EFFin’ Unsound

Post by Carl Ballard

I’m both positive that this is the craziest thing it’s possible for FW Con to ever write and that he’ll write something crazier fairly soon.

States May Engage in War
By Jonathan Gardner

From Article 1, section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Oh boy. I wonder what we’ll learn about a statement that states that are invaded or on the brink of invasion by another country don’t have to wait for Congress to declare an act of war, but otherwise war is the Federal government’s responsibility. That the states are otherwise barred from declaring war? Will it be a discussion of the aversion of many of the founders to a large peacetime standing army, so the states needed to pick up the slack? Will it perhaps be a call for Congress to declare wars before we get into them? No, silly, it’s saying Arizona should invade Mexico.

I had forgotten about this clause. It seems so natural that a state should have the right to deploy their troops to defend themselves even if there were inaction at the federal level.

Right. If it’s the 1790’s, and Congress won’t even hear about the invasion of, say, New Hampshire by the British in Canada for a few days, or is out of session and won’t be back for months, Concord should be able to mount a defense before there’s an actual act of war. Makes sense. It’s not particularly relevant in the United States in the early 21st century with a large standing army, instant communication, air travel, and a commander in chief role more willingly taken up by presidents than imagined by the founders.

What this means for the US is that the flood of immigrants moving north across Arizona are nothing short of an invasion. Were the invasion peaceful, it would be hard to argue that it is an act of war. However, because the people are armed and engaging in battles, it is obviously an act of war.

It is something short of an invasion. It’s criminal activity. The exception you cite is they are “actually invaded” not metaphorically invaded. Not had some criminal activity happen. Not there is some illegal immigration, and a certain number of them are criminals.

The other party of the war is not, necessarily, the Mexican government. It is probably not even the Mexican states south of the border. It is obviously those gangs and other organizations that are organizing, carrying arms into Arizona, and engaging in battles. These illegal immigrants have even captured territory–territory the US government has all but surrendered to the invading mobs.

They’ve captured territory? Gangland is a metaphor, not an actual place.

Arizona doesn’t need to wait for Barack Obama to act. The governor of Arizona could, at any time, mobilize the national guard and engage with force those invading the state. She can even go as far as to invade the territory south of her border to establish peace and order. If it were necessary, the state of Arizona could even be involved in an all-out war between itself and Mexico. All this without a word from congress or the president.

Holy shit, is that a fucking terrible idea. Even if you imagine that a clause prohibiting the states from going into war means that states can go to war, that’s really, really, really, really, really, really dumb.

Let’s be clear here. The reason why borders exist between two countries is to delineate what is our and what is theirs. By mutual pledge, we agree to respect each other’s borders and thus the rule of law within those borders, determined by the governments over the land across the borders.

And that’s why we’re allowed to police our borders. But, it’s also WHY WE CAN’T FUCKING JUST INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY, ASSHOLE. And times 1,000,000,000 why states can’t.

Once one of the states no longer respects the border, the two states revert to war (there being no law agreed to between the people) until they can come to a new agreement on where that border should be.

If Arizona unilaterally invades Mexico, it’s my recommendation that we give it back to Mexico.

While Arizona didn’t start the war, it could quite easily finish it.

The war isn’t happening. But if Arizona invaded Mexico that would be the fucking definition of starting a motherfucking war.

Post by Carl Ballard

So the other night I was trying to explain to someone at Drinking Liberally what it Effin’ Unsound is, and after giving the standard spiel (”It’s a local metacommentary blog looking at the right wing and mainstream media, with dick jokes”) I tried to list some blogs we make fun of here, and the person I was explaining it to didn’t know any of them. No Sound Politics, no Federal Way Conservative. A nice world to live in, for sure. But when I mentioned the Discovery Institute has a blog, oh, she ranted about them. But then I realized I hadn’t made fun of them in a while. Fortunately, Bruce Chapman is still a crazy asshole, so yay, something to make fun of.

