Search Results for: ’

From Think Progress:

Issa: Obama Covered Up Benghazi Terrorism By Calling It An ‘Act Of Terror’

That’s even stupid for a car thief!

It was nine years ago today that I relaunched HorsesAss.org as an “almost daily blog on Washington State politics and the press.” You can read my very first post here. It is a touch fascinating to look back on how I managed to preserve the original vision of HA without at all anticipating how it would ultimately take over my life.

Anyway, in celebration of this milestone (and prodded Darryl) here is a list of some of my nine favorite and/or most influential posts, in chronological order. Thank you all for the past nine years, especially to all my co-bloggers who have carried on the HA tradition in my absence. And enjoy.

Stick a Foulkes in it, this case is done! (02/23/2005)
I’ve always been particularly proud of my legal analysis. In this early post, I explained exactly why Dino Rossi would lose his election contest, months before the court ultimately ruled.

FEMA director Mike Brown, a “total fucking disaster” (09/02/2005)
You know that Arabian horse story that hastened the demise of incompetent FEMA director Mike “Heckuva Job” Brown? This is the post that started it all, and first brought HA to a national audience.

Raging Bullshitter: the sad twisted tale of the Irons family feud (10/20/2005)
The day before this post hit, explaining why his own mother wouldn’t vote for him, King County Council member David Irons Jr. had a small lead in the polls in his bid to unseat Executive Ron Sims. After the media storm I generated, Irons ended up losing by 17 points.

Luke Esser fucks pigs (10/17/2006)
It is a sad irony that one of my funniest and most outrageous posts was written in defense Rodney Fucking Tom.

HA EXCLUSIVE: Seattle Times election day redesign revealed! (10/23/2006)
A rare display of my extraordinary Photoshop skills.

Falwell That Ends Well (An Ode To The Mortal Majority) (05/16/2007)
For a change of pace, some poetry!

Goldy’s Adventures in Muniland (04/25/2008)
In which I masquerade as David Postman and accept his Municipal League award.

Young woman quit DNR after being sexually harassed by Commissioner Sutherland (07/15/2008)
And election-changing bit of muckraking that all the other papers had, but refused to run with. Until after I did.

A layman’s refutation of Rob McKenna’s bullshit lawsuit (03/29/2010)
More than two years before the US Supreme Court surprised pundits by upholding Obamacare on Congress’s taxing power, I explained why the court would uphold Obamacare based on Congress’s taxing power.

Today is the 9th anniversary of HA. So I thought I would celebrate by remembering the top nine most memorable trolls who have lurked in the comment threads.

Any such list is necessarily subjective—trolls are memorable for may different reasons, sometimes rather personal ones. Some have invoked anger, some have provided “entertainment,” some were just very, very…VERY different. Okay…so here goes:

1. Mr. Cynical was Goldy’s first real troll. He showed up during the Great Election Contest of 2005, and loudly and boldly tried telling us how things would come out. Cynical was largely a propagandist for Republicans, so his many, many prognostications almost always came out dead wrong. Cynical was so wrong over the Great Election Contest of 2005, that the took on the moniker, “Mr. Irrelevant after his side lost. At least he had a sense of humor. An example of a Cynical long term political prediction, from the summer of 2005:
   

   Santorum and Rice will win in 2008 and 2012….
   Then Rice will become the first African-America and first woman President of the United States in 2016 and 2020.

   Mr. Cynical occasionally returns to the comment thread to offer his opinions on important events, like presidential elections. During the 2012 election, Cynical came back as Ryanistheman, Jody, and likely other commenters. A little know fact is that Cynical was the first troll to really get under Goldy’s skin…until Goldy got toughened and jaded into the troll-aloof person we know and love day.

