Search Results for: drinking liberally

Here are my blogging resolutions for 2014:

• I’ll post more content than just “Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza” and “Drinking Liberally” this year.
• I’ll make every effort to avoid posts about Fibonacci sequences or Taylor series expansions.
• I’ll only blog professions of love to genuine offspring.
• I will not use the term “cephalonomancy” in a blog post this year. Period.
• I’ll scrap the draft about wetbacks with body parts the size of cantaloupes.
• I won’t blog about degrees of legitimacy regarding rape or about fecundability following rape.
• I’ll ALMOST shut down HorsesAss until Goldy agrees to getting lower internet connectivity, more limited resources, and crappier response time. Because FREEDOM!
• I’ll avoid uncomfortable sexual posts referring to unlubricated ass-fucking or the extra-plentiful quantity of pussy I have to eat at home.
• Oh…and I’ll avoid smoking anything while in a drunken stupor. Not even for the free munchies.
• I won’t write about a certain co-blogger’s pteronophobia
• I’ll refrain from commentary about dynasties, Dynasty, ducks, ducts of any sort, or even about about how to “die nasty.” Nuh-uh. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent!
• I’ll eschew hackneyed clichés like “hackneyed clichés” and “Happy New Year!”

(Yup…it’s another open thread.)

Here is a thread where you can talk about this evening’s election. If the spirit moves me, I may do some updates from the Montlake Ale House.

Oh…and if you need to find a ballot drop-box or want to view the King County results, check out this page. For state stuff, go here.

(If you are looking for an open thread try the Drinking Liberally thread just below this one).

Later in the week, I’m going to send out candidate questions to everyone running for Seattle mayor. I have my own ideas about what to ask, but I thought I’d throw it out to the comment section before I send anything off.

The general rule is it would have to be broad enough that it could be asked to all of the candidates so no in your first term questions for McGinn or legislature questions for Murray, for example. But there are more general questions about things that happened in McGinn’s first term or in the legislature when Murray was there. I talked to Lee and Darryl at Drinking Liberally and there was some discussion of Metro and I-502, but we weren’t sure if that’s a city question. I’m definitely going to ask a police reform question.

Here are the questions I emailed out to City Council candidates 2 years ago.

Aside from Seattle mayor, I think I’m going to ask the top 2 people in each City Council seat after the primary. Are there any other seats you’d like to see questions asked?

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?

Yesterday evening going to Drinking Liberally as it was raining, I caught a crowded bus downtown at its first stop. People started pouring on from under the awnings for half a block around. There were at least 30 people, probably more, and it was already crowded by the time I got on. That’s fine. I’m glad that a lot of people use the bus in Seattle.

Still, getting on the bus was rather annoying. There were several people — who I assume were regular commuters — without a basic understanding of paying. There were people who fished out their ORCA Cards at the machine. There were people who fumbled around for their money once they got to the box.

This is not great behavior in the best of times, but when there’s a line waiting in the rain, it’s really unacceptable. Please, for the sake of everyone behind you, be ready when you get on the bus. If there’s a line where you’re waiting, that should be the time to get ready.

I’m glad for the policies that Obama embraces when he uses the phrase Wives, Mothers, & Daughters. The Violence Against Women Act and Paycheck Fairness are crucial steps forward.

But we can’t stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, our mothers, our daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. And I now urge the House to do the same. (Applause.) Good job, Joe. And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year. (Applause.)

Yay for those policies! Still, when we watched that part of the State of the Union at Drinking Liberally, I asked Darryl if Obama realized that women were watching the speech too. That phrasing makes it sounds like the women who’ll benefit from the VAWA and the Paycheck Fairness Act aren’t listening.

I’m sure it polls and focus groups well, but it’s not as inclusive as it ought to be. So I’m glad to see that Melissa McEwan has started a petition to ask the president not to use that particular phrase.

Defining women by their relationships to other people is reductive, misogynist, and alienating to women who do not define ourselves exclusively by our relationships to others. Further, by referring to “our” wives et al, the President appears to be talking to The Men of America about Their Women, rather than talking to men AND women.

Please embrace inclusive language, Mr. President.

…to Drinking Liberally

I’ve been walking from downtown to Drinking Liberally in these nice summer evenings. Last Tuesday, I was running late. I suppose I could have taken my bike or the bus. But, this may have been the last time it’s nice enough for a stroll up there, so I decided I’d make up some of the time on the Streetcar (SLUT if you insist). I’ve got a Puget Pass on my ORCA Card (ORCA if you insist) and I know what you’re supposed to do:

The Seattle Streetcar will eventually be retrofitted with ORCA card readers; until the card readers are in place, ORCA cardholders can show their card as proof of payment on the Seattle Streetcar.

