HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Goldy

I write stuff! Now read it:

The Seattle Times’ Backward Thrust on Prop 1

by Goldy — Sunday, 9/28/08, 12:00 pm

Surprise!  The Seattle Times urges No on Prop 1!

THE Sound Transit tax increase, Proposition 1, is a bad proposal. We opposed the same tax a year ago and do so again.

It’s not the same tax as last year, but more importantly, it’s not the same package, which is what the Times really hopes the reader will infer from that lede.  They think they’re so clever.

First, it is too much. Half a cent on the sales tax adds up to a 9.5-percent tax in Seattle and about that much systemwide. That would be one of the highest sales taxes in the United States. It says: “Don’t spend your money here.” It retards our economy. It hurts the poor.

You know, if you’re really so concerned about the size of our regressive sales tax, then how about showing some support for a goddamn income tax?  No?  Really?  In fact, WA’s state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income has been steadily dropping for the past decade and a half, and is now ranked about 34th nationwide, so you can complain all you want about the size of our sales tax, but if you actually cared about an informed debate you might want to add a little context.

Proposition 1 is being marketed as the solution to an immediate need. Salesmen have made up phrases like “immediately increase buses,” “immediate solutions to relieve gridlock” and their favorite, “Transit Now.”

But with Proposition 1, what you get is a Tax Now — a tax that goes to 9.5 percent Jan. 1. A few buses and commuter trains come soon, but most of your money would go to light rail not fully open to you until the 2020s. It is not “Transit Now.”

Yeah, God forbid we invest in anything we might need in the future.  What a bunch of selfish little babies.

This bias against helping people now is why King County Executive Ron Sims argued to keep Proposition 1 off the ballot. As head of the government that owns Metro, the transit agency struggling to meet existing need, he didn’t want to wait until the 2020s.

So… is the Times suggesting we should add another half cent to the sales tax to buy more buses now?  I didn’t think so.

Then the sales pitch shifts. The salesmen admit light rail is not about now. It’s about the future. It’s about getting people out of their cars.

Now they’re just making shit up, substituting their own internal dialogue for actual reporting.

This is an improbable view of the future. Most people don’t want to get out of their cars. As the world changes, they may buy cars that burn fuel from tar sands, canola, algae or wood chips. They may have electric batteries charged by power from the sun, the wind, nuclear reaction or the heat of the Earth.

But most will have their own wheels because they have their own places to go.

Um… has anybody on the Times ed board ever viewed the world from anywhere but Mercer Island?  Where I come from, a lot of folks own cars and use transit.  Maybe they don’t own as many cars as they would have without access to light rail, and maybe a lot of folks put off the expense of owning a car until they have kids… but they still own cars.

I’d say that an improbable view of the world is one solely predicated on a few decades of the sort of failed transportation policy that has gotten us into this mess.

No doubt, more people will take transit. But they will demand service over a wide area — and a price they can afford. Wide and cheap. A spider web of service.

In King County, that’s Metro: It costs 0.9 cents of tax on every dollar and has buses that go to more than 9,000 stops.

Really?  So why doesn’t Frank Blethen take the bus to work?  I’ve been by his house.  (My dog peed on his security gate.)  He lives a short walk from a bus stop, and there are buses that go straight to Fairview Fanny.  So if buses are the be all and end all of transportation, why isn’t Frank riding ’em.  (Oh yeah, I forgot… buses are for poor people.)

If Proposition 1 passes, on every dollar you will be paying another 0.9 cents (the new 0.5 cents plus the existing 0.4 cents) to Sound Transit. The map of light rail in the mid-2020s will not be a spider web, but a simple “T.” It will have a few stops at hugely expensive stations.

Well now, that’s simply a lie.  We’ll be paying the existing 0.4 cent tax regardless of whether Prop. 1 passes.  They really should be ashamed of themselves.

And as for dismissing the light rail map as a simple “T,” um, really?  Is your argument against expanding light rail really that we don’t have enough light rail now to make it worth expanding?  Or that the package isn’t big enough?  Do you actually read your own editorials before sending them to press?

Eyeball the station on Highway 99 at SeaTac. It is a monument — to something. But it is still one transit stop.