There are still cars zipping around America’s bluer neighborhoods with bumper strips from way back in 2003: “No War for Oil.”

The fact that we’re still in that war would cause a normal person more concern than a bumper sticker’s hypothetical existence.

That was the Iraq war, of course. There is no need to belabor the memories of the marches, the snide TV and radio commentaries, the alternative media fits about the supposed conspiracy. The idea that George W. Bush and his evil buddy, Dick Cheney, were sending American boys to die for oil was simply taken as a proven truth.

Dick Cheney’s policy role, I guess was simply Bush’s pal. He didn’t take the lead in selling the war or take part in a task force that was looking at how to get the oil form Iraq (among other things). They were just buddies. Why are you picking on someone’s buddy? Jeez?

Only now, seven years later, as US combat troops leave Iraq, is oil production in Iraq finally back to its pre-war levels of production of 2.5 million barrels a day and easing upwards. Electricity production is doing better, but not great.

And I guess no oil company has turned a profit in that time.

And the US oil companies that benefitted [sic]? Well, Exxon is there, but the biggest players are the Chinese. Does anyone remember the Chinese sending any troops to Iraq? Or the Russians?

Look, if you ignore the oil companies that are in Iraq, then you’re left with the fact that no oil companies are in Iraq. QED.

Hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars have been spent on the Iraq war. By no conceivable accounting will anyone in the U.S. get that much back in Iraqi oil revenue–ever.

Except the oil companies mentioned above. I know it’s shocking that big oil and the American people sometimes have different interests, but there you go.

The Iraqis, meanwhile, do have oil as their big economic hope. The country’s reserves are nearly those of Saudi Arabia and already supply 90 percent of government revenue. The big danger, simultaneously, is that oil will corrupt a country already steeped in traditions of corruption.

Sure most of this post is about how we’ve stifled Iraq’s oil production for a decade, but to conclude, Iraq’s oil is their best hope.

But it is long past time for those “No War for Oil” bumper strips to come off, don’t you think?

Maybe when the war is actually over.

Post by Carl

I wrote up most of a piece on this Joni Balter column (that Erica C. Barnett already wrote about) and then Firefox crashed. Normally when that happens, it saves it, but for whatever reason it didn’t this time. So enjoy this piece, somewhat more stale and somewhat more disjointed than I would have liked it to be.

Over the years, Seattle has acquired a variety of nicknames. Queen City. Rain City. Jet City. And if Mayor Mike McGinn gets his way, Seattle also will be known as the Motor-less City.

It’s funny because it’s true: improving bike and pedestrian access will make it impossible to drive.

Or something like that.

This was a whole paragraph. From someone who is paid to write. And it isn’t even a transition to the next paragraph.

The bicycle lobby helped elect the mayor and now it wants significant bike striping all over town in return.

This is the only lobby that’s true for.

The question of whether this group of citizens can impose their will on the rest of the place will be answered in the next year or so.

Impose their will on the rest of us means have a vote.

The City Council is pondering creation of a transportation taxing district. After a fair amount of Seattle process, the city would ask that reliable and generous Seattle ATM, the taxpayers, to pay higher property or sales taxes or increased vehicle licensing fees to produce millions of dollars a year for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

That reliable ATM that rejected paying for stadiums and the latte tax. I love how she’s coming to the taxpayer’s defense by saying they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on spending money to make it easier to bike and walk around the city.

The council can create the taxing district with a simple council vote — and its creation enables the collecting of new taxes. Then, as soon as next summer or fall, bike and pedestrian groups would be expected to help sell the plan to voters, who must approve most of the taxes.

So, the voters get to decide. Seems fair, if a bit too Western-lets-vote-on-everything for my tastes.

At the depth of a stubborn recession, with pressing civic needs ranging from education to public safety, is this really the top priority? Or do these powerful interest groups merely have the city’s ear?

I love how a column about special interests in the Mayor’s office includes how bike groups are awful but doesn’t mention Vulcan. Because a somewhat different pattern of paint on a few city streets and more sidewalks are the scariest influence imaginable at City Hall.