I feel a bit strange just getting on, having the card in my wallet. It sort of feels like stealing the ride, even though it’s following the rules.

Yesterday, coming home from Drinking Liberally, I was reading the paper version of the New York Times. And I guess it was seeing all of the headlines for the Op-Ed columnists all together. I noticed that all the headlines were shit.

They’re Not What They Used to Be doesn’t tell you what “they” refers to. People over 30 will say that about just about anything if given the opportunity. Maybe say “conventions” in the headline. The Elevator Speech refers to a common phrase that BoBo mentions in the piece. But again, it’s a common enough phrase, especially in the business world that just using that as the headline doesn’t actually tell you anything. The Hex on Paul Ryan is the least terrible of the headlines, and it’s not particularly good either. I guess you could probably guess that the hex is being picked as VP, but the piece probably spent more time on Biden than Ryan, so maybe something more VP related would be better.

From last night’s Drinking Liberally:

Strategies 360 has released a new poll for the new Washington first congressional district. The poll of 500 likely voters (4.4 MOE) was conducted from 15 to 17 July.

Here are the results (with “leaners”):

• Koster (R) 36%
• Burner (D) 12%
• DelBene (D) 11%
• Hobbs (D) 7%
• Ruderman (D) 3%
• Rauniyar (D) 1%
• Ishmael (I) 2%
• Other candidate 2%
• DK/NA/Refused 26%

A couple of points. Susan DelBene has certainly moved up since the previous poll, but Darcy Burner still maintains a small edge.

Laura Ruderman, who seems to generate as much “buzz”—even before MotherGate—as Burner and DelBene, is surprisingly weak at 3%.

John Koster has dropped 10% since the previous poll.

With the ballots in the mail this week and voting starting, it sure looks like a November contest between Koster and Burner or Koster and DelBene.

But we should have some more evidence soon…at Drinking Liberally this Tuesday, Goldy mentioned two other (non-candidate) polls that were in the field.

What does this poll say about the general election? The above table shows that Hobbs has a very slight edge over the sum of votes for Democratic voters. Furthermore, Larry Ishmael, the independent, is a past Republican challenger to Rep. Jay Inslee in the first, so we can probably “re-purpose” his 2% to the Koster column. (This isn’t quite true…the the crosstabs show Ishmael has about twice as many progressive supporters as conservative supporters!) These numbers make the new 1st CD a split district with a slight Republican lean.

On the other hand, the self-reported partisan make-up in the sample favors Democrats by 43% to 39%:

• Democrat 27%
• Leans D 16%
• Republican 26%
• Leans R 13%
• Independent 13%
• Other/DK/NA/Refused 5%

The evidence in the crosstabs looks somewhat favorable for a future Democratic Representative in the 1st CD. Of that 26% who didn’t know or didn’t answer who they support, the numbers split almost identically between conservative and progressive (about 6.6% of the total sample for each group). Moderates who didn’t offer a preference make up just under 8% of the total sample, whereas moderates who did have a preference, prefer a Democrat to a Republican 3 to 1.

So…until we have more evidence, this general election looks like a tight race with a slight edge for the Democratic candidate.

It seems recently the comments in non-open threads have been pretty derailed pretty quickly. And so I’d just like to remind people that there is a comment policy that bans, among other things, “deliberately off-topic comments (except in “open threads”), as well as pointless comments on these comments.” And since that time there has been a greater effort to put up open threads. We have at least 3 open threads a week (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday) and the Drinking Liberally and Friday Night Multimedia threads. There’s usually one near the top, so please use them.

When Gov. Christine Gregoire signs same-sex marriage into law the week after next, Washington state will be catching up to that uber-liberal state known as Iowa.

So when they heard the news, the Des Moines chapter of Drinking Liberally couldn’t resist teasing us a bit at the same time they sent a congratulatory message:

Well…here we go. At least I think so. I have a few errands to run this afternoon, so I wrote this post well in advance and scheduled it to fire off at 5:00 pm, when the Iowa caucuses start. So…I might still be stuck in traffic or fixing a flat tire or even dead right now.

So…feel free to go on (and on and on) without me, and I’ll catch up right after I order myself a beer. I mean, unless I’m dead.

We will mostly focus on the Republican caucus this evening because, as the LA Times points out:

For Democrats, the process will be simple since President Obama is the party’s de facto nominee.

(And for the benefit of our “low-information commenters” [a.k.a trolls] I’ll point out that, no, “de facto” is not some kind of racial epithet.)

The LA Times does a pretty good job of describing the Republican caucus. But…the Republican Party of Iowa does a better job…they have it down to bullet points:

All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.

That would be 5:00 our time.

The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.

What! No reading of the Constitution?!? What a bunch of Constitution-hating reactionaries! (And shouldn’t the second sentence be its own bullet point?)

