Washblog - Diaries

Washington's Bishops: Repealing Domestic Partnerships is "Justified Discrimination"

Lurleen — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:42:31 PDT

The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), which "represents the Catholic Bishops of the State of Washington on issues of public policy", has posted a link to this notice on the main page of their website (hyperlinks are mine).

Repealing Domestic Partner Benefits
Passed by the 2009 Legislature, SSB 5688 granted all of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples in Washington State. � �Referendum 71 seeks to overturn SSB 5688, known as the "all but marriage" law...
WSCC opposed SSB 5688 because proponents publically (sic) stated that this legislation was intended to extend existing marriage rights to same-sex couples as a precursor to legalizing gay marriage in Washington State. �While opposing all unjust discrimination against any individual, WSCC upholds marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which is the foundation of our civil society.

Opposing "unjust discrimination" implies that some discrimination is justified, that it can be just to discriminate. �According to the bishops of Washington, it is just to destabilize and undermine LGBT families. �The bishops believe it just to disadvantage children by preventing their LGBT parents from protecting them to the fullest extent of the law via domestic partnerships or marriage.

How do these people have the nerve to show their faces in public after spouting such anti-family nastiness?

Unlike the WSCC's 2006 statement for justified discrimination, the current statement is unsigned. �This indicates two things. �First, that while the bishops advocate for discrimination against LGBT families they, like most of their anti-equality colleagues, see this particular referendum as a non-starter and are thus giving it lip service but no solid backing. �Indeed, Chief of Staff Siler of the Yakima Diocese recently stated that "our resources are limited, and we think the more important issue will be the question of gay marriage". �(Curious statement, given that his bosses at WSCC talk as if the current battle over domestic partnership law is about marriage.) �The second thing indicated by the lack of the bishops' signatures on the 2009 statement is that the entire WSCC faculty approves the message. �The faculty are:


Alexander J. Brunett, Archbishop of Seattle & Chair of the WSCC Board of Directors	Carlos A. Sevilla, Bishop of Yakima	William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane	Eusebio Elizondo, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle	Joseph J. Tyson, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle

Peter Gillette is the first Roman Catholic cleric in Washington reported to circulate the instrument of justified discrimination in his church. �If you hear of others, drop a note in the comments.

By the way, is Joseph Backholm of the local Focus on the Family affiliate a crypto-Catholic? �He riffed on the "justified discrimination" theme numerous times during legislative hearings on the domestic partnership expansion bill, as well as included it in his "citizens guide" to Referendum 71.

Q: Isn't it bad to discriminate?
A: No. �Discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival. �In fact, the inability to rationally discriminate (or exercise discretion) is one of the ways psychologists diagnose mental illness.

Translation: if you don't discriminate, you're mentally ill.

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight to defeat Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Out West, Health Reform Advocates Send a Message to Senators

Alex Thurston — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:02:06 PDT

As Health Care for America Now's report on affordability issues in the health system shows, Americans in every state face exploding health care costs. That's one reason why strong majorities of Americans, in poll after poll, say they want a strong public option. Americans all over the country are speaking out, but the past week has seen major pressure on elected officials from out West.

Reform advocates demonstrated in Las Vegas this weekend. Last week, California Senator Dianne Feinstein faced strong pushback from grassroots groups in response to her skepticism that the Senate will support a public option. The Western state where grassroots pressure is most likely to move a skeptical Democrat, though, is Washington. A local outlet, The Columbian, says Washington's congressional delegation "has muscle to flex over health care":

Washington's top elected officials -- Gov. Chris Gregoire and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell -- have key roles in the national debate. Gregoire was among five governors who met with President Obama Wednesday to discuss the states' perspective on health care reform. She said later that she advocated "a hard look" at a government-run plan, but suggested that it could be run by the individual states -- with the federal government footing the bill. Cantwell and Murray serve on the two committees that are writing the Senate bill. Both will be in the state this week to talk health care with constituents. Though Rep. Brian Baird does not serve on any House health care committee, he has a long-standing interest in the issue. In 2007, he introduced legislation that would de-link health coverage from employment and provide private health insurance coverage for every uninsured American. All have offered measured support for creation of a government-run "public option" that would compete with private insurance plans, by far the most contentious issue in the health care debate. Both Cantwell and Baird have come under fire from advocates of a public option for failing to take a stronger stand.

One example of the fire directed at Sen. Cantwell by Washingtonians is this piece in Seattle's The Stranger, bluntly titled "What's Up with Maria Cantwell?" Author Eli Sanders writes,

Seattle congressman Jim McDermott supports it. Washington senator Patty Murray wants it. So does President Barack Obama. So does the often conservative Seattle Times editorial page. So do 72 percent of Americans, according to a recent poll. So what's going on with Washington's junior senator, Maria Cantwell? Why doesn't she want Congress to include a public option--a new government-run health-care plan that will be available to everyone and will compete with private insurance companies to bring down costs--in its health-care-reform package? "I don't think that's something we can get through the United States Senate," Cantwell told KUOW on June 22. It's an odd bit of circular logic: Because Cantwell can't yet count enough votes to pass the public option, she won't add her vote in favor of the public option--which, of course, makes it even harder to find enough votes to pass the public option.

Sanders goes on to share his frustration - and the frustration of a Washington small business owner he interviewed - at Cantwell's lack of clarity on her positions regarding a public plan or various proposed compromises. For one more Washingtonian voice on health reform, I looked up the Seattle Times editorial that Sanders references. This line stood out to me:

After so many false starts and clever ads from opponents of health-care reform, the public is serious about change. Politicians notice.

Judging from the diversity and seriousness of the voices in Washington pushing for meaningful reform, if Cantwell hasn't yet noticed the hunger Washingtonians have for real change then she will soon. With nearly three-quarters of a million people in Washington uninsured, nearly one in ten unemployed, and health premiums rising over five times faster than median earnings in the state, it's clear Cantwell's constituents are suffering under the current system. With Murray and others in Washington's delegation on board for real reform, it's also clear that Cantwell will have plenty of company if she joins the ranks of reformers. Here's hoping she'll put a finger to the wind and feel the change that's taking place in Washington, in the West, and across the entire United States.