2. Another of HA’s early trolls, JCH, was hell-bent on simply being disruptive. And he left lots of comments in attempts to disrupt. He was also a racist, spewing anti-Semitic slurs ad nauseum. It’s hard to know what drove him. He admitted that he lived in Hawaii, and I was able to deduce that he had previously lived in California, where he actively wrote letters to the editor of his local newspaper, pushing wingnut causes, of course.

   JCH has the distinction of being the first troll to be banned from HA. It was largely for his unwillingness to stop the barrage of anti-Semitic insults. And even his banning came after a long spell of having his comments moderated.

3. Chardonnay was HA’s first “concern troll,” but really stood out for being an (apparent) female in a largely male-dominated field. Something else that stood out about Chardonnay: she was excessively stupid. Now, whether this was an act or real is hard to tell. But she specialized in taking Republican talking points and re-framing them as “concerns” that were promptly demolished by other commenters. Here is a fun Chardonnay comment that came during the Ron Sims, David Irons, Jr. King County Executive election:
   

   oh ya Ivan, King Ronny is toast he’s as wacked as algore if not more. ronny f’d up with his trumped up enviro BS. and his election dept debacle. stick a fork in him.

   I’ll tell ya what ivan, if ron wins I’ll donate money to Goldy’s beer fund. You ‘buddy’ get zip unless Goldy wants to share his beer with you. If David Irons wins you buy Goldy a beer.

   I cannot say whether she ever donated beer money to Goldy. Chardonnay disappeared (under that name, anyway) after that election in late 2005. She made one more appearance in 2007.

4. Christmas Ghost is notable as another female commenter. She was much brighter than Chardonnay but, perhaps, crazier. A notable characteristic of her comments was an absence of upper case characters. Eventually, she moved to the Bay area and quit commenting on HA, but not before EFFin’ Unsound had some fun with her.

   Interesting, odd facts: She was a raging asshole to Goldy in the comment threads, but he reports that she was a nice and reasonable person in her emails to him. Goldy once posted a missing person piece on behalf of Christmasghost. The niece was eventually found, though I don’t know any of the details.

5. Piper Scott makes this list, because no commenter was more full of himself than was Piper. He was seriously insufferable and really did take himself seriously. Everyone else…not so much. In fact, Lee started a series of posts about him called The Crackpiper Chronicles (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4).

   Part one highlighted one of my favorite protracted exchanges with any troll. It’s still a fun read that shows, in the end, underneath all the pretense, Piper was reacting emotionally like a very typical reality-challenged wingnut.

6. Puddybud. Ahhhh, yes. What can we say about our beloved Puddybud. First, he gets kudos for longevity, having first posted back in 2005. Puddybud is a smorgasbord of illogical thoughts, nonsense, child-like arguments, illiteracy, hatred, bigotry, and right wing tripe, oddly mixed, on occasion, with pious religious fervor. And to add to it all, Puddybud has some deep insecurities as evidenced by his need for silly bragging. (Anyone remember the conversation about Puddybud serving in the military?)

   An interesting thing about Puddy is the he has actually engaged with some of us in person by coming to Drinking Liberally. In person, he is a friendly, articulate, and intelligent person—really, the antithesis of his online persona. How could this be? The answer is that Puddybud is a character. The person producing the character is engaging in performance art. This explains everything about Puddybud. Think about it…if your objective is to maximize disruption and “make liberal heads explode,” then debate using emotional arguments, use bad logic, be inflammatory while saying stuff that is barely comprehensible, misuse data. Hell…just blatantly lie—it’s the character Puddy, not the God-fearing person playing Puddy lying to you.

7. Mark the Redneck is a typical, if once prolific, propagandist/troll. What puts Mark the Redneck on this list is an infamous bet he made with Goldy…and reneged on.
8. Marvin Stamn was a prolific, nearly robotic troll. He had commenting down to an art:
   1. Open up Drudge and find an “outrage”
   2. Excerpt a quote from the piece
   3. Write just enough commentary so that it constitutes “fair use”.
   4. Go to 1

   Marvin eventually did himself in when he admitted to getting paid for his propaganda. It is hard to know if he was serious or joking, but since he lived in Southern California, commented for many hours a day, and had nothing to say about local politics, it seems more plausible than not. I don’t miss him.

