Category: Uncategorized (Page 16 of 49)

Radio Open Source is putting together a wiki on which to base their coverage of the 2006 elections. They’ve already done a couple of shows so far, one on “Meaning of CT” and on the 2006 elections overall.

Open Source airs on KUOW at 9p, and live on the internet at 4p.

I’ve tried to flesh out the page on Maria vs. Mike, but there are some mostly blank pages on WA 4 (Hastings v. Wright), WA 5 (McMorris v. Goldmark) and WA 8 (Reichart vs. Burner).

If you’ve never listened, Radio Open Source is a unique production in that it regularly brings on bloggers to talk about what they blog about and their show discussions are influenced by the comment threads on their own blog.

Plus, they are the first show I know of to ever say “Emmett O’Connell from Washington comments…” (during the show on Gerrymandering).

I don’t write about foreign affairs all that much, although the topic probably takes up nearly a third of my reading list. My interest was rekindled by this book, and it carried along by an entire category of blogs, including this one and this one.

My tepid nature toward expressing any opinion on foreign affairs can be pretty much summed up by my confusion over the Democratic response to the Bush Doctrine (Freedom everywhere I guess). Instead of calling bullshit and pointing out that he doesn’t believe it himself, we play it straight as if Bush really is working to advance freedom and argue for a sort of bubbly non-interventionist blah blah blah… Ugh.

For me, freedom everywhere is important. Should be the one point on foreign affairs that we don’t dicker on. I like the idea of an international democracy organization, and I don’t like the double speak on dictators that are our “friends” on one hand and dictators that stand up to us on the other.

What is the difference between Hosni Mubarak/Pervez Musharraf and Hugo Chávez? The first two like Bush’s foreign policy so their distaste for democracy is ok, while Chávez openly doesn’t like the President, so he’s an evil strong man.

Anyway, the point here is to point to another post that put me on this overlly long rant. Jon Perr has a series of really good points that I won’t try to repeat. This is just the first part, read the entire thing:

This week’s coup in Thailand highlighted once again the yawning chasm between rhetoric and reality when it comes to President Bush’s clarion call for the global expansion of democracy. The tanks rolled in Bangkok at virtually the same moment the President lectured the United Nations about people “from Beirut to Baghdad” making “the choice for freedom.” Yet the White House was silent regarding the overthrow of the democratically elected if corrupt Thaksin government.

It’s hardly the first time the global community heard crickets chirping from the Bush White House as democratic regimes were swept away on its watch.

Bush policy has been and continues to be at odds with the lofty rhetoric of democracy promotion. The American confrontation with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez stems in large part from Bush administration support for the 2002 coup that briefly removed him from power. Chavez may well be a thug and friend of Castro, but he was democratically elected, prompting 19 OAS member states to denounce the coup. But in Washington, press spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed Chavez for his overthrow and signaled tacit White House support. Following the collapse of the coup, Condi Rice could only mutter, “I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message that his people sent him that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people.” It is no wonder Senator Chris Dodd protested the Bush policy in Venezuela, worrying that “to stand silent while the illegal ouster of a government is occurring is deeply troubling and will have profound implications for hemispheric democracy.”

Carl Ballard of Washington State Political Report has launched his new blog, and it looks to be a good one:

Q: Do I know you from some other blog?

A: It’s possible. I used to write here. And like everyone else, I write on Kos regularly. And elsewhere with less frequency.

Q: What does EFFin’ Unsound mean?

A: Well the two biggest local right wing assholes (but I repeat myself) are the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and (Un)Sound Politics. But there are a lot of righties in Washington who are EFFin’ Unsound.

Back in 1995 when Dan Wood was shilling for R 48, the grandfather or I-933, the University of Washington came out with a study that pointed out how much that property rights referendum would cost. The 1995 study, which said the refendum similar to I-933 would cost between $3.8 to $11 billion a year, is usually credited with killing R 48.

Dan Wood is back with I-933 this year, and a couple of days ago he was worried about another UW study. Turns out the killer study came from OFM, but he did have time to send out this hyperventalating email:

WFB Demands Disclosure from University of Washington

The Washington Farm Bureau today filed a public records demand from the University of Washington regarding a “planned study” on Initiative 933.

We want them to come clean on who is behind the so-called “study,” who is directing the “study” and to disclose whatever connections there are between the University and the special interests that are funding the anti-I-933 “study.”

The study is to be paid for by the same environmental extremists that are backing the campaign against the Property Fairness Initiative. If true then why do these extremists have to turn to U-Dub to buy credibility and are public resources being used to conduct the study?

Because the University of Washington is a state agency, it is required to disclose public documents – on paper and in electronic form – under the state Public Records Act. (RCW 42.56) We expect an immediate answer from the University.

The Northwest Center for Livable Communities, a division of the University, is conducting the “study” on behalf of the Bullitt, Brainerd and Wilberforce Foundations along with others. These are the same foundations that funded a UW “study” released in 1995 when a similar measure – Referendum 48 — sought to address excessive regulations that treated property owners unfairly.

The University of Washington was embarrassed then and should be now!

In 1995 the respected Washington Institute for Policy Studies examined documents prepared by the University and Evergreen State College and declared that the “studies bordered on fraud.”