United for single payer

eridani — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:36:38 PDT

On Wednesday night, June 25, United for Single Payer, got off to a great start. �Thanks to the generosity of meeting participants, our fund raiser met its goal of raising $4,000 that evening. �We want to thank each and every one of you who contributed.

http://www.pnhpwesternwashington.org/united_for_single_payer/united_for_single_payer_index.html

This will be transferred to http://www.unitedforsinglepayer.org within a day or so.

Now we need your help so we can meet Goal #2: To raise $6,000 more for a total of $10,000 by 5 pm on July 8. �If we meet that goal, a generous donor has offered to donate an additional $1,000, to make a grand total of $11,000 raised.

We request that you ask your organization and every single payer advocate you know to contribute. �We need funds to pay for ads, events, signs, rallies or other actions voted on at our weekly meetings.

United for Single Payer is already on the move! �Our first event is taking place this Sunday at the Seattle Gay Pride Parade. �Please see the event description below this e-mail.

Here is how to contribute:

Health Care for All - Washington has established a fund for United for Single Payer.
Make a check payable to Health Care for All - Washington. �At the bottom of the check write: �United for Single Payer. Please mail your check to:

United for Single Payer
Health Care for All - Washington
P.O. Box 30506
Seattle WA 98113-0506

On request, receipts will be provided for all contributions indicating that they are for the use of the Single Payer Coalition fund. �

Ken Fabert, Chair
Fund Raising Committee

-------------

United for Single Payer
UNITED FOR SINGLE PAYER ACTION

WHERE: Seattle Gay Pride Parade Grounds
DATE: Sunday, June 28th
MEETING TIME/ PLACE: �10:45 am at 4th and Denny
WEAR: White T shirt; lab coat; scrubs
BRING: Backing for two sided sign if you have a preference. Approx 11 x 22 � � � � � � example = PRIDE IN SINGLE PAYER
OTHER INFORMATION:
1) Please bring / know your three single payer 'talking' points so you are well prepared �
� � to dialogue with folks about single payer. This crowd will be sympathetic �
� � to our cause but they will still benefit from education.
2) We will have a table with a sign up so attendees can get on board for future �
� � �single payer events.
3) We will encourage attendees to contact their congressional representatives

Shoreline public forum on health care

Tuesday, June 30th, 7PM

What Will The Referendum 71 Team Do With Your Signature?

Lurleen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:23:31 PDT

An important question has been left unasked in all the hullabaloo surrounding the renegade WhoSigned.org. �Namely, if the anti-family, anti-child forces behind Referendum 71 fail to gather enough signatures to submit it to the Secretary of State, what happens to the names, addresses and e-mails of people who signed the petition (the petition asks for e-mails even though they're not legally required)?

By law, referendum backers can do whatever they want with them. �Including sell them.

Gary Randall is on record admitting that data from failed petitions go right into the Faith & Freedom Network's database and are later swapped with other organizations or used in-house for fundraising and other solicitations. �Such lists are so valuable to a foundering organization like his that in 2006 he and then-ally Pastor Joe Fuiten got into a public argument¹ with Tim Eyman over the control of petitions from their failed effort to repeal the gay civil rights law via Referendum 65.

¹ The pertinent Faith & Freedom blog post was mysteriously deleted after I discussed it here.

The Spokesman-Review asked the right questions back in 2006:

Ever wonder what happens to your name and address on a petition that never gets turned in?
Anything the sponsors want, according to state law.
That's apparently why the two different camps behind Referendum 65, a ballot proposal that failed last week to gather enough signatures, are fighting over access to some 100,000 names and addresses on the petitions they didn't turn in. Longtime initiative maestro Tim Eyman has the petitions and said he won't give them to the Faith and Freedom Network, an umbrella group of religious organizations that helped gather the lion's share of the names.
Each is accusing the other of bad faith. Each is claiming to be looking out for the best interests of signers...

Gary wasn't looking out for his own best business interests, perchance? �Just think how valuable those name$ would have been as this Oregonian continued on his quest to influence Washington voters. �It seems that Tim Eyman was on to Gary Randall's game.

"We're not going to be intimidated or blackmailed [by Randall and Fuiten] into allowing these citizens who signed these petitions to have their names and addresses used ... to do anything other than seeking a public vote on HB 2661," Eyman said in an e-mail to his supporters around the state. "These voters did not sign R-65 petitions to be solicited by faith-based groups like Faith & Freedom."

Interestingly, Randall was forthcoming at the time about his plans. �I wonder if he would be so chatty today, now what we know what we know about his business practices.

Gary Randall, president of Faith & Freedom, said Thursday the religious network had hoped to develop a mailing list for future efforts to overturn the law. If a new referendum or initiative campaign is launched, they'd probably mail a copy of that petition to the people who signed Referendum 65, asking them to sign the new proposal and have their friends sign it, too.
The network would have shared the list with other church groups who helped during this year's signature drive. "But we don't sell or lease out mailing lists," Randall said. He knows some initiative groups do that, but "we never have."
The signers of Referendum 65 might also be asked for a contribution to support such an effort, although "that was not the primary reason for wanting" the petitions, he added.

Of course fundraising isn't the primary reason for floating the petitions of an unpopular referendum too late to collect enough signatures to qualify. �Of course.

Several organizations besides Gary Randall's are involved in promoting the referendum and distributing the petitions. They include Washington Values Alliance and Protect Marriage Washington (both run by Larry Stickney); Washington Eagle Forum; the Focus on the Family affiliate Family Policy Institute of Washington; Constitution Party of Washington State; Youth With a Mission / USRenewal; Knights of Columbus; Christian Coalition; Antioch Bible Church. �Will petition signers' data be shared among all these organizations? �Even if we could get a promise from Gary Randall that he won't sell his copy of the list (he hasn't been asked for that promise regarding this referendum, to my knowledge), he cannot guarantee that one or more of these other organizations won't. �There are many fingers in this petition pie. �Are any of them are sticky?