And your point is?  That we don’t have enough transit stops?  Um… that’s the whole point of Prop 1… to build more transit stops.

Buses have their drawbacks: They can get stuck in traffic.

They often smell of urine and poop.

But they can be unstuck with bus lanes.  More bus lanes are coming — on Aurora Avenue, Northwest 15th Avenue in Seattle and on the proposed Highway 520 bridge.

And.. um… where else?  And what about the sort of grade separated transit that much of the light rail line offers, zipping commuters over, under and around street traffic?  Didn’t think so.

Buses are cheaper than rail and more flexible.

More flexible, yes, but that’s actually a downside if part of your goal is to encourage more dense development around the stops.  As for cost, buses require a smaller capital investment, if all you’re going to do is put them on the existing roads, but they’re significantly more expensive to operate over the long run.  Over the long run, rail is actually cheaper if you amortize the capital investment over the long life of the infrastructure.

Proposition 1 slights them: The two center lanes on the Interstate 90 bridge, which now serve buses and Mercer Islanders, become rail-only. Buses are kicked out. Buses will also be kicked out of Seattle’s downtown transit tunnel.

Well, you gotta admire their honesty.  Since really, the Mercer Island based Times ed board’s entire opposition to light rail is based on the fact that it threatens their coveted single occupancy vehicle access to I-90’s HOV lanes.  Under Prop 1’s plans, there will still be HOV lanes on I-90; they just won’t be open SOV drivers going to and from Mercer Island.  Boo hoo.

But one more thing about trains vs buses.  People like trains a helluva lot more than they like buses, and given their druthers they’ll almost always choose the former.  So shouldn’t government be providing the services voters actually want, as opposed to the services the Times thinks we should want?

Finally, it is said that Proposition 1 is not about us, but our grandchildren. So it is. It is a proposal to extend two costly rail lines and to oblige our grandchildren to pay for them. The sales tax is raised to 9.5 percent. It is a lot, and it goes on for a very long time.

Um, let’s see now.  I’m 45 and my daughter is 11.  Prop 1 only authorizes the additional half cent tax to be levied through 2038, by which time I might have a grandchild about the same age as my daughter is now.  So no… I don’t think it accurate to state that the measure will “oblige our grandchildren to pay” for the rail lines.  Our children yes, but our grandchildren no.

However, our grandchildren will have the opportunity to ride this modern, grade separated, hydro-powered electric light rail system.  And depending on where they choose to live, they’ll have the freedom of choosing whether to take on the additional expense of owning a car.

That seems like a pretty good deal for our grandkids, and our region.  If only the previous generation had had the foresight and inter-generational generosity to build this thing 40 years ago, we wouldn’t have to pay for it now.

40 Stoopid Comments

Casino McCain?

by Goldy — Sunday, 9/28/08, 9:19 am

The NY Times highlights John McCain’s gambling problem.  And it’s a problem on two levels.

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country….

“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.

The Times describes McCain as a “lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.”  No shit, Sherlock.

But I’m curious if our local press, who has silently sat back (when not actively collaborating) and allowed Dino Rossi to slander Gov. Gregoire as “Casino Chris” for rejecting a tribal gaming compact that would have led to a tenfold increase in WA’s gambling industry… I wonder if they’ll ask the Republicans that ironic question about how they feel about the man at the top of their ticket, the “founding father of Indian gaming”…?

Probably not.

15 Stoopid Comments

Hell to pay

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 10:10 pm

Just a couple more hours left in the Daily Kos “Hell to Pay” fundraiser for Darcy Burner, and they’ve raised over $18,000 $20,565.  Huh.  That’s great.  But it’s still less than the $25,000 Al Franken raised last week.  So if you haven’t yet given to the campaign (or you haven’t yet given all you plan to give), now’s a great time to give so that Darcy can air more effective ads like this:

Donate!

10 Stoopid Comments

Was Reagan Dunn jilted for John Elway?

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 5:39 pm

There is a bizarre story making the rounds that John Elway’s new financee, actress Paige Green, was previously engaged to King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn, and while I love juicy rumors like that, this one apparently turns out not to be true.

In reporting on the Dunn-Green engagement back in October 2006, the Puget Sound Business Journal described her as a “Hollywood actress.”

