HorsesAss.Org

Hmm. If the Seattle City Council can’t manage to pull the trigger on Mike O’Brien’s very sensible proposal to create a city-run registry to allow citizens to opt-out of receiving the yellow pages — thus saving innumerable trees, not to mention $350,000 a year in recycling costs — perhaps it should consider our surfeit of unwanted phonebooks as an opportunity to solve the city’s homeless problem?

The books form a ready made, insulated building module held in place with sheet metal angles normally used as drywall bead material. Once tensioned, the phone books form a stable wall into which additional layers can be easily screwed. The roof joists are also made of laminated phone books. The finished structure becomes a kind of time capsule, recording the names and numbers of community members.

Yeah sure, it looks kinda silly, but I mean, who the fuck actually still uses a phonebook these days to, you know, actually look up phone numbers and stuff? So this makes as much sense as simply tossing ’em straight from your porch, into the recycling bin.

Or, the Council could just give us the opportunity to tell the phonebook publishers to shove off.

Last week’s contest was a bit of a lay-up, which Liberal Scientist solved in quick fashion. It was Sioux Falls, SD.

This is the second Sunday of the month, so this week’s contest is the first of my new contest theme, TV and movies. The picture I choose for this will be related to something in a TV show or a movie (new or old). Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Don’t drink from the red cups. That’s what I’ve been telling folks here for years.

Unlike a lot of other political bloggers, the election season is a time when I tend to step back a little bit from the blog. The obnoxious (and often wildly inaccurate) TV ads that constantly run leave me feeling hopeless about the ability for anyone to go to the ballot box informed enough to make the right decisions about which initiatives and candidates to vote for – and about my power to make any difference in that. Being able to separate truth from fiction is a challenge for anyone who isn’t already devoting significant amounts of their time to following the issues and candidates themselves.

But there are a handful of races out there where I feel like I need to speak up more. One of them is the race for the House seat in the 45th Legislative District currently held by Roger Goodman. Goldy wrote about the challenger there the other day, and I don’t have anything to add to that. Unlike Goodman’s last opponent for this seat – Toby Nixon, who I have a lot of respect for – Kevin Haistings is a partisan hack with absolutely no qualifications for that seat.

It’s no secret that I’ve worked with Goodman a lot in the past. I’ve supported his campaigns because I think that he’s one of the most courageous and principled legislators in the state. He’s one of the few people in Olympia (from either party) who understands what makes government effective and efficient, and can truly call himself “fiscally responsible”. So when I read this from the endorsement of Haistings in the Seattle Times, I was floored:

For Position 1, Republican Kevin Haistings would bring a pragmatic, independent voice to the principal task in Olympia: wrestling a tight budget. The Carnation resident and Seattle Police Department sergeant is a political novice. Haistings’ budget approach — which includes looking at spending and asking not if a program is of value, but rather who should bear the cost — ought to be the standard in Olympia. Haistings proposes a public-private partnership to help pay for parks and other public needs.

Rep. Roger Goodman is the Democratic incumbent. An attorney, Goodman is best known for drug-law reform. But his tenure lacked independent leadership and efforts toward pragmatic budget solutions.

What amazes me the most about this is that Goodman is considered such an expert in “pragmatic budget solutions” that he travels to other states to talk to their legislatures about how to reduce their criminal justice costs. If that’s not enough, and you want to see an even clearer illustration of how odd the Times endorsement is, the following video was taken last week at a candidate’s forum. Goodman asked Haistings about the specifics of his budget approach, and Haistings admits that he can’t answer it because he doesn’t have specifics:

Our state budget isn’t going to be fixed by slogans. It needs real solutions from people who take these issues seriously. The Times may have fallen for Haistings’ empty rhetoric, but the voters in the 45th LD don’t have to make the same mistake.

Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I generally distrust (and often dislike) politicians from across the political spectrum, but with that cynicism comes a real appreciation for the politicians who truly defy special interests and win by standing against the corporate shills and obnoxious nanny crusaders. It pains me to see Russ Feingold potentially losing his seat in Wisconsin this year, and I wish that more principled conservative politicians who truly believe in small government had a larger voice against the Tea Party crazies. Roger Goodman is one of the few politicians out there who belongs in that category – and he belongs in Olympia too.

John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Discuss.