Petition signers be aware.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Web 2.0 on Steroids: A FREE Portal to Netroots Nation

Netroots Nation in Second Life — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:10:02 PDT

This week our friends at Democracy For America are announcing another round of winners for their Netroots Nation scholarship contest. If you weren't on the list of winners and you can't find the money/time/energy to get to Pittsburgh August 13 to 16 for the convention, don't despair...there is another way!

For the third year in a row we'll be taking advantage of the rich multimedia capabilities of Second Life to bring you live streaming audio and video from Netroots Nation right to your own computer monitor. Through Second Life we're able to bring you not only streaming video, but also real time discussion and participation in the panels from the comfort of your own home, exclusive online panels and information displays from nonprofit organizations, online retailers and great progressive companies. Oh, and did we mention it's free?

Join us over the fold and we'll walk you through the particulars of how to participate and how to support our work with sponsorships.

I know, I know, you have questions. We'll get through some basic stuff in this diary, and if you have other questions please feel free to drop them in a comment and one of our volunteers will respond.

What is Second Life?

Second Life is all kinds of things for all kinds of people. In short, Second Life is Web 2.0 on steroids. Second Life is an online virtual world made up of "residents" from all over the world. Through our internet connections we can come together to chat, discuss issues, share streaming media content, share information, sell products, and best of all, party. You interact with the Second Life universe through an online version of yourself known as an "avatar." Your avatar will walk, run, and fly through Second Life and interact with other avatars through the software's built-in chat software. While in-world you can watch online videos and listen to music, too, and we'll be taking advantage of this technology to stream panels live from the convention in Pittsburgh.

How does it work?

The free, multi-platform Second Life software connects you to the virtual world. To get started, simply go to SecondLife.com and click on "Get Started." You'll be prompted to give a little bit of information about yourself, choose a basic look for your avatar, and download the software.

Once you've successfully done that, we've set up a Welcome Center where you can learn how to move around, how to watch videos and hear audio, and how to customize your Second Life avatar with free clothing and accessories. From there you'll join us either in the Netroots Nation Arena or the Netroots Nation Ballroom where you'll be able to watch the action on huge video monitors while interacting with other Second Life residents.

Second Life is *not* a light-weight application: You will want a relatively recent computer with a nice graphics card and a good broadband connection for the highest-quality SL experience. The good news is that Windows, Mac OSX, and Linux OSes are all quite well supported. You can find the official requirements at the SL website.

We hope to be able to stream large portions of the real life Netroots Nation into NNinSL, so you can watch and, in several cases, interact with real sessions even if you cannot make it to Pittsburgh. �More information will be forthcoming as we get closer to August, but we strongly recommend that you try it out in advance to get your bearings so that you can get the most out of the conference and not be overly distracted by the mechanics of how to get around, talk, and find events.

Why is this better than watching the videos on UStream?

So if you join us "in-world," what can you expect to see, hear, and experience at NNSL? While the agendas for neither NN nor NNSL are finalized yet, during last year's convention, many events in Austin were streamed into Second Life including six keynote events, another half-dozen panel discussions, a multi-faith service conducted by Street Prophets founder Pastor Dan, and a both-worlds meet-up that brought together Second Life users and attendees in Austin. We also provided unique SL-only content, including an additional four panels, several social gatherings including dances, and a documentary film screening.

Therein lies the difference. Beyond offering you live, streaming video, we're also offering you the opportunity to connect with other convention-goers through online discussions. We will have NNinSL staff on both sides of the convention and we'll be offering you the opportunity to ask questions and interact with the discussion panels in real time, as the panels unfold.

This year, we are expanding our focus to include content and events year-round rather than just during NN, beginning with live music events last winter and our own Inaugural Ball, continuing June 20 at 5:00 PDT with another documentary, the Second Life premiere of Kristen and Marshall Thompson's moving A Soldier's Peace, their chronicle of his walk for peace that covered the length of Utah, followed by an in-world interview with Marshall. After the interview we'll be having live music and a wonderfully eclectic DJ. If you want to get a sense of what NNSL is all about ahead of the conference, join us at the Netroots Nation Arena this Saturday at 5:00 PDT.

Sounds great! Anything else?

YES! In addition to the events we're bringing you from the Netroots Nation Arena and Netroots Nation Ballroom, you'll be able to stroll through Exhibitors' Row and check out wares and informational displays from all sorts of great progressive organizations and companies. If you or your organization are interested in being a part of Exhibitors' Row, email us and we'll get you set up. Our staff of expert Second Life builders will even help you with getting your booth set up.

Here's the hard part of our pitch, so we'll make it as quick and painless as possible: while we're pleased to offer Netroots Nation in Second Life absolutely free for participants, the truth of the matter is that we do incur substantial costs in doing so. For starters, the folks at Linden Labs (the company that runs Second Life) do charge for the privilege of owning the land on which the NNinSL setup sits, to the tune of a couple thousand dollars a year. We are authorized to raise funds through the Netroots Nation organization (which raises money through its parent organization BloggerPower.org), so if you're so inclined we'd love to have your support.

Awesome! I'm in!

Great! First and foremost, go to SecondLife.com and sign up for a Second Life account. Download the software, then log in! Click on this link and Second Life will "teleport" your avatar to the Netroots Nation area. The first thing you'll encounter is our greeter, which will get you signed up for our in-world mailing list. Then follow the black arrows to the Orientation Area and go through the steps. By the time you're finished you'll be ready to join us August 13-16 for Netroots Nation in Second Life!

In the meantime, follow us on Twitter for updates, join our Facebook group (Netroots Nation in Second Life) and check out our website.

That's it from us. What questions do you have?