9. I had a hard time picking just one last troll to memorialize. I considered pbj, chuck, manoftruth, howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS, Max, YO, josef, and so on. But I choose Klake. What I remember about Klake was his long, rambly, semi-coherent comments, with random parts of the text in bold. Like here and here. Classic stuff.

So those are my “top” nine. How about you? Who are the trolls you would memorialize and why?

Joel Connelly snarks on McGinn’s anti-violence stuff. But I think it’s good. Mostly on the teach kids not to be violent aspect.

“Weapons to Words” will ask Seattle schoolchildren to come up with a short quotation about gun violence. The best of their quotations, on what a violence-free future means to them, will be inscribed on plaques made from the 760 weapons collected earlier this year in the gun buyback program. Schnitzer Steel is making the plagues. Chihuly Studio is “shaping the aesthetics” in the words of Leslie Jackson Chihuly, its president.

“The plaques will be placed across Seattle so they can leave a lasting legacy,” McGinn said.

Sounds like a good idea. Teach kids to think about what a violence free world would look like. And it’s a nice metaphor to use the returned guns for that. It seems like a win-win. Except that it gives Rush Limbaugh a sad, so he doesn’t win.

When he got back to the office, McGinn found himself a politician doubly blessed. The “Weapons to Words” program was promptly lampooned over the air by that rhinoceros of right-wing talk radio, Rush Limbaugh. Liberal Seattle doesn’t boast many of the followers Limbaugh calls “Ditto Heads.”

If this was a bad idea, the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like it wouldn’t improve it. But the fact that it’s a decent lesson for children that he’s upset about means that it’s really icing on the cake.

And the fact that Limbaugh is upset about it is probably all you need to about if compromise is possible. Taking guns that people voluntarily turned in, and making them into quotes about not being violent is too much for these fuckers.

It’s tough to hold out much hope for the special session when the Republicans put out press releases like this.

It is the last day of the 105-day legislative session and we have just adjourned. Unfortunately, a special session is on the horizon — an outcome that is disappointing for everyone.

We are headed to overtime primarily because of one issue: the operating budget. The governor and House Democrats want to spend roughly $1 billion more than the state plans to take in for regular tax collections in the next budget cycle that begins July 1. To do so, they would increase taxes on Main Street sectors of our fragile economy.

…

Some things are worth fighting for — no matter how long it takes. We don’t want a special session, but the alternative is accepting an approach that has led to many of the problems our state faces today.

Honestly, if you don’t want any loophole closing no matter how ridiculous they’ve become over the years, it’s tough to imagine any amount of cooling off time being enough. But maybe being a few weeks closer to a deadline will help? Sure.

– There was a mayoral candidate’s debate last night (Seattle Times link).

– Really the only thing I learned from following it on Twitter is that Jim Brunner doesn’t know who the Blue Scholars are, but still feels like he can make fun of other people’s taste in music.

– Hey, Seattle, no more shootings, OK?

– Women’s Work

– Has there ever been a military conflict that McCain hasn’t agitated for? And must every news outlet stumbles all over themselves to give him a platform?

– Chris Hansen’s statement after the Relocation Committee’s decision.

– The Columbia City Farmer’s Market is starting up again.

– Is that a homemade lightsaber in your pocket, or are you just glad to shut down the bus tunnel?

– The legislature adjourns sine dud. Don’t worry, there will be a special session where there’s a brand-new chance to not get anything accomplished starting in a few weeks.

– A background checks initiative drive starts today.

– Jesus and Muhammad and the Question of the State

– It was Abedin’s last day in the Pacific Northwest and The End Death Trap tour was headed to Renton’s Walmart. The original plan was to erect a makeshift memorial for the victims of Tazreen against the store’s outside wall. But newly bought boxes of pink and white carnations were also included to honor the victims of the Rana Plaza collapse the night before.