As an avid runner, and occasional biker, I bear no deep-seated opposition to more recreational or commuter space for each and every group. At least theoretically. As a taxpayer, I say hold your spandex bike tights on a minute.

Do you believe she’s ever ran or biked to work? Me either.

In 2011 Seattle’s Families and Education Levy that supports public-school students comes up for renewal. McGinn flirts with the idea of more public investment in light rail in several locations. And this fall, the big thinkers at King County propose a sales tax increase for public safety. The Legislature patched its leaky budget with a slew of taxes on candy, bottled water, beer and soda pop.

Well the Families and Education Levy is tax money that we’re already paying. Those other things we’ll have to figure out or not over elections a year apart. And no mention that the sales tax will go down or the B&O tax will shrink if 1098 passes.

Have a headache?

No

You will.

No, I won’t.

Seattle and King County are oh so adept at sending spending requests to the ballot but pathetic at deciding which money measures to move forward and which to put on hold until the ravaged economy improves.

The taxpayers still want things, so they generally support those tax increases.

If you pose the question to voters, do you prefer a sidewalk in a neighborhood or a police officer downtown, says one wise business leader, the choice just might be public safety.

That’s why people often say they’d rather have higher taxes than chose between either.

But that’s not how it works. Each item is put forward as the absolute most important thing for that moment. And why not? The generous voters of Seattle usually say yes

But they do say no to ending sentences with a period. Don’t you have a copy editor?

Keep in mind, the bike and pedestrian lobbies, whose efforts began before the arrival of McGinn, are already getting improvements that infuriate some motorists — oops, motorists, swear word, I know. Nickerson Street east-west between the Ballard and Fremont bridges is on a “road diet” that provides increased safety, more bicycle lanes and fewer car lanes.

Were you drunk when you wrote this? Who the fuck advised you to write in the style of angry drunk?

Safety advocates also fought to change the configuration on Northeast 125th Street — again more bike space, fewer car lanes and enhanced safety.

Are you sure it isn’t safety that you think is a swear word? Anyway, I’m sure the rest of this article will mention if those road diets were effective or not.

Increasingly, cars are being shoved aside, as evidenced by efforts to jack up commercial parking rates, the constant plea for more light rail and significant transfer of asphalt to bike lanes.

Seriously, looking out my apartment right now (toward the end of rush hour), there’s only a half full parking lot, street parking taken mostly up, and 4 lanes (2 each way) that are pretty full. Obviously, no cars anywhere in Seattle. Damn you McGinn for taking all the cars away!

Had Seattle elected leaders with a better business sense or a more rational view of the affordability or lack of it of living in the city, things might be different. But every new bike lane can make a road less appealing to a car or a truck. Bicycles prevail, freight mobility takes a sorry hike.

Making sure people have an alternative to driving is cheaper for them, and gets cars off the road so freight doesn’t have to compete with as many single occupancy vehicles. I guess a dollar spent on taxes is awful, but a dollar spent on maintaining your car is free.

This is all more complicated than it sounds. A tax package might also include money for general road maintenance, transit, money to rebuild the sea wall and a host of other, perhaps worthy endeavors.

Seattle voters aren’t going to support more roads. I’m sorry.

The issue is not the worthiness of any project but the ability to pay for it all. Seattle voters have to decide what kind of city they want: one with affordable taxes and reasonable accommodation for business and jobs, or a bike and pedestrian haven backed by plenty of public spending. And that means generous and frequent donations from Seattleites who may not spend umpteen hours a week on two wheels.

Because bikes cost the city a lot more than roads. Der. Also, people who ride bikes don’t pay taxes, so they don’t support your driving.

Post by Carl Ballard

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all of the Blethen dailys in the state have had editorials recently bashing unions. Because otherwise, it’s just sock puppetry.

Post by Carl Ballard

In the Catholic Northwest Progress (the official newspaper for the Seattle Archdiocese), Sister Mary Ann Walsh has a column up about gay marriage. I feel a little uncomfortable making fun of a nun, but oh well.