Gary Randall Gives Himself PAC Money for Redundant Website

Lurleen — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:36:33 PDT

There is some resistance in certain public places and some pastors are hesitant to publicly endorse the referendum. �---Gary Randall

According to the Public Disclosure Commission, on 5/29/09 Gary Randall's Faith & Freedom PAC paid Gary Randall's Faith & Freedom Network $900 for "Website mgmt for internet promotion of Ref 71" and $219 for "Website tech support". �On first glance this is no big deal, but look a little closer and you'll see shades of shell gaming.

I've blogged about Gary's Ref 71 website before. �In summary, the Ref 71 website that Gary set up is redundant and completely superfluous because Larry Stickney had already set up an official campaign website. �Gary's Ref 71 website doesn't link to the official campaign website, and its donation button takes you to the Faith & Freedom PAC donation page, not to the donation page of the official referendum PAC.

What we have here with this latest transfer of funds, it seems, is more of same: �Gary fundraising for the sake of supporting himself and/or his organizations. �He has a history of allocating about 75% of contributions to salaries and fundraising costs, leaving a pathetic 25% for actual program services. �

No wonder "There is some resistance in certain public places and some pastors are hesitant to publicly endorse the referendum." �Who would want to be associated with a creep like him?

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight to defeat Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Washblog.

Randall & Stickney Relegated to Doing Own Mule Work

Lurleen — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:03:46 PDT

Referendum 71 seeks to repeal the incremental Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 in Washington state, but would not do away with domestic partnerships. �I have no doubt that there are some very determined and dedicated people pushing the smarmy referendum. �However, it is telling that both Larry Stickney and Gary Randall have had to do the donkey work themselves. �In any reasonably popular effort, campaign managers propose while volunteers dispose.

I was personally out Saturday helping deliver petitions. �---Gary Randall

And you can practically hear the sweat dripping off of Larry's drenched-to-squishy shirt

Having personally logged over 1500 driving miles in the past five days delivering R-71 petitions... �---Larry Stickney

What does this tell us of the campaign? �Well, let's just say that when the latest padding of your endorsement list is a retiree who admits that he heads up a "small organization" (I was visitor 164 to his website) and has previously spoken publicly against the referendum as a foolhardy endeavour (see Wayne Lawson quote), what this tells us is that the campaign has very little popular support indeed.

Steven Pidgeon bonus track below the fold.

This is such a hilarious factoid that I had to share. �Larry sent out an email on June 13th with quotes from "State Leaders". �Steven Pidgeon being such a paragon of honesty, sanity and reason, I can surely see why Larry included his sage pronouncement.

HB 5688, together with other domestic partnership laws in Washington, represent the most radical rewriting of the statutory scheme in this state since the Code of Washington was first revised. �R71 is your opportunity to reject the legislature's attempt to overthrow traditional marriage in Washington. �--Stephen Pidgeon, Legal Counsel, Protect Marriage Washington

Curious that Larry only put Pidgeon's burbles in the email but not in the list of quotes on the website or on the petition sheet. �And I wonder why Pidgeon left off the part about "I come here under the authority of Jesus Christ" to tell us that "there are going to be millions of people fleeing California once the starvation program begins down there." �Oh that's right, to this group abolishing an incremental domestic partnership law is even more important than stopping a holocaust of kagillions of pre-born Americans, so a "starvation program" announced under the authority of Jesus Christ would be a triviality hardly worth mentioning.

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight to defeat Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Swecker the Subsidizer

Lurleen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:40:25 PDT

Earlier this year I described how Washington state senator Dan Swecker was trying to give a state subsidy to the private anti-equality activities of Gary Randall and Larry Stickney:

The Crumbling Coalition of Fanatical Fringe knows that they're unlikely to gather enough signatures to get a referendum on the ballot. �If they didn't, Sen. Swecker wouldn't have tried to give them a state subsidy by pushing Amendment 32, which would have required that the new DP law go directly to a voter referendum. �What do I mean by state subsidy? �Well, as Ken Hutcherson and Joseph Backholm have already explained, getting enough signatures this year would be even more difficult and expensive than previously. �This is because the number of valid signatures required to get a referendum on the ballot is 4% of voter turnout at the last major election, and turnout was huge for the presidential election...Swecker's amendment would have relieved them of the costs, work and gamble of playing Referendum Roulette with other peoples' money. �And, of course, the embarrassment yet again failing to get enough signatures.

When Gary Randall mentioned the other day that Swecker is still deeply involved with the referendum to repeal Washington's incremental domestic partnership law (Ref. 71), I realized that I had yet to determine whether this subsidy thing was a habit of his. �Indeed it is.

Looking at the 2006 bill that added sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the state's anti-discrimination laws (HB 2661), as well as the domestic partnership bills of 2007 (SB 5336), 2008 (HB 3104) and 2009 (SB 5688), I found that Swecker proposed five (5) of his own amendments and supported two (2) amendments proposed by others to subsidize the private anti-equality industry by trying to insert an automatic referendum clause into the bill.

Here are the details, bill by bill:

2006. �When HB 2661 came up for debate on the senate floor, Swecker proposed Amendment 22 and Amendment 23. �Both amendments would have allowed Gary Randall & Co. to bypass the risky and expensive referendum signature gathering process by compelling the Secretary of State to automatically place the new law on the ballot in the next general election. �Both amendments failed. �(So did Gary's ensuing referendum when Gary was forced to gather signatures like everyone else.)

2007. �Swecker's colleague Senator Benton proposed two amendments mandating the referendum subsidy during debate on SB 5336. �The first was in the Government Operations & Elections Committee executive session on February 1, 2007. �The second was on the senate floor on March 1st (Amendment 30). �Although Swecker voted for both amendments, they failed.

2008. �Swecker showed up late to the Government Operations & Elections Committee session on February 25, 2008, and so was not present to pitch any subsidizing amendments or even debate on or vote against moving HB 3104 out of committee. However, he somewhat made up for his sloth by advancing the private subsidy Amendment 197 on the senate floor. �It failed.