– I am not one who spent much of the Bush presidency trying to figure out how smart he actually was, but some of these (especially the Swedish Army!) are pretty yikes.

– The WMD Wing (h/t)

I love that my two favorite local politicians are hashing things out in the mayor’s race. In this case, they have dueling posts on Slog about sub area equity. Sub area equity is an important issue for a Seattle mayor who will have a seat on the Sound Transit Board of Directors. First, was Ed Murray, who I agree with in general, opposing sub are equity (I’m ignoring the political sniping in both; I’m pro political sniping, but not what I want to write about here).

Sound Transit’s sub-area equity requires that any money raised in one of the five sub-areas of the Sound Transit district must be spent in that sub-area. It may seem sensible on the surface, but it is really a terrible policy, originally cooked up by light rail opponent Rob McKenna (when he served on the King County Council and the Sound Transit board) as a way of forcing transit dollars that should have been spent in Seattle to be diverted to the suburbs instead.

Sub-area equity has done more harm to the cause of efficient deployment of limited transit dollars in the central Puget Sound—and thus more harm to Seattle—than any other single decision made in the last two decades of transit planning. It allocates dollars based not on density and demand for service, but on political geography. Instead of building a system from the inside out to maximize ridership and benefit smart land use decisions, it balkanizes the region and facilitates sprawl.

Sub-area equity needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with a more sensible policy that stipulates that Sound Transit dollars will be spent efficiently to add light rail where it will have the maximum impact in terms of moving people, i.e. in denser cities like Seattle and our growing inner-ring suburbs. Such a policy would ensure that Seattle’s transit needs are better accommodated – particularly our underserved West side Green Line communities including Ballard and West Seattle – while also ensuring that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas where population densities are insufficient to support strong ridership.

I’m not sure it encourages sprawl (it brings transit to less dense places, but those places are already sprawling). But in general, I agree that there’s more bang for the buck in denser areas. And transit ought to be built more in our big cities and inner ring cities, and sub area equity is a hindrance to that. So fair enough.

Mayor McGinn has a response.

In fact, at the urging of myself and others, the Sound Transit board accelerated all of their planning around the region so we are prepared to go to the ballot in 2016 if the legislature gives Sound Transit revenue authority to support expansion.

All of that work falls apart if a Seattle mayor suddenly decided they wanted to change the deal. By attacking sub-area equity Ed Murray threatens to blow up Sound Transit. Sound Transit’s board was willing to advance these rail planning studies in Seattle in part because I pledged Seattle’s support to help complete the regional system. Communities outside of Seattle have been banking on future rail while the central portion has been built in Seattle. Proposing to end sub-area equity and take the money for Seattle is guaranteed to destroy the regional political coalition for rail and doom the chances of putting Sound Transit 3 on the ballot in 2016.

Further, sub-area equity protects Seattle. The recession significantly reduced Sound Transit’s revenues too, and they are working hard to meet their commitments elsewhere in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. We need to ensure revenue raised in Seattle stays in Seattle to support our projects – which is why Seattle needs to defend sub-area equity, not attack it.

Even though McGinn probably wrote the better piece, I still agree with Ed Murray on sub area equity.

– Valiant protectors of our civil liberties, except when we might actually need our civil liberties protected.

– Pause…allow the incredible affront of that shit to marinate…continue.

– King Street Station, your argument is irrelevant.

– A friend describes me as an Alex Jones hipster, someone who was well aware and entertained by America’s leading conspiracy theorist long before he started showing up on CNN or hanging out with Charlie Sheen.

– Something close to 8% of ALL West, Texas residents were either injured or killed in the explosion.

– Don’t take the Cinnamon Challenge

– Tumwater Towers

Ugh on a stick, the state GOP.