‘The law is a ass’

So spoke Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. The humorous jab at lawyers hit home Aug. 4, when federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 that limited marriage to one man and one woman.

Next time someone complains that this blog swears too much, I’ll point them to this piece where I manage to swear less than a nun.

The judge’s decision called California voters “irrational,” which suggests that their decision was absurd. What’s really absurd is the judge’s dismissal of marriage between a man and a woman as if it were some kookie idea.

He didn’t dismiss a single marriage between a man and a woman.

What’s irrational is ignoring the will of the people with real life experience of marriage, who have voted down gay marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States whenever legalization of gay marriage has been put to a vote. These votes have not occurred in pockets of conservatism. Fourteen years ago the U.S. House of Representatives voted 342-67, and the Senate voted 85-14, to accept the traditional definition of marriage.

While I’m unmarried, I can’t tell you how amusing it is that a woman who has literally taken a vow of chastity is talking about people’s real life experience with marriage. Anyway, the leader of the House that passed it was serial adulterer-divorcee Newt Gingrich, and the person who signed it into law was Bill Clinton. So you know they defended marriage.

Anti-religious position
What is even more irrational is the judge’s dismissal of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of freedom for religion with these damning words: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

That does what to freedom of religion now? Somehow you’ve read a prohibition against any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as meaning that judges have to agree with Church dogma? With the opinions of religious people?

Placing religion and government at odds amounts to Constitutional irrationality. It is no small irony that his anti-religious position is enshrined in a ruling deemed to oppose bigotry.

Government must protect people’s rights. If that means that it’s at odds with some people’s religion, so be it. If religion says you can’t take the Lord’s name in vain, and government guarantees free speech, I’m sorry, but government and religion will be at odds, and government will be right. His ruling, however, was neither anti- nor pro- religion.

In his decision Judge Walker backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the “Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.” The fact is the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, not something intrinsically sinful. The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this condition.

Awesome.

The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman. At the same time the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.

Look, we don’t think you should beat up gay people, therefore, our opposition to letting them get married isn’t bigotry. And we don’t think being gay is a sin, we think acting gay is a sin. Why do you hate religion, judge? So full of hate.

Bigotry of religion?
The Catholic Church also holds that marriage is a unique institution with a privileged place because it is foundational to the good of society. The church is not alone in asserting that a family headed by a mother and a father is the optimal place in which to raise a child.

You’re wrong. That’s a perfectly good environment to raise a child, but there are plenty of other environments just as good. Loving, caring parents of wanted children seem to be the best option.

Judge Walker begs to differ, and says that research supporting the contrary view “is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.” If there is a statement open to debate, that’s it.

But his point was that it wasn’t provided by the people seeking to keep the ban in place.

Judge Walker devoted three pages of his decision making a case for the bigotry of religion, an insult to the tens of millions of religious people in the nation. This is not to deny that some people act despicably and portray their bigotry against gays as religious expression.

Like when they say God doesn’t want loving couples to get married.

So too do those who spew anti-immigrant and anti-woman sentiments. They are an unfortunate result of our human condition that lets the morally weak, even morally decrepit, walk among us. Bigotry is unfortunate, but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution isn’t upended in this case.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, was spot on when he declared that “It is simply unimaginable that the court could claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”

No court did that.

On Aug. 4, 2010, Judge Walker proved Dickens right. The law is a ass.

Letting loving couples get married and ending a form of discrimination is not so bad as you think it is.

Post by Carl Ballard

I feel like I’ve been churning out refutations to The Seattle Times’ dumbass antitax nonsense for ever. And while I’m not sure what more there is to say, as long as they keep writing these editorials, I feel like it’s my job to keep calling them assholes.

FEW Seattleites doubt the need for more investment in transportation in many areas of the city. But City Council talk of a new transportation taxing district that could prompt a slew of tax requests elicits one response: Are you kidding?