2009. �Swecker out-did himself trying to slip a subsidy referendum for Gary & Larry into SB 5688. �During the February 12, 2009 executive session of the Government Operations & Elections Committee, he pitched his usual subsidy referendum amendment. �It failed, so he tried again on the senate floor on March 10th (Amendment 32) and failed again. �

At every opportunity, when a pro-equality bill came before a committee he was in (and showed up for) or on the senate floor, Swecker either pitched his own amendment to subsidize the private anti-equality industry, or voted in favor of one pitched by a colleague. �In every instance, these amendments FAILED. �Not only does Senator Dan Swecker have a habit of trying to give state subsidies to the private anti-equality industry, but he has a perfect record of FAILURE in doing so. �

I thought that republicans opposed welfare as a rule. �Well, all I can say is, after watching Gary Randall pay himself a fat paycheck from donor funds and Larry Stickney bungle, well, just about everything, I guess I can't blame Swecker for trying to rig a little public largess for his buddies. �Seems a bit of a conflict of interest though, seeing as Swecker is both campaign manager and board officer for Gary's Faith & Freedom PAC.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Washington State Progressive Caucus Meeting Agenda

the imp — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:10:30 PDT

�
The Washington State Progressive Caucus will meet Saturday, June 20, from 10 AM to 4 PM at the Hal Holmes Community Center in Ellensburg.

�
In keeping with the caucus' committment to the Washington State Democratic Party resolve to enact HR 676, Single Payer Health Care; bring democracy to our elections; and enlarge and uphold civil rights we will work on our action plan in each of these areas.

The goal of this meeting is to come away with specific and concrete steps we can take on each of these issues. We will be forming action teams and seeking to broaden our membership base along with building coalition partners.

In addition, we will be making decisions regarding the endorsement of candidates. We'll review our website and communications and look at possible interface with other progressive organizations.

Plan to attend this important meeting. Our united efforts in reaching toward accountability are long overdue.

Please let us know you plan to attend by email at: chair@waprogressives.org

The day, with Lunch, is $15.00. If you plan to provide your own lunch, it is $10.00

A Bargaining Chip With the AMA?

SandraMD — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:21:22 PDT

Barbara O'Brien from the Mahablog brings up some interesting points about the AMA in this post.

�

Last week the American Medical Association came out against the most important part of President Obama’s health care reform proposal — public health insurance that would compete with private insurance plans. Now there are reports that President Obama is considering “reducing malpractice lawsuits” as a bargaining chip to get the AMA on board with the public plan.

� �

The AMA has a decades-long history of protecting the interests of the private medical industry and opposing all public programs. In the 1960s, for example, the AMA fought hard to defeat Medicare. As I wrote last week, the AMA’s primary function is to protect the profit margins of the health care industry.

� �

Health care reform and tort law are both issues critical to people suffering asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma. Most likely the AMA’s primary concern in this matter is reducing the cost of physicians’ malpractice insurance.

� �

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear report for the New York Times that President Obama “views addressing medical liability issues as a ‘credibility builder’ — in effect, a bargaining chip that might keep doctors and, more important, Republicans, at the negotiating table.”

� �

As of this writing it is not clear how the President might reduce malpractice lawsuits. He does not have a history of supporting caps on jury awards, as did his predecessor, George W. Bush. However, in 2005 Senator Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which among other things placed limitations on attorneys’ fees in coupon settlements.

� �

Also in 2005, senators Obama and Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act (MEDIC), which did not become law. MEDIC would have created a program to seek early compensation for patients and offer liability protections to doctors in exchange for acknowledgment of their errors. According to Stolberg and Pear, the President has been talking about “offering some liability protection to doctors who follow standard guidelines for medical practice.”

� �

Dr. J. James Rohack, the incoming president of the AMA, that he is encouraged by the President’s “recognition that defensive medicine contributes to unnecessary health costs.” Whether so-called “defensive medicine” is a factor in health care costs at all is questionable, however. As I’ve written here before, there is no empirical evidence that physicians change their practices in any way when the threat of malpractice litigation is reduced.

� �

It’s also important to understand that reducing physicians’ malpractice insurance rates, while certainly a welcome benefit for physicians, has no impact whatsoever on the overall costs of health care. We see this in states such as Texas, in which significant decreases in malpractice insurance rates have been accompanied by significant increases in health care costs and health insurance rates.

� �

However, getting the AMA on board with the health care reform proposals probably would make passage of a meaningful health care reform bill a lot easier. Let’s hope President Obama can find a way to soothe the AMA without bargaining away the rights of citizens to sue for damages in court.

Gary Randall: Fundraising Failure

Lurleen — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:16:42 PDT

Is this what they call a Hail Mary pass? �Just over 5 weeks before the deadline to submit signatures for the smarmy Referendum 71 to repeal the incremental domestic partnership law, and Gary Randall begs for twice the bucks than he's been able to gather to date. �So far, his Faith & Freedom PAC has reported raising just over $5,000. �Yet now he's asking for $10,000 more. �If they wouldn't give it to you when there was time to use it, Gary, why would they give it to you now? �Perhaps people have finally cottoned on to Gary's fundraising shell game.

Gary and his welfare patron in the state house, Senator Dan Swecker, say that they want this money to print and mail petitions to the 50,000 people Swecker just knows will sign and return before the deadline. �Yuh. �Sounds like desperate measures to me. �But judge for yourself:

We need a minimum of $10,000 to begin this project. Obviously it is time-sensitive. Some of you may be in a position to help with a substantial donation toward this effort or may know someone who could underwrite or substantially underwrite the effort. Please contact Senator Dan Swecker at [removed]@faithandfreedom.us.

Begin the project. �If Gary and his Washington operative (Gary is a carpetbagging Oregonian) Larry Stickney were competently organized and had the backing of any meaningful number of people, there would be no weak talk of wanting to start something now. �Rather, they'd have been crowing to the papers weeks ago that they'd already done it. �My favorite is the "Some of you" part of the quote. �Some of you may know of someone who might know someone else dumb enough to give me more money to waste, pleeease! �How pathetic.