Bailey was a guest last week on conservative talk radio KVI, where Republican State Chairman Kirby Wilbur is a frequent fill-in host. The two debunked the Dream Act as a way of damaging the Republican franchise rather than helping immigrants’ kids get an education. Democrats had just failed in a bid to force a Senate floor vote.

“It should be obvious, at least to anyone with an IQ above their waist size, that these (bills) have been picked for their political impact, has nothing to do with caring and compassion, to continue this mantra that Republicans are racists,” said Wilbur. “I mean, it seems to me it’s pretty obvious.”

Sen. Bailey agreed.

“It is pretty obvious that it is political. This bill has been brought forward at least twice before by (Sen.) Ed Murray, whgo is the sponsor of the Senate bill, at a time when both the Senate, the House and the Governor’s mansion were controlled by the Democrats and it begs the question: If this is such an important, absolutely needed bill, why didn’t it pass during those times?”

First off THAT’S NOT WHAT BEGS THE QUESTION MEANS! You mean it raises the question. Question begging is making a circular argument. When you use it wrong you sound like a dummy, and I hate you.* Second, if it’s just a trick, why not vote for it like a significant portion of the House GOP Caucus? Or at least let it come to a vote in committee? Or just let the people who want to testify testify? I mean honestly. Anyway, keep talking.

“Here’s another fact: If these (undocumented) students were added to the pool that already exists, underserved (sic) citizens, then the only way those students would ever get financial aid is if they are considered and given preferential treatment above citizens.”

Fact! Just look it up.

Anyway, after finding out about that, Rodney Tom knew just who to get mad at.

Tom has taken to blaming State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, for its failure. The “Senate Majority Coalition” offered Kohl-Welles chairmanship of the Higher Education Committee. She refused to take it, on grounds that the governing coalition was under Republican control and would leave her with no authority.

Tom sent out a legislative “session update” last week that sharply attacked Kohl-Welles. He was called to account by Murray for violating Senate rules by using the e-mail newsletter to deliver a partisan attack on a colleague. The update, too, was edited.

I guess she forced him to vote against allowing the vote on the floor of the Senate.

[Read more…]

I don’t like the idea of sub area equity, although it may have saved Sound Transit politically by getting early buy in from the suburbs when Central Link and Tacoma Link were the biggest projects. Still, generally speaking, political solutions designed to reassure suburbanites that big mean Seattle isn’t going to take all of their money (when the opposite is generally true) and that put arbitrary restrictions on transit development aren’t my favorite. See also, 40-40-20.

So the fact that Ed Murray is opposed to it is somewhat of a positive for me (although his doing it in a way that specifically attacks building rail to from Ballard to Downtown is not helpful). But over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman makes the case for Sub Area Equity.

Subarea equity originally existed because suburban legislators, in creating Sound Transit, wanted to make sure that suburban money didn’t end up spent in Seattle. As a result, Link implementation was at first slower. But now that Sound Transit 2 is passed, the North King subarea’s “spine” is fully funded. Most of the political pressure on Sound Transit is now to expand to Tacoma, Everett, and Redmond, and most of the board votes are outside Seattle.

In a Sound Transit 3 package, subarea equity is paramount to ensuring that we get a new line in Seattle – it ensures that Seattle’s contribution stays in the city, and political pressure doesn’t move money out to the ends of the lines.

Murray claims that his reason for wanting to remove subarea equity would be to focus transit investment in Seattle – but the outcome of removing it would be the opposite. As a transit advocate who wants Seattle to have more grade separated transit, this is scary because it’s a direct threat to a new line in the city, and it’s scary because a mayoral candidate should have a better grasp of the issues.

It does seem rather abhorrent to have sub area equity when we’re building Central Link and Tacoma Link and then not have it when we’re building out to the suburbs.