Two powerful local families will merge, with the recent engagement of 9th District King County Councilman Reagan Dunn to Hollywood actress Paige Green (“Ray of Darkness,” “Gory Gory Hallelujah” and more).

And that appears to be true.  I think.  But sports and celebrity blogs have described Elway’s fiancee as the same Paige Green, with the same Hollywood resume.

Here’s what I think happened.  The AP reports that Elway’s Paige Green is a “former Oakland Raiders cheerleader,” while the IMDb entry for Dunn’s Paige Green also describes her as a “former professional cheerleader.”  Perhaps either AP or IMDb is wrong.  Or they’re both right, and it’s just a confusing coincidence.

In any case, while they’re both attractive, they don’t really look all that much alike, and Dunn’s Paige Green (on the right) appears quite a few years younger:

I’ve emailed Dunn asking him to set the record straight, but considering that his website says he and Paige were married in 2007, I’d say this rumor is pretty darn false.  Good for Reagan… bad for us rumor mongers.

7 Stoopid Comments

SurveyUSA says 63% of WA adults watched debate; Goldy says “bullshit”

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 3:53 pm

According to a KING-5/SurveyUSA poll, Washington state bucked the national trend, with a majority of viewers here saying that John McCain won last night’s debate.

Okay.  I guess that’s possible.  I’m often told that Seattle is different from every other place in the world, so why shouldn’t Washington state be different from the rest of the nation?  But here’s the part that jumped out at me:

Immediately following tonight’s debate between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 state of Washington adults, of whom 631 watched tonight’s debate.

Really? Over 63% of Washington adults watched last night’s debate?  That figure seems awfully high, especially considering that according to the overnight Neilsen ratings, only 30% of Seattle-Tacoma TVs were tuned in to the event. (39% in the Portland market.)  The final data won’t be released until Monday, but if the trends from the 55 top markets hold true, then about 57 million Americans watched last night’s debate.

Let’s for the sake of argument assume that all 57 million viewers were adults, 18 or older (although I know for a fact that at least one was an 11-year-old girl), and that adults comprise about 75% of the roughly 305 million people who now populate our nation.  That would mean that only about 25% of American adults (57/(305*.75)) watched last night’s debate.

Not 63%. I know we’re different, but not that different.  In fact, according to Nielsen, Seattle-Tacoma’s debate ratings were actually on the low end, ranking only 46th out of 55 markets.

So, let’s just say I have some questions about the validity SurveyUSA’s sample.

10 Stoopid Comments

Hey Jack, don’t hold back

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 2:00 pm

Come on trolls… defend her.  And while you’re at it, defend John McCain for cynically making such an unqualified choice for Veep.

102 Stoopid Comments

Get out the vote

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 12:30 pm

Anybody else notice that the RNC is spending money buying Google Ads on my liberal political blog, urging people to register to vote before the deadline?  That’s some targeted GOTV effort they have going there.

FYI, the deadline to change your registration, or to register to vote online or by mail is October 4.  If you are a new voter and miss this deadline, you can register in person at our county auditor’s office until October 20.

3 Stoopid Comments

Post-debate wrap-up wrap-up

by Goldy — Saturday, 9/27/08, 11:10 am

Watching last night’s presidential debate at the jam-packed Montlake Ale House (a horde of DFAer’s pushing us DL regulars into the nooks and crannies), there was little question about who won the contest.  Both the boisterous crowd and the CNN dial test audience agreed: it was no ass whooping, but Barack Obama came off as knowledgable, likeable and more in touch with average Americans than the often angry and ornery John McCain. And with this being the debate that focused on McCain’s alleged strong suit, foreign policy, that constitutes a win for Obama.

But afterwards, I stopped off at house filled with angry Irishmen, and the reaction was quite different.  Strong Democrats all, they were drowning their sorrow in whiskey at what they saw as a pathetically weak performance by Obama, who failed to fight back against McCain’s frequent attacks.  Almost as a chorus they complained that if Obama had said “I agree with Sen. McCain” one more time, they would have thrown a bottle at the TV set (and the Irish don’t waste the contents of bottle lightly).