Let's put Gary's $5K in perspective. �Back in 2006, Tim Eyman, Gary Randall and Joe Fuiten combined (purportedly) formidable forces to promote I-65, the initiative to repeal the LGBT non-discrimination law. �They raised a respectable $91,459 for that campaign, yet that initiative FAILED.

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight against Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Achieving Health Care for All: Forum in Tacoma on June 23

Farcaster — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:39:48 PDT

Organizing for America and Washington Public Campaigns are joining forces to present a timely and thought-provoking discussion of issues and visions in providing quality, affordable health care for all, including panel presentations, discussions, audience question and answer on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 -- 7 P.M at the First United Methodist Church, 621 Tacoma Ave. South, Tacoma WA 98402. Pre-event Reception, 6:00 PM - beverages & light fare provided.

For a list of panelists and to RSVP, click here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpcgm9

Ron Boehme: Calling All Carpetbaggers!

Lurleen — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:27:29 PDT

Ron Boehme is the guy who said that repealing an incremental domestic partnership bill is more important than preventing a holocaust. �And now he's inviting carpetbaggers to Washington to help him lie to voters. �After enduring years of that tax cheat and voter manipulator, the Oregonian Gary Randall, I'm not sure how much more carpetbaggery Washington can take.

I want to ask all of you, whether you live in the state of Washington or not, to get involved to help save marriage in in Washington State through Referendum 71. This is the recently launched petition drive that will allow the citizens of Washington to vote in November to preserve the institution of marriage.

What is it with these "Christians" who can't stop with the lies? �As we all know, Referendum 71 is about repealing an incremental domestic partnership law, not a marriage law. �Ron is using the same bait and switch as the rest of the anti-family crew: lie to people that the referendum is about marriage because they know that a super-majority of Washingtonians favor domestic partnerships or better for same-sex couples who want to protect their children and make their families as legally secure as possible.

Just so you know where you stand with this false Christian

Homosexuality is a crooked or perverted form of God's sexual design and is an abomination (detestable) to Him.

I'm glad Ron brought up the word "perverted", because that well describes his misuse of Scriptures. �But something else he says helps me understand this dude's problem:

Homosexuality is a blinding type of sin from which it is difficult to escape. When God has to "give a person over" to immoral sexual passions (Romans 1:24-27), most never return to Him.

Something tells me that Ron doesn't have to consult Romans 1:24-27 to understand "immoral sexual passions". �Looks like a classic case of shame and self loathing to me. �If I'm right, what a miserable and tortured life he must be living. �That sure would explain his resorting to hysterics.

The assault on marriage (sic) is the moral battle of the 21st century. If you are silent, millions more will be lost and possibly, an entire civilization fall to ruin. I'm asking you to rise up and act for the sake of God, our children and grandchildren, and the future of the United States.

Oh my. �Better lay in extra End of Days provisions. �Lost? �Lost what, where? �Your mind, I think. �And don't stop at millions, Ron. �"Billions" or even "zillions" is better over-the-top schlock. �Why, it sets the fearful to trembling so good that the change bounces right out of their pockets.

Ron, while you and your carpetbagging cronies are lying to Washingtonians about an incremental domestic partnership law, how many innocent babies will be aborted? �How much blood will be on your hands, Ron, by July 26th because you gave yourself over to preventing gay parents from protecting their children?

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight against Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Washblog.

Larry Stickney in Review

Lurleen — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:54:16 PDT

We've learned a lot in the past few months about Larry Stickney, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington. �This is the misnamed group trying to repeal of Washington's Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 via Referendum 71.

Since a lot of what we know about this anti-family activist is scattered across newspaper articles, blog posts and public documents, I thought it worthwhile to begin assembling it in one place, in the form of a link library. �Items are categorized according to my opinion - your mileage may vary. �Be sure to bookmark this page because I will update it as new information becomes available. �Similar reviews of Mr. Stickney's colleagues at Protect Marriage Washington will be forthcoming.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

�Listed campaign failures as accomplishments on online resume.
�Managed the 1999 anti-choice I-694 campaign which Washington voters roundly rejected.
�Managed John Koster's 2000 Congressional bid, which Koster lost to the pro-LGBT Democrat Rick Larsen (D-WA02) who still holds the congressional seat almost 10 years later.

MANAGING THE ANTI-DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS CAMPAIGN
Media Savvy

�Unprepared to deal with press during major political event.
�Failed to capitalize on free press promotion during major political event.
�Imprudently derided the media.
�Failed to meet own deadline for press release.
�Cultivated baseless impression that non-Seattle media oppose domestic partnerships.

Financial Management Skills
1. �Admitted spending scarce donor money on pointless attack ads against pro-equality legislators in electorally secure seats.

Corporate Management Skills

�Failed to achieve consensus with and cooperation of natural allies.
�Allowed Gary Randall to misdirect campaign donations into the PAC of his Oregon-based organization rather than into the dedicated referendum PAC, even after the fundraising widget on the campaign web site finally became functional.
�Failed to organize major campaign endorser Joseph Backholm to promote the referendum on Backholm's weekly radio broadcast.
�Failed to keep campaign website current.
�Lost control of organization as major co-sponsor Gary Randall confusingly set up parallel web site and continued to misdirect donations into the PAC of his Oregon-based organization, which is not the official referendum PAC. �Failed to explain confusing development to supporters.

Honesty and Truthfulness

�Misrepresented the truth repeatedly about pending legislation and existing law.
�Ran deceptive t.v. ads which claimed that the domestic partnership expansion bill would "redefine marriage" and lead to "teaching that gay marriage is normal and healthy in public schools."
�Obfuscated differences between referenda and initiatives allegedly to avoid admitting why an initiative to completely repeal all domestic partnerships would be unpalletable to Washington voters. (see item 2 on linked page)
�Failed to inform supporters of severe time constraints on and higher signature requirements for referenda this year. �(see item 2 on linked page)
�Ignored the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled that the state DOMA law is constitutional. (see item 3 on linked page)
�Admited a reliance on voter confusion to win his campaign. (see item 5 on linked page)
�Perpetrated untruthful feel-good claptrap when saying that a referendum would not take anything away from anyone. (see item 7 on linked page)
�Paded endorsement list with multiple entries, one-person "organizations", tiny fringe groups and individuals who have publicly trashed the referendum campaign.