“There was no peer review…no ability to replicate their numbers or to independently verify their conclusions…and that the documents did not comply with basic academic standards…”

The authors of the 1995 study acknowledged in their background methodological statement that their estimates of takings costs…”were difficult to prepare due to data limitations, time constraints and the wide range of variables.” The authors themselves called the study “Mission Impossible.” Yet, environmental extremists used the “study” to deceive the public and ran advertisements before the University could stop them.

The Institute’s analysis of the so-called study went further, alleging that the study went beyond the collected data and that the six page document attributed to the University of Washington was pure analytical fabrication with two pages of rhetoric and conjecture without any supporting analysis.

In 1995 environmental extremists used statements from the “study” in advertisements opposing R-48. At that time the University demanded that they cease attributing the “study” to the University. In fact, state law prohibits state agencies (including universities) from taking a position for or against any ballot measure.

If the University releases a property rights study between now and the general election there would be no way to characterize it than as an effort to influence the outcome of a ballot measure.

Our opponents are using tired and worn-out ideas to attack I-933 at a time when citizen awareness of government abuses is at an all time high.

Looks like all the patriot gestures Lois will be making will be at home in Kitsap County, not in Olympia.

As much as I would like to have seen anti-Islamist Lois McMahan facing off against Derek Kilmer again, it is pretty sweet to see her lose in her own party’s primary. Jim Hines, though, will likely be a more difficult opponent for Kilmer. Hine may be just as conservative, but not as crazy as Lois.

I know it is still pretty early, but with King County still yet to report, I feel pretty safe saying that all three sitting Supreme Court Justices and both targeted Appeals Court judges (Mary Becker and Joel Penoyar) are going to win.

What does spending millions, $1.5 million on one alone, get you? Nothing so far. One race, between Justice Owens and Stephen Johnson, may yet go to a run off in November.

Despite this, I hope we still find a way to transition this debacle into public funding for at least judicial races. While I think all elections should be, at least in part, publically funded, judicial seats especially should have the protection from special interest money.

Judgeships, especially, should not be bought. And, this year they won’t

One of the things that I find sad is the holier than though grandstanding by Democrats and Republicans over the fate of our primary. Yes, the open primary is probably here to stay, for a bit. The blanket primary and the Top Two were always unconstitutional and the parties have every right to organize their nominations any way they want.

Doesn’t mean that dancing on the hurt feelings of thousands of Washington voters is the right thing to do.

This discussion over at Washblog is a good example of not doing this.

Andrew’s post last night, which inspired this post, is a good example of forgetting that more than 60 percent of Washington voters don’t like the current system.

What I had hoped for would be a broader discussion on how we vote and how exactly parties are relevant and important in today’s political world. People keep telling me that, and I too believe it, but it shouldn’t simply be something we say. We should worry about how parties are relevant.

How we vote, that we need to pick a ballot, does not instantly make the parties relevant.

How the parties act, whether they are of service to voters (for example) beyond brand names, make parties relevant.

Ever since Sinced Sliced Bread, I’m surprised that more projects to collect “good ideas,” especially for laws, haven’t cropped up. If you were a organization like People for Puget Sound or… geese what’s another one… well, another single issue organization, it would be cool to send out a letter to all your check writers and ask them to come up with the next great “idea” in your little slice of the world.

How to best clean up Puget Sound or best way to keep farms in business. But, from what I’ve seen, no one (in an organizational sense) has jumped on the Idea Train.

There are a few examples of broader efforts:

The first is totally self promoting, but I’m part of a loose group of bloggers who are trying to put together the “Washington Netroots Agenda,” a grassroots written collection of laws for (hopefully) the 2007 session.

We had a pretty good start, but in the last three or four weeks, things have pretty much tapered off.

Second is a group that has made a pretty good name for itself in the past several months, More Perfect is a wiki site that lets users rewrite things like the constitution, the bill of rights, and my favorite, Priorities of Government for Washington.

The Netroots Agenda has hooked up with More Perfect, by the way, on this page.

Scott Chacon, a former congressional candidate in California has launched thereoutabealaw.org, which seems to be very similar to the Netroots Agenda, but with a much broader scope.

One of the major differences is between the NA and TOBAL is Scott is looking for politicians or lawmakers (strange distinction now) to sponsor a few of the bills suggested in TOBAL, bring them to the front of public debate.

He also allows people to suggest changes to a bill, which the bill sponsors can keep if they want. Something I wish I was a cool enough coder to understand how he did.

If I was to find one point to all of these sites, it would be that the “sausage making process” that lawmakers imply we don’t want to be any part of, or even see, is actually the most important process. What gets traded out, what we can live without and what we won’t back down on in terms of our laws, is the most important conversation, politically.

Jon DeVore points out inaccurate and illegal robocalls are going out against Appeals Court Judge Penoyar, who deserves reelection. Especially over a partisan hack who has no experience as a judge.

From the TNT this morning:

A random test shows 85 percent of the Pierce County primary election ballots are being marked properly and will be counted for partisan races, Auditor Pat McCarthy said Tuesday.

The checks of 200 randomly selected ballots – made Monday at the request of state elections officials – showed 169 voters indicated a party choice by connecting the front and back of an arrow with a line.

Conversely, 31 voters, or 15 percent, did not choose a party. As a result, their choices in partisan races can’t be counted under state law. Of the 31 ballots that did not indicate a party choice, 19 were marked along straight party lines, 11 were marked for only nonpartisan races and issues, and one was left blank.

Why is 20 percent in Snohomish County bad, but 15 percent in Pierce ok?