They went into the debate smelling blood after McCain/Palin’s week of disastrous missteps, and they expected Obama to go in for the kill.  He didn’t.  And their initial and unanimous post-debate reaction was that this was big win for McCain.

Huh.  Had we watched the same debate?  So I went online to catch the spin and was fascinated to watch the consensus evolve over the next few hours.  The early threads on the liberal blogs more closely matched the angry Irishmen than the cheerful DFAers, with many commenters lamenting the same lack of backbone and aggression, a sentiment echoed by a handful of CW pundits who quickly jumped to set the frame by calling the debate for McCain.  But it wasn’t long before this spin got spun around, with McCain’s ornery demeanor, his refusal to even look at Obama, let alone make eye contact, and his failure to mention “the middle class” even once beginning to dominate the conversation.

Then the instant polls and focus group results came in, and the notion of an Obama win quickly took hold amongst a majority of the media commentators.  By pretty convincing margins both independent and undecided voters consistently gave the edge to Obama, both in his performance and in his positives.  Obama talked about issues and connected with voters, whereas McCain appeared “antagonistic”, even “contemptuous,” and while the latter may play well with McCain’s antagonistic and contemptuous Republican base, the folks in the middle… um… not so much.

I don’t know if Obama’s cool and collected debate demeanor is a strategy or simply who he is, but as much as I would personally like to see our candidate punch back as good as he gets—and better—I think last night’s approach ultimately serves him well.  Not because voters don’t want to see their presidents appear strong—they most emphatically do—but Obama, perhaps uniquely, must carefully avoid appearing too strong.  If you know what I mean….

Ahem… um… as McCain might phrase it, “the point is“… while we may have come a long way toward fulfulling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, white America doesn’t much like its big, black men to appear aggressive or threatening… and in case you hadn’t noticed, Barack Obama is a big, black man.

Oh sure, on the football field or the basketball court such aggression is accepted and even celebrated, but in the political arena the standards are quite different.  Yes, in politics, we still like our big, black men to be orderly and loyal, like Colin Powell, or quiet like Justice Thomas… or even a sweet, dumb, gentle giant like that character in The Long Green Mile.

But threatening?  No, Obama can’t afford to come off as threatening, let alone contemptuous of an elderly white man like McCain.  So as much as I’m with the brawling Irishmen on what I’d personally like to see from our candidate, I understand I’m not the typical swing voter, and nowhere near the mindset of an undecided independent.  No, as much as it may pain me, Obama needs to show McCain respect, even when it is totally unreciprocated, if he is to win the hearts, minds and votes of the uncommitted.

He may not have stirred any passions in his base, but I’m guessing more voters than not came away from the debate with a greater sense of comfort in the notion of Obama as commander in chief, and that’s all he needed to achieve last night.

So I’ve scored this one for Obama.  And now I’m going sit back and watch to see if my post-debate analysis is supported by the daily tracking polls.

UPDATE:
John Cole at Balloon Juice aptly sums up the dilemma facing McCain over the emerging too contemptuous to make eye contact narrative:

SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate). And if McCain does not tone down the contempt, it will simply feed the narrative. Or, if we are really lucky, as someone suggested in another thread, McCain will overcompensate and spend the entire time comically and creepily attempting to make eye contact with Obama (think Al Gore walking across the stage to stand next to Bush, and Bush looking at him as if to think “WTF are you doing?”).

This should be terrifying for the McCain campaign for two reasons. First, the base will not understand it. To them, a sneering, contemptuous jerk is a feature, not a bug. When they try to tone down McCain, it will turn off the diehards. Look at the reaction of the base to Palin’s RNC speech- they LOVED that she was, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an asshole the entire speech. They loved the “zingers” that were written for her. The rest of the country recoiled in horror, and Obama raised ten million the next 48 hours.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I feel like I’m in pretty good company when James Fallows posts a pretty similar analysis:

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes — cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways “safe” and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more “likeable,” the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. Update: though he doesn’t have to say “John is right…” ever again during this campaign.

48 Stoopid Comments

Presidential Debate Open Thread

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 6:03 pm

Oh man the Ale House is packed.  You’d think there was a championship football game or something.  Maybe I’ll post some observations, maybe I won’t, but if I do, I’ll probably eventually get bored or distracted.