Follow-through

�Failed to meet own deadline for press release.
�Failed to fulfill promises to supporters repeatedly.

Knowledgability

�Pretended that the Washington State Supreme Court hasn't already ruled that the state DOMA is constitutional. (see item 3 on linked page)
�Demonstrated ignorance of the 1st Amendment repeatedly. (see item 4 on linked page)
�Demonstrated ignorance of the chronology of Washington state lawmaking. (see item 4 on linked page)
�Confused "liberty" and "tyranny" (see final item on linked page).
�Showed understanding that voters are increasingly pro-equality. (see item 8 on linked page)

Judgment

�Promoted on campaign web page an allegedly delusional zealot sure to offend the average voter.
�Went live with a non-functional donor web page.
�Embarrassed the campaign by featuring a Twitter account on the campaign web page that Board members and major endorsers never bothered to subscribe to.
�Wasted precious petition time by waiting the maximal time possible before challenging the referendum ballot language.
�Displayed gross incompetence by dropping the challenge to the referendum ballot language before the challenge process was complete.
�Admited vested interest in volunteers remaining unemployed "during these rough economic times". (see item 9 on linked page)
�Ran a referendum campaign to repeal a law supported by a super-majority of voters, making it a "goldmine" for membership-building for the pro-equality organization Equal Rights Washington.
�Included three problematic legislators on his organization's board. �Rep. Shea is divorced, Sen Swecker promoted state subsidies for radical-right fringe organizations he belongs to and Rep. McCune is viewed by reasonable people to be zany.
�Distracted himself from job at hand with concurrent high-paying political job working for John Koster.

PERSONAL HISTORY

�Married thrice, divorced twice.
�Served with a restraining order after allegations of wife battering.

QUOTES

�Marriage equality "will demolish the historical understanding and definition of marriage as that of uniting a man and a woman for life."
�"[T]he happiness and well-being of both the parents and the children are best served by the family unit."
�"[Estranged wife No. 2, Cheryl] was born with a silver spoon and is very feminist in her outlook and has been depressed for years with her lot in life (raising children, married to a middle class working man etc..), and subsequently lacks respect and is very rebellious towards me and refuses to give me the authority and support I, as a the father of our two small children need to run a functional household." �--L. Stickney in response to a request for restraining order served him by the Superior Court of Washington.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RELATED STORIES
Pam's House Blend and Washblog by Lurleen

The Stranger by Dominic Holden

The Stranger blog by Dominic Holden or Dan Savage

Referendum 71 Board Member Contemplates Quitting

Lurleen — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:23:04 PDT

Protect Marriage Washington is the misnamed organization out to repeal Washington State's new domestic partnership law via Referendum 71. �Cindy Honcoop is on the Protect Marriage Washington Board of Directors, but while others work, Cindy has been known to vacate and Twitter. �And now, as her colleagues feverishly burn rubber crossing the state to deliver the long-overdue referendum petitions, Cindy picks up her fiddle.

# Another cool thot from a twitterer - "The temptation to quit will be greatest just before you are about to succeed." ~Old Chinese Proverb
about 13 hours ago from web

Why tempting 'thots' of quitting? �Maybe it has something to do with the dismal donation rates. �The Public Disclosure Commission says that Protect Marriage Washington has only raised $2,072. �And carpetbagger Gary Randall's Faith and Freedom PAC ("exclusively committed" to Ref 71, except it's not) has only received a piddly $1,994.51 in contributions. �Ouch. �Printing and distributing 60,000 petitions with 100+ page long bill attachments will drain those funds pretty quickly. �No wonder Gary was diverting donations to his non-PAC accounts - must protect the paycheck! �Wouldn't want to spend that dough on a referendum nobody wants. �And I mean nobody.

Incidentally, although Cindy is a dedicated tweeter, she still hasn't bothered to sign up to follow PMW's Twitters. �I wonder if Cindy was really ever wholeheartedly on board with this referendum thing.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Protect Marriage Washington's BWAKing Points

Lurleen — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:59:34 PDT

Oh now this is a true delight. �Protect Marriage Washington is the group trying to destroy vital legal protections for loving Washington families by repealing the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009. �They're attempting to do this via Referendum 71. �They have a fairly moribund website, but on that website they've managed to post "R-71 Talking Points". �A much better term would be "BWAKing Points".

My comments are in italics.

BWAKing Point Number 1
�Homosexuals have a right to form meaningful relationships. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!
Referendum 71 has nothing to do with marriage. �It seeks to repeal a domestic partnership law. �However, reserving a civil institution for one class of citizens is the very definition of special interest. �Larry Stickney is in fact championing special rights for heterosexuals. �He has yet to explain how permitting same-sex couples to have a domestic partnership redefines his marriage(s). �Is he afraid he'll be tempted to run away and get a domestic partnership with Stephen Pidgeon?

BWAKing Point Number 2
�If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose "same-sex marriage" (as happened recently in California prior to Proposition 8). By signing Referendum 71, we will bring this society changing measure before the people of Washington State and let them make this monumental decision in November.
The Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled that the state's discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. �Larry has yet to explain why he thinks the Court would agree to re-examine their former ruling. �However, if he wishes to ensure that LGBT people stop bringing lawsuits challenging state-sanctioned discrimination, he should see to the repeal of discriminatory laws rather than to their proliferation.