Look assholes, there are plenty of responses. A sane one would be a cost benefit analysis. Since I haven’t done anything approaching that, I’ll refrain from the merits, and cut most of the rest of this.

“What I am hearing from Lake City to Fauntleroy is that voters will pay more for sidewalks, crosswalks and safety improvement,” said Rasmussen. He added that he understood, “We also have to prioritize and we have to put some projects on hold.”

The emphasis should be on prioritizing and delaying some projects. We understand retail sales, real-estate excise and gas-tax revenues are coming in slower than expected. We also understand a growing city has a long list of needs.

Do you? Because it seems like the only need you understand the city has is the need to cut your taxes.

But this is not the time to lump so many expensive endeavors into a basket and create a new transportation district. The city is planning to raise commercial parking taxes to continue planning and design of the sea wall replacement.

When is the time? I can’t recall you demanding tax increases in a time of plenty so that when the downturn hit, we could be prepared. And I sure as hell don’t think you’ll be demanding tax increases when the economy improves.

The sea wall is a necessity, but the parking tax may be harmful to economic recovery.

There is no economic damage to the city if the seawall fails.

Slow down. Seattle has done far less budget cutting and prioritizing than either the state or King County. Part of that is a more-sober attitude toward taxes.

They have far less budget cutting than the rest of the state or King County because they ignore your dumbass pronouncements on taxes and spending.

Post by Carl Ballard

Ken Hutcherson emails me yet another missive against gay people.

In June I bought a full page ad in our local gay newspaper during gay pride week to bring attention to a lifestyle that is protected even though proven to be dangerous and unhealthy. If something is deemed unhealthy, it does not take a public vote before school boards, cities, the federal government, and many parents take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate the access to that danger.

So the collection plate is going to pay for ads in a “gay newspaper” presumably when their ad rates are the highest. Well OK then.

How many times have you heard the unfairness, hatred, and the mistreatment of trans fats? It is thought that trans fats may be unhealthy along with sugar and salt. And the list of unhealthy food choices grows daily. The Centers For Disease Control has said and proven that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and dangerous to those who participate in it. I will prove that point a little later in this article and the evidence cannot be argued. Ignored, yes, but not debated.

Salts and trans fats aren’t human beings. I can’t believe I have to explain this.

Where is the public outcry when this dangerous lifestyle choice is promoted by schools, cities, states, courts, and the federal government? Where is the evidence that we care about homosexuals when a judge overturns the decision of seven million voters who passed Proposition 8, and is applauded for encouraging many to marry while living in this hurtful lifestyle? We stand strong on the dangerous (albeit highly debatable) of certain foods that we suspect might be injurious to our health, but turn a blind eye to homosexuality which inarguably kills its participants.

(a) I dare any of you to diagram that last sentence. (b) Is being in the closet a healthy lifestyle choice? (c) I don’t care how many million voters passed Prop 8, it’s still immoral.

The National Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN took place at schools across the country again in April. According to GLSEN’S website, “On the National Day of Silence hundreds of thousands of students nationwide take a vow of silence to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and even harassment in their schools.” In other words, the purpose of the day is to stand in solidarity with homosexual victims.

Yes. Stand in solidarity with victims of bullying and harassment. You know, like any sane person would.

The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay’ gene. Evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others. Why do cities, states, and our federal government help these victims by celebrating with them in gay pride events, or why do schools celebrate an entire day during The National Day Of Silence? For those who are so health conscience, if you are truly interested in removing those things that are dangerous to society, you need to examine the question of why the deadly homosexual lifestyle is protected.

The right reverend would I guess prefer that schools promote bullying gay people. Punch someone who looks a little swishy in the face day perhaps.* And cities should have a gay shame week. You know, for health.

