HorsesAss.Org

It seems like a simple question:  what is the purpose of mass transit?  And I have a feeling that how you answer this question goes a long way toward predicting how you’ll vote on Prop 1.

Personally, I believe that the purpose of mass transit is to move people from one place to another—between home and work and shopping and recreation, and back again—quickly, conveniently and affordably.  That’s why I prefer grade-separated solutions like rail: they’re fast, comfortable and reliable.  And I’m guessing that a majority of folks who support Prop 1 would give a similar answer.

The No folks, on the other hand, I’m guessing they see mass transit primarily serving a different purpose altogether, namely, relieving traffic congestion.  They don’t envision themselves using mass transit, but for the most part wouldn’t mind paying toward a cost-effective solution that got other people out of their cars and off the roads, preferably soon, and at the lowest possible cost.  Still, their primary concern being freeing up space on our crowded freeways, they’d prefer a more direct solution rather than paying a perceived premium for a transit system other people will use.

I think, perhaps, this may explain why the two sides so often seem to talk past each other.  One side sees transit primarily as a means toward easing traffic congestion for single occupancy vehicles, while the other sees transit commuting as an end in itself.

What do you think?

Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Inslee, Smith, McDermott, Baird, Larsen, Dicks (and yes, Reichert and McMorris)…

Please don’t vote for this Wall Street bailout.  Not this bailout.  Not now.  Not with this administration.

Please… please… be skeptical.  Read James K. Galbraith.  Read Stirling Newberry.  But whatever you do, don’t get bullied or rushed into sinking $700 billion of taxpayer money into a bailout that won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problems at the heart of this financial crisis.  For that matter, don’t accept as a matter of fact that this is a financial crisis… at least, not the kind that requires you to cast a vote this week or risk a second Great Depression.

Ask questions.  Be prudent.  Ask even more questions.  Authorize, say, $150 billion if you really feel the need to do something now, to prop things up through the end of the Bush administration.  But don’t just vote yes on this bill because you’re afraid of voting no.  There is too much at stake, and it is not at all clear that this bailout plan will do anything but delay the inevitable, all the while lining the pockets of the already super-rich.

The problem, in the end, is that Americans simply consume more than we produce, and not a dime of the $700 billion the White House is requesting will do anything to address this core economic flaw.  We either have to produce more or consume less, or preferably, some combination of the two.  Austerity may not be a politically popular thing to talk about out loud… so don’t.  But you need to start talking about it privately amongst yourselves, and have this stark reality inform your vote.

So please… please… take your time.  Remember the Patriot Act.  Remember the Iraq War Authorization.  And don’t let yourselves be rolled by the Bush administration one more time.

UPDATE:
Call your Representative and Senators, 800-473-6711, and tell them to take their time and just say “no.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
On HuffPo, Dean Baker warns us not to be scared by “phony stories” about a second Great Depression:

[Read more…]

As Josh reported from Thursday’s gubernatorial debate, Dino Rossi voiced support for repealing Washington’s highest in the nation minimum wage (currently $8.05 an hour), tied to inflation by a citizen’s initiative.  Rossi told the Association of Washington Businesses:

”The minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage. It’s meant to be an entry level wage.”

Rarely during this campaign has Rossi made the mistake of publicly stating his position on an issue on which he is so out of step with voters.  Don’t get me wrong, Rossi is way out of step on a number of issues, he just refuses to talk about them, and so far our press has been mostly complicit in his silence.  But this time he spoke loud and clear, and one would think that reporters might follow up.

It’s encouraging to see the Gregoire campaign quickly respond with an ad; I just hope they continue to hit him on the minimum wage.  And harder.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes a Times of London article speculating that we Yanks could be treated to the ultimate hail-mary pass by the McCain campaign, in the form of televised nuptials between Sarah Palin’s daughter and her fiance.

Marshall is correct in warning us to take the British press with a grain of salt, but the televised wedding idea somehow seems so, well, Republican. In other words, cheap, cynical and designed to distract. From the Times of London:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

If nothing else, such a stunt would seem to be the penultimate test of what might be called the Maher Axiom, a reference to comedian Bill Maher, who has repeatedly expressed his fear that Americans are too stupid to be governed.

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.

The Matt Millen era came to an end in Detroit this week, as the Lions’ General Manager was finally canned after a reign of ineptness that made Lions fans feel like the Bush Administration was running their team. Here’s how some of the fans celebrated:

A Detroit radio station gave the Matt Millen era a proper burial Friday, complete with a motorcycle-drawn carriage lugging a “Fire Millen!” sign in a custom-painted Lions casket.

“This is a special moment for us as we say good-bye to a legacy, to a reign of a general manager that brought us frustrations, brought us tears, brought us everything but a trophy,” DJ Spike, from the “Mojo in the Morning” program on WKQI-FM (95.5), said as the funeral lined up at 8 a.m. at Eastern Market.

An $85,000 Harley-Davidson hearse led the procession south on Gratiot Avenue to Ford Field. Inside the gleaming Honolulu blue-and-silver casket was a photograph of Millen’s face on a white, padded, silk pillow.

As about 30 people standing around the casket snickered, Spike invited fans to put mementos in the casket “to be buried forever along with the bad memories of seven years of Matt Millen’s reign.”

Like the Lions, the Seahawks have their bye this week. And also like the Lions, the Seahawks have their own fans who go a little too far (ok, in that case, a lot too far).

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!

A Rep. Jay Inslee bill (H.R. 7084) to prevent a dramatic increase on the fees that Internet radio sites like Pandora pay to the recording industry passed the House today. 

Back in 2007, the federal Copyright Royalty Board passed a ruling raising the fees that webacsters had to pay—the rates would have gone up by as much as 300 percent, which would have crashed Internet radio. 

SoundExchange, the group that collects the fees, said they were willing to negotiate lower rates, but any deal like that would have had no authority in light of the CRB ruling, which means SoundExchange always had the upper hand in the negotiations, and ultimately, could have collected the steep fees. 

The effect of today’s vote, which passed unanimously on a voice vote, is to table the CRB ruling and give authority to any future deal that is struck between the recording industry and webcasters. 

For background on the story go to SaveInternetRadio.org

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.

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.

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

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.

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.