UPDATE [6:07]:
McCain:  “I’ve not been feeling to great about a lot of things lately.”  Huh.  I’m guessing it’s his prostate.

UPDATE [6:10]:
McCain, first to use an antimetabole.

UPDATE [6:15]:
Jim Lehrer sounds downright animated.  (Or perhaps that’s just relative to John McCain.)

UPDATE [6:17]:
John McCain has a pen.  I didn’t know that.  Also, he apparently thinks that the corrupt congressman serving prison sentences are victims of the earmark system or something.

UPDATE [6:20]:
So if Republicans buy McCain’s criticism of Obama for rejecting earmarks only after he started running for president, will they buy Darcy Burner’s criticism of Dave Reichert for his new found (and temporary) anti-earmark religion?  (Oh… and Obama does indeed have prominent ears.  He reminds me a bit of that Vulcan character on Star Trek: Voyager.)

UPDATE [6:26]:
I love the fact that Jim Lehrer is letting the rules slide a bit, and allowing more of a back and forth between the candidates.  This has been one of the better political debate formats I’ve seen.

UPDATE [6:30]:
“The point is…”  How many times has McCain said “the point is” in the first half hour alone?  The point is, if you have to constantly be saying “the point is,” you’re not making your point very well.

UPDATE [6:32]:
When asked about what he plans to cut from the budget, McCain mentioned Boeing.  Needless to say, he got rather loud boos from this partisan Seattle audience.

UPDATE [6:34]:
Obama finally hit the softball on what he wants to cut:  the $10 billion a month we’re spending in Iraq.  Cheers all around.

UPDATE [6:38]:
McCain wants to make sure that we don’t put health care in the hands of the government.  You mean, like Medicare.  (“Keep government’s hands off my Medicare, dang nab it!”)

UPDATE [6:39]:
The dial test people really like the word “orgy”.  It went through the roof.  Now there’s a political platform.

UPDATE [6:43]:
By the way, he didn’t quite say it this time, but every time I hear McCain warn against putting our health care in the hands of “government bureaucrats,” I have to point out that it is already in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats.  A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, and at least theoretically, the government bureaucrats are supposed to work for you rather than the interests of the shareholders.

UPDATE [6:44]:
McCain:  “The next president will not have to decide whether to send the troops into Iraq.”  No… the next president will have to make the decision whether to send troops into Iran.  That’s what I’m afraid of.

UPDATE [6:46]:
Dial test folks really liked Obama crediting the “extraordinary performance of our troops.”  If he can only manage to get “extraordinary orgy of our troops” into a sentence, I think he’ll have this election wrapped up.

UPDATE [6:49]:
Question:  Is McCain’s perpetual shit-eating grin the result of his various surgeries?  His torture at the hands of the Vietnamese?  Or just his personality?  Just curious.

UPDATE [6:52]:
Applause and laughter at CNN’s pan of the two debate watch parties:  the Democratic watch party was younger, multi-ethnic, and engaged… the Republican watch party was a bunch of dour, white old people.

UPDATE [6:54]:
Did McCain just say he knew Alexander the Great?

UPDATE [6:59]:
McCain wants to set the record straight on bombing Iran, and it is true, that he’s never actually bombed Iran.  And if he had tried, he probably would have been shot down.

UPDATE [7:02]:
To his credit, McCain is coming of a helluva lot more coherent than Sarah Palin, and she sets a very high bar.  In limbo.

UPDATE [7:04]:
Are those McCain’s real arms?  Behind that podium he looks like a muppet.

UPDATE [7:06]:
McCain:  “The Iranians have a rotten government, and therefore their economy is rotten.”  So… our economy is rotten, ergo….

UPDATE [7:11]:
What the hell is wrong with McCain’s eyebrows?  It’s like they’re painted on his face.  I know it’s petty, but it’s really distracting me.

UPDATE [7:15]:
In all seriousness, according to the polls, foreign policy is by far McCain’s greatest strength, and while there are no knock out punches or major gaffes, I think Obama is doing very well for himself.  If he can close the gap in this one area, McCain is in trouble.

UPDATE [7:17]:
McCain just got pissed about “my friend Henry Kissinger” and nearly lost it.  Not very presidential, and the dial test folks didn’t like it.  Obama should have gone in for the kill while McCain was on the edge of blowing up..