Why is the lie about the existence of the gay gene and the falsehood that homosexuals are not able to change because they were born that way so widely promoted? Think about this common sense scenario: If a man ever got pregnant, could anyone say from that day forward that it is impossible for men to get pregnant? The answer is a resounding “no.” You would never again be able to say it is impossible. Well using the same logic, if one homosexual ever changed and got out of that lifestyle can the statement be made that it is impossible for homosexuals to change? The answer is again a resounding “no!” You would never again be able to say it is impossible. We know of many homosexuals, and I am friends with many, who have gotten out of the homosexual lifestyle by one decision – to stop. One of the most famous ones is the breakup of Ellen Degeneres and Ann Heche. Ann broke it off with Ellen and married a man and is living a heterosexual lifestyle at this very moment. I am black, was born black, and will die black, I assure you of that. I can’t even take a “don’t ask and don’t tell policy” because it is obvious who I am. I have never met an ex-black man, (even Michael Jackson could not accomplish that), but I have met countless ex-homosexuals who are living a victorious heterosexual life. Why do we allow the lie to continue to be perpetrated and why do we keep encouraging homosexuals to stay in this deadly lifestyle?

I know there’s a lot there (oh my and how). But I’m going to stay with celebrity gossip. Honestly, who do you think seems more grounded and normal, Ann Heche or Ellen Degeneres? Because by his standards, I think that means we should all be lesbians.

I have read the Constitution and cannot find anywhere that it protects same sex marriage. If the Constitution does not protect same sex marriage then how can a judge in California declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional? It is a perversion of the Constitution to give protection to a group that can move in and out of that group just by making a conscious decision

I bet the judge who wrote that decision has never read the Constitution.

According to the Centers For Disease Control website as of June 12, 2010:

Hey, if you’ve slogged this far, congrats. This is the part I wanted to talk about. I think this is where the ad he mentioned above starts, but I’m not really sure. In any event, last time we were here he cited some of the same stats, but couldn’t cite anything from earlier than 1992, and mostly it was from the mid 1980’s. Now he claims it’s the CDC and this year. I can’t find many of these referenced on the CDC website with a cursory Google search. I won’t say Pastor Hutch is lying (for Jesus) but I would put money on it. Another possibility is he just means it for the first statistic; in that case, this was just poorly written, as was the paragraph at the end of the stats.

The number one risk factor for contracting HIV/AIDS
is and always has been homosexual sex.

This one was on the CDC website, so maybe it just refers to this and the rest is supposed to be free-floating? In any event, if you click through the link, you’ll find that in 2008 7,112 women contracted HIV/AIDS through heterosexual contact, and the number for lesbians is so vanishingly small that there isn’t a category. By Pastor Hutch logic, that means women should all be lesbians.

56,000 new cases of HIV/Aids are diagnosed each year in the US

I think a better way to prevent that than hating gay people is condom use.

As of 2006, there were one million people living with HIV/AIDS, up 11% from 2003

Yay for AIDS drugs letting people live longer.

Homosexual/bisexual individuals are seven times
more likely to contemplate or commit suicide

Could not find this on the CDC website, but he did have a different suicide stat in his previous ad. In any event bullying people remains a bad way to prevent them from committing suicide.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals

Could not find this on the CDC website, but he mentioned a stat from 1978 in his previous ad.

Nearly one half of practicing homosexuals admit to 500 or more sex partners and
nearly one third admit to 1,000 or more sex partners in a lifetime.

Could not find this on the CDC website, but he has mentioned it in the past as a statistic from pre AIDS, and so obviously pre AIDS education. In any event, who cares?

Individuals who have ever engaged in homosexual sex
are prohibited from donating blood

I lived in England for too long during mad cow, so I can’t give blood. In any event, if you have heterosexual sex with a prostitute with AIDS, you have to wait a year before you can give blood. So um, good logic.

Legislators around the country are considering banning sugar and fatty foods in schools, removing salt and butter from restaurants, and want to control what temperature you can have in your own homes [what? - Carl], because they fear the potential of health problems. Perhaps they should consider banning the promotion of a lifestyle that the Centers For Disease Control has determined actually causes HIV/AIDS. On the Day of Silence, an entire school day is set aside to ensure every young, impressionable student is exposed to homosexuality. Does this really make sense to you?