The Oregonian also endorsed Sen. Patty Murray yesterday, highlighting her power and influence, and lavishing praise on her for the careful attention she pays to local issues and veterans’ affairs.

Once upon a time, the Pacific Northwest was a powerhouse in the U.S. Senate, wielding the long-term muscle of powerful chairmen like Mark Hatfield, Warren Magnuson and Bob Packwood. After generational and other changes, the region has spent years in a weakened position, and has been only slowly working itself back.

By itself, that could be a reason to re-elect Washington Sen. Patty Murray, after three terms the senior senator from the region and an increasingly influential force in both the Appropriations Committee and the Democratic leadership. But Murray, with a long history of being underestimated, has a range of other arguments, including her tenacious advocacy on behalf of veterans and in support of a Hanford cleanup.

And just like the Seattle Times, they didn’t have many kind words to say about Republican challenger Dino Rossi, arguing that his perfunctory parroting of NRSC talking points “provided little reason to replace Murray”:

Rossi in particular seems to get further and further away from the productive, working-across-the-aisle state legislator he was 10 years ago and more into a generic Republican Senate candidate who might be running in any state. This year it’s become common to use images of the U.S. Capitol as an accusation, but that is in fact where senators work.

I final sentiment that Rossi is unlikely to learn from personal experience.

(And there are 50 more clips from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)

As I’ve previously predicted on numerous occasions (for example, here and here), the normally Republican-shilling Seattle Times broke character today, and endorsed Sen. Patty Murray. Why?

The truth about Murray is she delivers for Washington and the Northwest. She secured funds to begin to replace the I-5 bridge connecting Washington and Oregon, which helps business and ports. She rounded up federal dollars to repair the Howard Hanson Dam and protect the Green River Valley. She saved the veterans hospital in Walla Walla and secured funds to add a clinic there. She worked for years to win approval of the Wild Sky Wilderness Area in Snohomish County.

Or at least, that’s the reason why I’ve been convinced since Dino Rossi entered the race that Murray had the Times endorsement wrapped up. The Blethens may be a lot of things, but they’re not the kind to toss out one of the most powerful appropriators in the nation.

That said, it’s actually a pretty damn glowing endorsement of Murray from start to finish, and takes more than few shots at Rossi and his lackluster, GOP-talking-point-mimicking campaign. For example:

On almost every topic, Murray is studied and has an answer. On the issue of net neutrality, which involves unfettered access to the Internet, Rossi did not have a clue, even though this issue is pressing within the tech industry.

Not to mention a pressing issue with the Blethens. I mean, it’s not like they haven’t editorialized in favor of net neutrality like, dozens of times or something, so you’d think Rossi might have bothered to at least know what it is. But then, that’s what happens when your campaign is run by out-of-state gunslingers with little feel for the local lay of the land, and when the candidate himself is remarkably disengaged and, well, lazy.

And the last thing Washington needs right now is a lazy, disengaged U.S. Senator. Or so says the Seattle Times.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DRkUU-qhjk[/youtube]

If I were a far-right-wing Christianist Bible-thumper, and he were an outspoken liberal talk show host, I’d say that God is striking down Glenn Beck as punishment for his sins. But I’m not and he isn’t, so I won’t.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS7iGh02oMs[/youtube]

Wow. That’s quite an endorsement for Republican Mark Hargrove:

In the primary, we favored Hargrove’s more moderate Republican challenger Nancy Wyatt. Hargrove is hard-line and inflexible. He agreed never to raise taxes. Ever. That’s a little rigid.

So why would the Seattle Times still endorse such a “hard-line,” “inflexible,” “rigid” and, let’s face it, far-right, theocratic, intolerant extremist like Hargrove?

Still, voters should select Hargrove instead of Geoff Simpson, the incumbent Democrat, who has been accused of domestic violence and who has not distinguished himself in Olympia.

Which is kinda funny, because in fact, the real reason the Times refuses to endorse Simpson is exactly because he has distinguished himself in Olympia… as a strong, progressive champion of working families.

But, you know, the Times will pretty much swallow anything to get an anti-tax/anti-labor politician into the Legislature, even if it also means the candidate is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-birth-control, anti-immigrant and anti-environment. And the Times knows all this. It’s all there on Hargrove’s website and in his various candidate questionnaires.