After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.

Here is where uncomfortable things might happen—like, say, Santorum getting smeared by a Paulinista.

Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.

Wait…where is the part where they check for government-issued photo ids?

All votes are then collected.

Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.

A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.

Republicans sound so distrustful of Republicans!

RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.

I hope they at least add them up (which is kind-of like counting). I mean, I don’t want to listen to the reports from all 1,774 precincts.

We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,” and “Other.”

“No Preference” votes include those who vote “present,” “no preference, “uncommitted,” or “none of the above.”

That’s the process…enjoy!

5:31: I got here a bit late, and there were three new attendees to chat with. CNN is on the teevee, but I might be totally antisocial and put headphones on to listen to NPRs coverage of the circus caucus.

5:40: I cannot really hear what is going on, but the whizbang graphic on CNN suggests that born-again evangelical Christians rate Santorum as number 2. That sounds about right.

6:07: It is a three way race between Paul, Romney and Santorum, so far. With something like 14,000 votes in…Huntsman has 106.

6:22: That is one hairy-ass microphone cover I see on CNN.

6:25: Santorum slides right by Romney to number 2!

7:04: Romney puts Santorum behind him!

7:05: ….and Santorum surges ahead of Romney!

7:06: I’m getting pretty excited about a last minute Huntsman surge!

7:08: With Santorum in the lead, one must ask: Don’t they have Google in Iowa?!?

7:12: It’s loud…I cannot hear the TV. People are talking to me. Santorum is all over the teevee. I don’t know how much longer I can hold out!

7:25: Promoted comment from Michael: “Romney 23%, Paul 23%, Santorum 23%. The Republicans are having themselves a three-way.”

7:30: Santorum may come out of this in the pole position!

7:38: Okay…so Michele Bachmann isn’t going to win this one. At least she has her Aimes Straw Poll victory to propel her into the lead. Go Michele!

7:40: Gingrich is going to win. I mean, just look at the numbers!

7:44: I heard on the news this evening that Gov. Gregoire has some sort of big announcement tomorrow related to gay marriage. Does this have anything to do with Santorum’s Iowa showing???

7:46: New update. Santorum is sandwiched in the narrow gap between Romney and Paul.

7:49: And, once again, and to Romney’s great shame…Santorum percolates to the top!!!

8:00: James Carville missed his calling in life. He should have been an evil villain in a Batman movie. The Snake™ (says N in Seattle and Rebecca, independently).

8:13: Wow…all night, Romney and Santorum have been swapping positions. Mitt’s on top the Rick’s on top, Mitt’s on top then Rick’s on top.

8:17: Newt speaks. “We are at the beginning of an extraordinarily important campaign.” Yes…there are books to sell!

8:29: Santorum squeaks ahead of Romney. Yeah…well, I cannot wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary, because I want to see Mitt Romney lick Santorum.

8:34: Michele Bachmann says thanks to the 5,891 people of her “home state” of Iowa that voted for her.

8:51: I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As Seattle’s Drinking Liberally organizer, I want to express our deep gratitude 2 u for making tonight so fucking enjoyable”

8:53: Now I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As the person liveblogging at HorsesAss, I want to thank you on everyone’s behalf for making tonight so fucking entertaining!”

8:55: Is that Rick Perry’s daughter standing behind him??? She has his eyes and Steve Tyler’s mouth. My GAWD! The Perry rumors are TRUE!!!!

9:08: My vision of a Santorum—Brownback ticket may yet be realized!

9:09: A decade and a half ago, I voted against Santorum. Even then, long before Dan Savage’s neologism, there was something really, really icky about the man and the candidate.

9:22: Santorum is on the teevee spreading his philosophy….

I’ve watched this presentation by Bug Girl on social media a couple times. The part that intrigues me the most is who she finds her competition to be. And it isn’t other insect bloggers, but rather everything else. She finds other insect bloggers to be her collaborators. And I sort of feel the same way about Washington/Northwest liberal blogs.

In the early days of local blogging, the landscape was pretty bare. Before Slog, before Postman’s blog or the rest of the local media, before Goldy started blogging, it was a threadbare community compared to now. And I made an effort with what little platform I had 2 blogs ago to promote the rest of the community. It grew into something fun and interesting. And even with my 100-150 readers a day at most, I remember having people come up to me at Drinking Liberally or at other blog events and thank me for a link and tell me all the traffic they got out of it.

Some of them have gone, but a lot of them are still part of the community. I hope that the support of this community comes through in the Open Threads where I try to link to a variety of local blogs, even if I unfortunately tend toward the more established ones. Because I really don’t consider them the competition. I love the community both of comments and of other blogs. I don’t know what that means going forward, but I’m going to try to keep it in mind when I write here.