If it stops some bullying, yes.

As parents, school board members, cities, and judges, why are we excited about promoting this lifestyle? If any other lifestyle produced the previously quoted statistics, would we be having a day to celebrate it?

That is an odd list of people.

The most important reason this lifestyle is such a concern is because it keeps those living the life from accepting the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I am so very concerned about our nation because God will turn a nation over to judgment for sexual sin. With the recent court decision in California and with our nation embracing and celebrating this dangerous and unnatural lifestyle, we are courting disaster. I think we are close to judgment my friends and I love this nation too much to stay silent.

No, one of the main barriers of gay people being Christian is intolerant Christians. It’s a lot easier to chose a different religion (or none at all) than to give up on sex, or sex with people you are attracted to.

Oh, by the way, God wants His rainbow back!

You are a man obsessed with rainbows

(more…)

Post by Carl Ballard

I think it’s important for news orgs like the Seattle Times, to compile lists of who voted for what. So I’m not arguing against them doing it. However their (and in this blog post Kate Riley’s) focus on taxes to the exclusion of other things gives a distorted view.

This year, a majority of the state Legislature voted to suspend Initiative 960. Enacted in 2007, the law required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to raise taxes and that, when lawmakers vote to raise taxes, their votes are included int eh [sic, and this was posted 3 days ago, so far sans editing- Carl] voters’ pamphlet.

If their opponent wants to bring it up, it will still make it into the voter’s pamphlet.

The suspension of I-960 paved the way for the Legislature to approve tax increases of about $800 million without a supermajority and the transparency voters desired.

I read my voter’s pamphlet every year, and I swear to baby Jesus Christ on the Cross (so you know it’s serious) that I’ve never even noticed it. In any event, I doubt Riley would want a requirement for what services were cut (although this year, that would probably expand the voter’s pamphlet by quite a bit).

This chart reveals how lawmakers in King and Snohomish County voted on final passage of the I-960 repeal and the two largest tax measures.

Great. I look forward to the one about who voted to cut education. And the one for who voted to cut basic health. And the one about who voted to cut what transit projects. Oh, wait? Only one on taxes huh?

What do you think?

I think this is meant not to inform readers of the overall nature of the decisions faced by the legislature last year, but to present a skewed piece of it in keeping with the Times’ biases.

Post by Carl Ballard

It took me about half of this piece (Aug 4) by Lou Guzzo to be sure he wasn’t talking about Rock ‘N Roll.

Prosecutor Should Help Local Police Wipe Out Rock Houses

Because nobody will prosecute crack houses in King County.

Until recently, cocaine rock houses in residential neighborhoods were confined to Los Angeles and New York. But no longer. Right here in Seattle and King County, police have been raiding rock houses around the clock in an effort to put an end to the newest American plague.

Newest. OK, then.

The raids alone won’t clean up the death-dealing cocaine trade. I can’t fault the police for their raiding parties. But they need new tactics and a lot of outside help. They need the cooperation of residents in the neighborhoods cursed by the rock houses. All city and county police details should be coordinating information and actions, NOT leaving everything to police raiders.

The rest of this article is about encouraging treatment. Psych! It’s about more yelling.

That means detectives, narcotics units, the officer on the beat, and police administrations. But most of all, the political and legal arms of the cities and county have not done their job. That means the mayors, county executive, and particularly the county prosecutor. Police have complained that despite many raids and arrests, the cocaine pushers quickly get out on bail to repeat their crime — or they aren’t charged at all.

So, the raids don’t work. Let’s double down on them. Also, I’m not the drug war guy on this blog, but it seems to me crack dealing does get prosecuted in King County.

Police officials have said that all they need to help win the battle is for the prosecutor to carry one important test case through to a conviction and jail sentence. I hope the residents of Seattle and all of King County take the hint. And call or write the authorities until they get cooperative action to eliminate the rock houses.

Well when one person gets convicted for dealing crack the problem will go away. Why won’t King County prosecutors listen to this?