There are many reasons why Latinos tend to shy away from supporting Republicans. First, it’s because Republican politicians are constantly telegraphing to Latinos that they are second class citizens. Never mind the blatantly racist crap we get from politicians like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There is enough subtle stuff to last a political lifetime. You know, like nutjburger Sharron Angle defending before an auditorium of Latino student, her “illegal immigrant” ads portraying Mexican individuals as sinister:

I don’t know that all of you are Latino…Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that.

“Mexican? Were they really Mexican?!?” Uh huh. Right.

Or Rep. Don Young (R-AK) casually throwing out the term “wetbacks” in referring to immigrant workers on his father’s farm.

Latinos also have plenty of good policy reasons to shy away from Republicans. Republicans aren’t particularly good about supporting policies that serve or protect relatively disadvantaged populations of any sort. They have become the party of preserving privilege for the privileged. Sadly, they aren’t going to be able to change their policies overnight. And, even then, the image problem will lag for years behind the policy change.

It will take Republicans years to decades to repair all of this self-inflicted damage. Immigration reform is one of those policies that offer Republicans…well, not exactly opportunity. But maybe something….

Politico’s Emily Schultheis points out the catch-22 that Republicans find themselves in over immigration reform. Essentially, blocking immigration reform will further alienate them, and hinder their image reform goals (see The Autopsy). For years to come.

Alternatively, by enacting immigration reform:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

Theoretically, the Republicans could get some political advantage among current Latino voters by supporting immigration reform. That’s good for them in the short run. The real problem comes 13 years down the road:

Extrapolating 2012 voting trends to the 2028 presidential election — the first in which previously undocumented Hispanics could exercise their voting rights after a 13-year path to citizenship — is an inherently speculative exercise. But it is one that highlights the political sword hanging over Republicans as they consider immigration reform with a path to citizenship, an idea that is already deeply unpopular with many red-state constituencies.

To support the measure virtually guarantees millions of new Democratic voters.

What to do? I think the only reasonable thing for Republicans is the Hail Mary Pass. Passing immigration reform now at least gives them a fighting chance to win the “hearts and minds” of Latino voters. It’s a gamble, because they would have make huge progress in “image reform” by the time year 13 arrives. And, even then, it will most likely only allow them to minimize the damage.

The alternative—further pissing off the community—comes with an immediate hit that will only be compounded by the time the 13-year Gauntlet is run.

But it will also hurt like hell in 2020, when Republicans stand to lose their lopsided advantage from the 2010 gerrymandered congressional districts. That will set Republicans back, possibly for decades.

I hope Republicans do strongly back immigration reform. Not because I want them to have a shot at redemption with Latinos. Rather, because it is the proper policy that will improve the lives of millions of people, including a great many U.S. citizens—like U.S.-born children whose parents are undocumented.

What I see as the biggest threat to the future of the Republican party is the heightened xenophobia in the wake of the Boston bombing that may end up dominating their party. It threatens to foreclose on their Hail Mary option.

The Senate can’t get 60 votes on background checks at gun shows, and I don’t even know what to write anymore. I mean honestly. This is a measure with 90% approval, and it’s so on the margin of what needs to be done to prevent the type of violence that’s been happening.

Background checks and limits to the amount of ammunition that can be fired before reloading are where the debate is. Maybe it’ll be a bit tougher for the worst people to get guns. Maybe the next killer will have to reload and maybe move on before he’s killed as many of the children in a room. Maybe only 10 or 15 kids will die in the next attack. Nothing to address handguns, or urban crime more generally. And that is too fucking much.

I don’t know what to say, except maybe thank God Gabby Giffords can still write.

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

I don’t know what I can possibly add to her piece, except a determination to keep working. And of course fuck Instapundit.

This story is great.

A West Virginia high school student is filing an injunction against her principal, who she claims is threatening to punish her for speaking out against a factually inaccurate abstinence assembly at her school. Katelyn Campbell, who is the student body vice president at George Washington High School, alleges her principal threatened to call the college where she’s been accepted to report that she has “bad character.”