UPDATE [7:20]:
I look into McCain’s eyes and see three letters:  “LOL”

UPDATE [7:34]:
I don’t know if Obama is winning this debate on points, but he sure as hell isn’t losing it, and as the new kid on the block, that means Obama wins.  I don’t see how truly undecided voters watch this debate and determine that Obama doesn’t have the demeanor, temperament, knowledge and ability to lead on foreign policy issues.  In other words, I don’t see how this makes voters uncomfortable with the notion of Obama as commander in chief.  So yeah… I’m partisan… but I think this is a win for Obama.  And on top of the bad week McCain has had, I think that makes it a loss for him.

UPDATE [7:37]:
McCain:  “Jim, when I came home from prison…”  A last gambit of a desperate man.

153 Stoopid Comments

Drinking Liberally, Special Debate Edition

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 3:41 pm

Join me tonight for a special Friday night edition of Drinking Liberally, as we gather to see if the suddenly unsuspended John McCain actually shows up to debate Barack Obama.  The debate starts at 6PM, and folks will start gathering around 5:30PM at our usual haunts, the Montlake Ale House,  2307 24th Ave E., in Seattle’s Montlake neighborhood.

Democracy for Washington will be handing out Debate Bingo cards, and the first three winners will receive some DFA swag and a free round of beers.  So join us for an evening partisan cheers, jeers, and of course, beers.

See ya there.

12 Stoopid Comments

Revised figures peg Prop. 1 costs at only $2.8 billion

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 2:00 pm

The raging debate over the true cost of Proposition 1 grew more heated today, with the release of new figures from light rail advocates that estimate the actual cost to taxpayers of this year’s Sound Transit expansion measure at only $2.8 billion—a full $15 billion less than the widely disseminated $17.8 billion figure that appears on the fall ballot.

The new estimate was arrived at by taking the actual cost of construction and financing, and projecting backwards 40 years to 1968—the year the $1.15 billion “Forward Thrust” rapid transit package failed with only 51% at the polls—and was released by a coalition of noted Sound Transit critics-critics, consisting of… me.

And if that seems like a flimsily sourced and, um, silly way to calculate the cost of a major construction project, well it’s no more flimsy or silly than the bizarre and totally unsupported $107 billion, 45-year cost projection the Seattle P-I’s Larry Lange used yesterday to fictionalize the notion that there is a genuine debate over Prop. 1’s actual costs.

But others argue the cost could be much higher than what Sound Transit has estimated.

Transportation planner and Sound Transit critic Jim MacIsaac estimates approval of the measure would authorize collection of more than $107.3 billion over 45 years, including $55.8 billion for the expansion, and the per-household expansion tax bill would be $284 annually next year and increasing in later years.

I’m an “other.”  I’m a “critic.”  Four times in his article Lange refutes Sound Transit’s math with the simple phrase:  “critics say.”  But who the fuck are these critics, and what the hell makes Jim MacIsaac any more credible than me?

Or even remotely as credible as Sound Transit, without a doubt the most audited and heavily scrutinized public agency in the state?  The King County Superior Court judge who approved the ballot title accepted the $17.8 billion figure.  The conservative Washington Policy Center, who opposes Prop. 1, accepts the $17.8 billion figure.  Hell, even the pro-roads/anti-rail Seattle Times accepts the $17.8 billion figure.  But some guy named Jim pulls a $107.3 billion estimate out of his ass, and you tell your readers that the true cost of light rail is “under debate”…?

I mean… what the fuck?

This is the worst sort of journalistic equivalency (or as Prop. 1 spokesman Alex Fryer called it, “54 column inches of phony debate“), the kind of lazy controversy mongering that all too often makes our news media worthless, if not downright detrimental to informed public discourse.  You know, like when the overwhelming majority of climatologists  agree that carbon emissions are warming our planet with potentially devasting results, but the media highlights the handful of dissenters in an effort to be “impartial.”  Or when 99.99% of scientists accept the basic tenants of evolution, but reporters get tricked by the anti-science Jesus freaks at the Discovery Institute into “teaching the controversy.”  Or when for decades, the tobacco industry sponsored its own faux-science in a conspiracy to lie to consumers about the safety of their lucrative product, and the media dutifully reported that the health effects of smoking were “under debate.”