Post by Carl

Over at Chicken Wing, the call goes out: Dino Rossi, you must debate with crazy people.

In America, where the right to free speech is codified in the First Amendment of our Constitution and revered by anyone who loves freedom, the art and magic of great debates are spangled throughout the annals of American History.

Other than I don’t think you know what spangled means, OK so far. I say this as one of the few Democrats who will probably be calling for more debates between Patty Murray and Dino Rossi (or, um, whoever) when we get closer to the general.

From Congressional debates on the seminal issues of the times, to the sometimes raucous and rowdy debates between candidates opposing one another it can be truly thrilling to watch minds and viewpoints collide and spar for supremacy. Through the conflict of divergent opinions, choices will be made which will effect political change, get legislation passed or give voters the information they need to see that worthy candidates are elected who truly reflect the values and principles of the American people.

OK Right. But, your candidates don’t reflect the values of the American People.

Indeed, it is the foundation of a Free Republic that spirited debate is not stifled. That it be encouraged and welcomed as the hallmark of a healthy self-governing system. It is a great test of a candidate to see if they have the skill and mettle to be a convincing debater, before the candidate is elected to serve as a legislator, where their abilities will be vital in their work as a representative of the people.

Why is “Free Republic” capitalized? Are we talking about the website? But yes, other than the odd punctuation and grammar choices, so far I don’t disagree with anything in this post. Now everybody board the train to Crazyville.

But in these dark times, there exist politicians with other agendas besides getting into government to give the people of the United States fair, honest and just representation. There are many running for office that are the tools of corrupt corporatism or only interested in the exercise of power for personal gain. It has become commonplace for career politicians to use political office to grant favors and then, when they leave office, to reap the benefits. They receive vast amounts of money from PACs, parties and special interests.

This is apparently a new feature of the republic. If only there were more debates, we would never have corruption. This is a fact.

It is in this climate, where the very life of the Republic hangs in the balance, that we in the State of Washington must decide who WE want in power. We can choose those who welcome free debate, who with the courage of their convictions wish to engage and confront one another exercising their valor, or those who wish to hide in the shadows, exhibiting cowardliness and fear, hoping to skirt by with name recognition, afraid to allow themselves into the light, hoping to hide from the people their nature, playing political games to win, rather than fearlessly stating who they are and what they believe in to all challengers.

The very life of the, um, capital “R” Republic hangs in the balance of the answer to this question: Will Dino debate dumb asses? I don’t think it benefits him going on stage with them, so no, he probably won’t. And yet, our proud nation survives.

It is time for the voters to decide if they want those that hide and conceal, or those who come with open hands, open minds and open hearts. You can decide if would like to see the end of free debate, or the beginning of a return to a better age, when candidates who ran from debate were ridiculed and reviled, not rewarded for their sly gamesmanship with election to high office.

Yes, it’s time for Republicans to decide: do you want to go with the cowardly asshole or one of the crazies? There needs to be more debate!

Clint Didier and Paul Akers have thrown down the gauntlet. We shall watch with great attention how Rossi responds.

But they’re not really debating each other as much as running joint ads. So perhaps all three should get in on the fun. Here’s the script as I see it:

Rossi: Hi, I’m Dino Rossi, I lost a couple statewide elections and I approved this ad along with these mooks.

Didier: I’m Clint Didier. I played football a while ago. I also approved this ad.

Akers: I’m Paul Akers. I also approved this ad.

Rossi: I hate abortion, but I guess in theory rape victims can get one. Although I don’t think that will actually come up when I’m in the Senate.

Akers and Didier at the same time: Liberal!

Didier: I think Eastern Washington is subsidizing Western Washington because dams do more than just provide for my farm. I also take farm subsidies. I may have taken a hit or two to the head when I played football. Basically I figure if I tell enough city folks to go fuck themselves, I think I can win the Senate.

Akers: I ran a business you’ve never heard of, I think. I’d have to look it up. Anyway, I hate the government, so I should definitely be a part of it.