[…]

But it didn’t end with a simple difference of opinion among Campbell and her principal. The high school senior alleges that Aulenbacher threatened to call Wellesley College, where Campbell has been accepted to study in the fall, after she spoke to the press about her objections to the assembly. According to Campbell, her principal said, “How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?” Campbell alleges that Aulenbacher continued to berate her in his office, eventually driving her to tears. “He threatened me and my future in order to put forth his own personal agenda and make teachers and students feel they cant speak up because of fear of retaliation,” she said of the incident.

Despite being threatened, Campbell is not backing down. She hopes that filing this injunction will protect her freedom of speech to continue advocating for comprehensive sexual health resources for West Virginia’s youth. “West Virginia has the ninth highest pregnancy rate in the U.S.,” Campbell told the Gazette. “I should be able to be informed in my school what birth control is and how I can get it. With the policy at GW, under George Aulenbacher, information about birth control and sex education has been suppressed. Our nurse wasn’t allowed to talk about where you can get birth control for free in the city of Charleston.”

So, first and foremost, the kids are OK. Despite adults lying to them, they know what’s up. That’s true of sex. It’s true of drugs. It’s true of plenty of life. Lying to people you’re trying to educate can’t work out well.

But here, I want to say that even if you accept the principal’s and the assembly speaker’s notion that abstinence only education will lead to people waiting until marriage to have sex, and you think that’s a good thing that it’s not a good thing to teach.

Imagine someone who attended that assembly and waited until they were married to have sex because of it. Wouldn’t they still want to know how effective birth control was for real? If their partner had had sex before they married our hypothetical student and had got a disease, wouldn’t they want to know what was effective at preventing getting it? I mean this seems pretty basic. If you keep that sort of info from them until they’re married, it doesn’t just magically become available on their wedding night.

I’m just going to say it right now. This press release is the greatest thing in at least the English language, and probably other languages too. All words are obsolete once you read it.

It’s Benton 1, U.S. transportation secretary 0 in Columbia River Crossing debate at Capitol

I like so much about that title, that it’s tough to know what’s the best: Is it that he gave himself a score and then bragged about the score he gave himself as if it’s objective? Is it that even by his own reckoning, he only won the meeting by 1 point? Is it the fact that the title implies that this is the beginning, rather than the middle of a process that has been going on for years? Is it that the Federal government is offering to give his district money, and he’s complaining about it? Is it that he describes an ostensibly closed door meeting as a debate? Is it that Secretary LaHood probably didn’t even know that there was a game afoot?

Those are all good choices to be sure, but I think the best is that he never defines the scale that 1 to 0 is on or how one earns a point. So here is some speculation:

• Score half a point per guest you treat like a jerk
• The number of goats each brought to the meeting
• One point per person videotaping someone without their permission (more on that later in the piece)
• On a scale of 0 to 10 who Senator Benton likes the best
• A scale of 0 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the numbers were pulled randomly
• A scale of -5 to 5 who polkas the best
• Whoever left the meeting with the most smug satisfaction gets a point
• 1/3 of a point each time you masturbate to your own press release
• Smallest penis gets a point
• One point if you’re scared of the idea of public transportation

Oh my God, we’re not even into the meat of the press release yet. Courage. Here we go.

Sen. Don Benton says there’s no question that the people of Clark County came out ahead this morning when he and members of the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus went toe-to-toe with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood over the Columbia River Crossing project.

That’s a rather fancy way of saying I sat across a table with a guy who offered me a bunch of money to help build a bridge, but I wanted to build a different bridge, and probably more money. Also, no question? If you asked everyone in Clark County there would be 100% agreement on this opinion?

“I’ve been working hard to keep our coalition members informed about the many significant flaws in the CRC project, so we were ready with questions when Governor Inslee brought Secretary LaHood in to lobby our coalition this morning. As a result, it wasn’t even a fair fight. I’d say we schooled the transportation secretary in a way he couldn’t possibly have expected,” said Benton, R-Vancouver, noting LaHood’s visit is part of a CRC propaganda blitz at the Capitol today.