$107.3 billion?  Why not $200 billion?  Hell, why not $700 billion… they’re all equally inpenetrable numbers, and Lange does little to explain, let alone challenge the assumptions on which Sound Transit’s “critics” base their patently absurd cost estimates.  For example, Sound Transit estimates the proposed half cent increase in the sales tax will cost the typical household $125 a year, while “critics say” we’ll be paying at least $284.  But as Erica C. Barnett points out on Slog:

If the “typical household,” whatever that means, actually spent $284 on a half-percent sales tax increase, that would mean that a typical household in the Sound Transit taxing area spends nearly $57,000 a year on goods subject to sales tax–which excludes food, utilities, and rent. [And motor fuel.] Considering that the median household income in the Sound Transit taxing area is only around $64,000, that’s a pretty hefty chunk to be blowing on clothes, iPods, and lattes.

Lange could have done that simple math.  But he didn’t.  No, some guy tells him the annual cost is actually 2.3 times higher than Sound Transit’s estimate, and Lange uses that as evidence that the numbers are “under debate.”

Well, I’m some guy too, and I say Prop. 1 will cost the typical household less than twenty bucks a year, so as long as the P-I is inviting crackpots and liars to the table, I expect to have an equal say in this so-called “debate.”

I’m waiting for your call, Larry.

8 Stoopid Comments

I approve this message

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 1:00 pm

15 Stoopid Comments

Email from Will

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 10:02 am

From: Will Kelley-Kamp
Date: September 25, 2008 10:07:25 PM PDT
To: David Goldstein
Subject: AWB debate

Tell me:  why the hell does Gregoire debate in front of a pro-Rossi audience?  Rossi doesn’t debate in front of the Sierra Club.

Huh.  Good question.

FYI, Josh was in attendance last night and he has a full report coming soon.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE:
I’m hearing word the Rossi is backing out of a scheduled debate in Vancouver on October 13, that was to be sponsored by the Columbian.  I guess the editors of the Columbian just aren’t pro-business enough.

2 Stoopid Comments

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 9:15 am

The Seattle Times editorializes:

REPUBLICAN Sen. John McCain will look silly and erratic if he does not participate in tonight’s presidential debate at the University of Mississippi.

Huh.  Maybe McCain’s handlers are worried he’ll look silly and erratic if he does participate in tonight’s debate?  That could explain why they’re so desperately trying to duck it.

30 Stoopid Comments

Speaker Chopp, tear down that wall!

by Goldy — Friday, 9/26/08, 8:45 am

WADOT has released sketches of “Option E” (formerly “Plan 9”), state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s pet alternative for replacing the Viaduct.

Imagine a milelong building, filled with office and retail, 90 feet wide and 55 feet tall, stretching from King Street to Victor Steinbrueck Park.

And on top of that would be a massive park.

Or as Will likes to call it, “Suicide Park.”

I guess the artist’s rendering is pretty and all, but imagine the view from the other side.  The side shrouded in darkness for all but a couple hours each day around noon.  We’re talking about a 90 feet wide, 55 feet tall, milelong wall separating Seattle’s waterfront from the rest of the downtown… and if you think that’s gonna happen, I’ve got an eight-lane 520 bridge to sell you.

UPDATE:
A reader emails me with another image of what the “Viaduct Mall” might look like:

Oooh… purty.

15 Stoopid Comments

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 212
  • 213
  • 214
  • 215
  • 216
  • …
  • 472
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 10/20/26
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 10/16/26
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 10/13/26
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 10/9/26
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 10/6/26
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 10/2/26
  • Geov Parrish, RIP Thursday, 10/1/26
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 9/29/26
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 9/25/26
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 9/22/26

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky at @goldy.horsesass.org

From the Cesspool…

  • G on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • G on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • Vicious Troll on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • Roger Rabbit on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • Roger Rabbit on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • Roger Rabbit on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • G on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • Vicious Troll on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • G on Drinking Liberally — Seattle
  • G on Drinking Liberally — Seattle

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldy.horsesass.org

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

© 2004–2026, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.