I mean, the guy has pledged never to raises taxes ever, no matter what, not for education or public health or public safety or even in the event of an emergency. Honestly… how can the Times responsibly endorse somebody running for a deliberative body, who expressly promises to refuse to deliberate?

You know, Hargrove is probably not a bad person. He’s probably not even crazy. He’s just wrong. Completely and utterly mind-numbingly wrong.

But the Times’ editors… they know better. And they should be ashamed of themselves.

Apparently, I’ve offended the delicate sensibilities of the TNT’s Patrick O’Callahan, who thinks my posts on Dave Reichert’s brain are “vile.”

A rather vile post on the thestranger.com two weeks ago, “What’s wrong with Reichert’s brain?,” speculated that the head injury U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert suffered last February had more or less left the 8th District Republican a confused punch-drunk unfit for Congress.

The author, David Goldstein, cut-and-pasted excerpts from a UCLA medical website into lurid accounts of Reichert’s injury and theorized that the congressman had an atrophied brain – “Which leaves me wondering if the 8th CD is on the verge of re-electing a congressman with an… um… intellectual disability.”

Uh-huh. You know what some people might also find kinda “vile” Patrick, especially coming from the editorial page editor of an almost-major daily newspaper? Completely mischaracterizing somebody else’s words. For example, far from describing Reichert as “a confused punch-drunk unfit for Congress,” I merely quoted Reichert’s own “lurid account” of his injury, cited the medical literature, and then posited this rather measured conclusion:

Thus it is not unreasonable to expect that a brain trauma as severe as that described by Reichert, in a man of his age, and untreated for so long, could very well have resulted in some degree of permanent neurological impairment.

To be honest, Reichert has always struck me as “a confused punch-drunk unfit for Congress,” even before his injury, but those are O’Callahan’s pithy words, not mine.

Of course, it’s not really my words that O’Callahan and others find vile, but rather, the subject matter. What offends O’Callahan is that I would dare speak publicly what his colleagues have been whispering quietly for some time. So in my own defense, I’d like to suggest the following analogy:

Let’s say the Mariners were about to sign a particularly sought after free agent pitcher who, one of the TNT’s sportswriters discovers, had failed to disclose the severity of an injury to the elbow on his throwing arm, suffered during a freak, off-season gardening accident. Would it be vile to report on the details of this injury, and to speculate whether he may have suffered any long term or permanent damage?

No, of course not. We pay pitchers to hurl balls, so an elbow injury would be rather relevant.

Congressmen, on the other hand, we pay to make decisions. To deliberate. To negotiate. To, dare I say, debate.

In other words, we hire our congressmen to use their brains, in the same way we hire pitchers to use their arms.

Dave Reichert, by his own admission, suffered a severe brain trauma — much, much, much more severe than he or his staff at first let on — and while it may be an uncomfortable and sensitive subject to broach, it is completely and utterly relevant to the job he is seeking. And that, I assume, is why both Politico and the Seattle Times eventually picked up the story.

No, if there’s anything “vile” about this incident, it’s the way some local journalists, out of politeness or civility or whatnot, have been complicit in Reichert’s effort to hide his condition from voters.

Not surprising really, considering incumbent Republican Dave Reichert’s refusal to actually campaign, but it looks like he suddenly has a real race on his hands:

Democrat Suzan DelBene is within striking distance against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), according to an internal poll conducted for her campaign.

The poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday, found Reichert with 48 percent and DelBene with 44 percent, with 8 percent undecided.

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates surveyed 400 likely voters and the poll carried a 4.9-point margin of error.

The results show DelBene moving in the right direction. The Democratic firm polled the race in August and found Reichert ahead 50 percent to 41 percent.

Last week a SurveyUSA poll showed DelBene closing within 7 points, down from the supposedly comfortable 13-point spread Reichert had enjoyed only one month before.

And before you simply dismiss these latest results as an internal poll, remember, that’s not how all this works. Candidates poll their own races to give themselves an accurate view of the political landscape, not to deceive themselves. The spin comes in choosing which poll results to release and which to keep private. So it does indeed appear that DelBene has some momentum.

Huh. Perhaps Reichert might want to reconsider his stealth campaign strategy, and maybe agree to a debate or two. That is, if he’s not too mentally impaired to handle it.