I should say here I don’t really have an opinion on the Columbia River Crossing. Still, imagine if a Seattle legislator acted this way to the Secretary of Transportation over, say, Highway 99. The outrage from the people who are perpetually outraged that Seattle exists would be amazing. I mean the meeting was of the Majority Caucus and not the GOP ostensibly in part because Seattle’s legislators are too arrogant.

“I guess the governor thought he could strong-arm the Senate Majority Coalition into rolling over by bringing the D.C. folks in to give us the same ‘this bridge or no bridge’ lecture he’s been delivering. Instead, the transportation secretary had his hat handed to him, and I have to believe I will find even more support now for my efforts to force a redesign of the CRC project.”

I guess they were hoping that saying, “we have a fuckton of money, here take it” would at least keep the Majority Coalition from whining like a bunch of little babies. That was obviously incorrect.

Benton said he and other coalition members let LaHood have it on the whole range of CRC concerns: how the bridge height would cost Clark County thousands of permanent jobs, how replacing the Interstate 5 bridge without addressing the corridor as a whole would fail to reduce commute times from Clark County to Portland by more than one minute, the financial liability that would go with including an extension of light rail from Portland, and more.

I have no idea, again, if those are valid concerns. But anyone who is opposing getting light rail in the same sentence he worries about commutes into Portland is an idiot. Light rail will obviously help Vancouver commuters.

Project supporters want the Legislature to authorize a $450 million allocation, which would serve as Washington’s share of the $3.5 billion CRC project; with less than three weeks to go in the 2013 legislative session, Benton said, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer.

There is literally no cliche that this press release won’t include.

“I was very proud of how our coalition joined me in standing up for the people of Clark County,” said Benton, who is the coalition’s deputy leader. “The governor and the CRC supporters are obviously getting more desperate by the day; they see how time is running out to get the Legislature to go along with this boondoggle.”

They’d like to spend money in your neck of the woods. You can disagree with if and how, but come the fuck on.

“The best thing the governor can do now, after seeing that his federal emissary couldn’t sell this boondoggle to our coalition, is to agree to a redesign of the project.”

Because a meeting went poorly (in that people who wanted to act like asses acted like asses) we have to start over. Obviously.

Anyway, I wasn’t the only person to notice that this is an embarrassment. Jim Camden of the Spokesman-Review has a great take on it (I think the S-R has a limited number of clicks, but I’ve never hit it). Really, sometimes you need to just write in disbelief like I’ve been doing for several paragraphs now, but sometimes the journalistic prose is the way to go.

When LaHood and Inslee stopped by the Senate Republican Caucus room to urge them to pass a transportation budget in it with money for the bridge, and thus allow the state to get its hands on lots of federal money, he was, to put it mildly, rebuffed by opponents like Sen. Don Benton of Vancouver. All while someone was videotaping the exchange.

Later that day Inslee and LaHood held a press conference in the governor’s conference room to make a public appeal for the Legislature to vote for money for the bridge. As soon as they left, Benton emerged from the back of the room to hold a counter press conference to say that it shouldn’t. The senator’s office later circulated a press release exclaiming he had “schooled” LaHood on the bridge and declared the score “Benton 1, transportation secretary 0”. the caucus sent out a link to a YouTube clip of their discussion in the caucus room.

This appalled Senate Democrats, who thought a cabinet secretary should be treated with a greater modicum of respect, and shouldn’t be taping conversations without his permission. Senate Republicans promptly took the video clip off YouTube, and Majority Leader Rodney Tom of Medina later teol [sic] the Seattle Times it had been inadvertently posted, although how it could be edited with an intro, sent to YouTube, a link created and connected to a tweet isn’t immediately clear.

And that’s what winning 1-0 looks like.