPDATE:
In a surprise upset, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg wins the Democratic caucus, while Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel takes the top spot for the Republicans, despite the fact that neither is running. Or maybe vice versa. Because DC sage David Broder just couldn’t be that wrong.

I haven’t read Jonah Goldberg’s new book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning,” and I probably never will. But I’m amazed that anyone even tried to make the argument he’s trying to make.

One of the main reasons why I started blogging a few years back was because I read Mein Kampf. As hard as it was to read a book that’s not just extremely racist but led to the deaths of people I’m related to, I felt like I had to wrap my head around how something like the Holocaust can happen. To try to compare the sentiments expressed in Mein Kampf to anything you hear on the American left today is a stretch of the imagination that I can’t comprehend. If Goldberg claims to have read Mein Kampf as part of researching his “thesis,” he’s either lying or crazy.

Dave Neiwert does a good job picking apart some basic errors, like pointing out that despite Goldberg’s claims that the Nazi’s were “socialists,” the first people sent by the Nazis to Dachau were actually Socialists and Communists. People who called themselves socialists back then were as close to real socialists as the people who today call themselves conservatives – but believe in starting war after war in the Middle East – are to real conservatives. But the whole book seems to be based upon this very basic error in understanding the history of Nazi Germany.

The Sadly No! crew actually have a copy of the book and have been posting some of the most ridiculous passages. His larger argument is that the desire by liberals and progressives to improve society through government is the direct path to fascism and relates back to the Nazi movement. Now while it’s certainly possible for left-leaning movements to become authoritarian, it’s not what’s happening in America right now, it’s not how fascism evolved in 1930s Germany, and one can really only reach the alternate conclusion if they believe that things like universal health care are more anti-liberty than torture. I think Brad may have located a major part of Goldberg’s mental block:

Giving out free food isn’t fascism. Look, Jonah, I’ve done some research into the matter and have determined that giving out free food is one of the least fascist things a government can do. Call this hyperbole if you will, but if the very worst thing the Nazis had ever done was to give people free food, they’d have probably gone down as the greatest government in history.

When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, his vision had nothing to do with economics. His vision was pure paranoia, where he blamed the “Jewish press” for weakening support for the war effort during World War I. He viewed the influence of immigrants as a direct threat to the nation. He also railed against pacifists, Communists, capitalists, the ruling class, ethnic minorities, and fellow soldiers who faked injuries to get out of the war. As Germany was subjugated by the victors of WWI in the post-war period, his paranoid outlook found an audience, but his message was never one of socialism, it was of nationalism. In Chapter V of Mein Kampf, he shared his thoughts on what happened during World War I:

After the very first news of victories, a certain section of the press, slowly, and in a way which at first was perhaps unrecognizable to many, began to pour a few drops of wormwood into the general enthusiasm. This was done beneath the mask of a certain benevolence and well-meaning, even of a certain solicitude. They had misgivings about an excess of exuberance in the celebration of the victories. They feared that in this form it was unworthy of so great a nation and hence inappropriate.

The notion that the press (which was of course run by Jews and treasonous Germans) was insufficiently patriotic during the war and had a bias towards pacifism and international institutions like the League of Nations was central to his outlook. It’s the polar opposite of what the American left stands for today, and it’s why comparisons to Ann Coulter and other extreme voices on the authoritarian right aren’t all that far-fetched. At the same time I started blogging back in 2004 and wrote that post, Jonah Goldberg wrote the following:

In the process of debating the merits of publishing, and now continually hyping, the Abu Ghraib photos, I keep hearing that it is contrary to the American journalistic tradition to let patriotism or concern about the negative effects of bad news interfere with coverage. I have no idea where this idea comes from.

You know where the idea comes from, Jonah? It comes from people who’ve actually taken the time to study and to try to understand the roots of fascism, rather than just attempting to draw nonsensical parallels between Hitler and the people who make fun of you on the internet.

The P-I writes:

Motorists help pay for roads with gas taxes, tolls and license tabs. Boaters subsidize maritime programs with vessel registration and boat launch fees.

Maybe bicyclists, too, should pitch in for the costs of their trails and lanes.

It’s a suggestion — sometimes born of sincerity, other times of snarkiness — that drivers, tax-weary citizens and others make whenever politicians and cycling advocates talk about investing public money into cycling facilities. Some raised the idea again in recent weeks after the Seattle City Council and Mayor Greg Nickels endorsed a $240 million, 10-year plan for new bike lanes and street upgrades.

I read the story and the “comments” section at the end of the story (“Sound Off” is what it’s called), and the kinds of people who want to register bikes are the kind of people who hate cyclists. I hate some cyclists, but I also hate some drivers as well. It’s all about equal opportunity.

But cycling saves taxpayers money. If large numbers of people switched from SOVs to bikes, we would all save money on road maintenance. The mayor’s ten year cycling plan is cheap as shit compared to any other transportation investment.

Josh Feit writes:

I’m not sure where I stand on the idea of making bikers register. My gut tells me it’s not as simple as angry car owners make it out to be. Car owners gripe that they pay for roads through car fees, so why shouldn’t bikers help fund roads and bike lanes and bike trails?

Well, actually car owners pay for roads mostly through gas taxes, not car fees.

And here’s the real rub: Car owners are the ones who use and batter roads and cause congestion and emissions—all things that spike the cost of living for all of us.

Meanwhile, bikes save us all money—lowering congestion, easing emissions, and barely leaving any wear and tear on roads. So, why should government put up a barrier to getting more people on bikes?

Josh and the gang may not know where Federal Way is, but he’s dead on here.

Side note:

One night after doing the last hour of “The David Goldstein Show,” Goldy was giving me a ride home to Belltown. Underneath the Monorail tracks, 5th Avenue is divided in half, with the center of the street obstructed by the columns. Each half of the one-way street has (I believe) one traffic lane and one parking lane. Me and Goldy were on the left side of the pillars, and as we passed a car going much slower on the right side, I pointed the sight to Goldy:

Me: “Hey look, bicyclists, two abreast, blocking the whole lane.”

Goldy: “Fucking assholes. That’s why people hate cyclists.”

BTW, the cyclists were dressed totally in black with no helmets. Nice. Thankfully, for their sake no gravel trucks were in the area.

Perhaps my absolute favorite thing about Seattle’s congressman is that he excites our retarded comment trolls like nothing else. These are priceless:

Only in a place like Seattle can someone like Baghdad Jim McDermott exist.

Ah yes. Only in Seattle. Whereas, only in Florida do you find a congressmen who desperately wants to fuck young page boys, and trolls for them on the internet. Or, say in Vancouver, where you can find a family values conservative who watches porno with a gay hooker in a Spokane hotel.

McDermott fenced stolen property. Ergo he’s a crook. McDermott lied about fencing stolen property. Ergo he’s a lying liar.

To which HA’s own Lee responds:

“Fencing” requires a profit motive, which was not the case in this incident. Ergo, you’re a fucking retard.

Goodness, gracious. Just look at what we’ll miss when McDermott retires.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank Congressman McDermott for perhaps his greatest accomplishment in public life: the creation of Washington Basic Health. WBH has allowed the working poor to get health care and avoid medical bankruptcy. Once derided as “socialized medicine” by Republicans who can’t do math, WBH is now embraced by other states as the model for public health care delivery. It should be noted that WBH does something liberals love (providing health care to those who can’t get it otherwise) by doing it in ways conservatives admire (allowing companies to compete, thus creating an incentive to keep costs down). While I hope that universal health care is on it’s way from Washington, it’s good to know that Dr. McD made it happen here in WA state.