BWAKing Point Number 3
�Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. James Dobson says that thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family.
Is Larry advocating for plural marriages, or is that just sloppy writing? �Nothing in the civil marriage code mentions children as a reason or requirement for civil marriage. �However I agree with him that it is ideal for children if their parents can marry or get a domestic partnership to form a more stable home. �Why then is he putting up roadblocks to such stability for the children of gay parents? �I can only conclude that Larry hates children and wishes to punish them for their parents' sexual orientation.

Since we know that Larry promotes fake statistics, he needs to provide specific citations to support his claims. �"James Dobson said so" is a weak man's lazy-brained argument. �Who else besides James do you let think for you, Larry? �If Larry cared about the welfare of children, he would cease telling the children of gay parents that their families are inferior, and he would ensure that their families were as secure as possible under the law.

BWAKing Point Number 4
�Criminalization of free speech and "anti-bullying" laws follow the legalization of same-sex "marriage". In a few short months after legalizing same-sex "marriage" in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Pastors beware! The same will happen here in Washington.
Larry, you've got it ass-backwards. We had those laws long before we instituted domestic partnerships. �Gays have been protected by Washington Malicious Harassment laws since 1993, by Washington Anti-Bullying laws since 2002, and by Washington Non-Discrimination laws since 2006. �When, again, did you say this mass incarceration of pastors will happen?

What part of "1st Amendment" doesn't Larry understand? �The 1st Amendment guarantees that the few real Christian pastors remaining who don't like gays can still freely vilify us from the pulpit. �No state or federal law can trump the U.S. Constitution. �Larry knows this, but his scam uses the fear factor as a motivator, so he's got to drum up false fears whenever possible. �

Vermont has had full civil unions for almost 10 years and marriage equality has been the law of Massachusetts for 5 years. �Nobody has been thrown into prison for saying un-Christian things about gays in those states or in any other state with marriage equality, domestic partnerships or civil unions. �And Larry, we live in the United States, not Canada. �If you have to go to a foreign country to find scare material, you're really reaching.

BWAKing Point Number 5
�If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will be forced to teach that same-sex "marriage" and homosexuality are perfectly normal. These books are required reads in Massachusetts and California: And Tango Makes Three, Heather Has Two Mommies, King&King, and Hello Sailor!
Schools will naturally choose to let children know that it is o.k. if some of their classmates have non-traditional families like Larry's: stepmothers, stepfathers and assorted half or even unrelated siblings from past shattered marriages mixing and remixing into complex but undoubtedly very loving families. �Children need to know that all loving families are equal, even if they're the product of serial divorce and are dominated by fear-mongering twits.

Here are some useful materials to help you spread a little truth about domestic partnerships and Referendum 71, courtesy of Washington Families Standing Together.
>> FAQ: Domestic Partnership Law
>> Decline to Sign Handouts
Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight against Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

The Gary and Larry Chronicles: Numerical Update Edition

Lurleen — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:34:08 PDT

After months of deadline failures, Gary says they've finally managed to print their Ref 71 petitions. �So now it's time to revisit just how industrious Team Homophobia will have to be to collect the signatures of 120,577 ~~fundraising targets~~ voters in time to make the July 25, 2009 deadline. �The prospect for success is even more bleak than my first generous calculation indicated.

Let's use Gary's handy Countdown to ReferenDUMB Failure clock to get us started. �Oh my, look at the time! �It flyeth by! �Because you've squandered so much of it pressing your aborted ballot language challenge and then incomprehensibly waited until the last minute to design the petition, there are only 47 days left. �That's 1,120 hours. �

Dividing 1,120 hours into the needed signature total of 120,577, you must collect 108 signatures per hour, around the clock. �And that's if each signature is valid. �Not bloody likely. �The Radical-Right fringe has a terrible record of petition fraud. �To collect the 150,000 signatures recommended to make up for the fakes and forgeries, you'll have to increase the non-stop hourly take to 134 signatures.

Whoa, wait!! �Gary Randall just deposited this yard apple on the Ref 71 website he confusingly and wastefully set up in parallel to the official Protect Marriage Washington campaign site (just how incompetent is Larry Stickney anyways, that you have to keep doing his work for him Gary?):

Timeline: �We need to collect the petitions in our office by mid-July. Notice the clock on this webpage to your right. We will update the exact date later.

So you're shortening the deadline by 10 days to July 15th? �That means you only have 880 hours left, which translates into 137 (170 for the safety margin) signatures per hour collected 'round the clock.

Yeah, uh, that's doable. �And you really want us to believe that you're not in it for the new list of likely GOP base names and the nifty donations? �Yeah, ya got me convinced. �Now why won't my eyes stop rolling?

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Crooks: Wall Street and Main Street

m3047 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:41:35 PDT

Update [2009-6-6 23:47:52 by m3047]: Changed the category. Much ire has been focused on the bailout of crooks on Wall Street, but little has been focused on the crooks on Main Street, and they may be on an upswing: "good times are here again!"

Houses themselves are a good thing. On Wall Street those toxic assets were bad mortgages and sketchy derivatives. On Main Street toxic practices were the norm.

On Main Street these toxic practices continue (and may be on the upswing) and continue to drive down prices as well as loan availability.

They do this by driving up costs and risks for both buyers and lenders.

Many of these things can be explained away.. actually all of them are being explained away, one way or another.

Home purchase contracts are largely based on the standard Multiple Listing Service Forms, and so the reader is encouraged to familiarize themselves with those (because they are "cookie cutter", but very specific in their terms, cutoffs, and mileposts). The particularities of these Forms play a large part in some of the problems which buyers and lenders alike face.

Let's start with something relatively benign: the practice of putting in an offer and then getting a home inspector to look at it and using the inspector's findings to negotiate a better deal. This was (and may still be) a common practice. But with bank foreclosures and people in distressed economic straits trying to liquidate properties things are taking a new twist. Especially when a bank says that "all foreclosures are typically sold as-is": is there some reason to doubt that communication? Home inspectors cost a few dollars. The bank has the option to walk away from the contract at this point. The way things were, they didn't do that. Are things that way now? It's hard to say; but realtors and loan officers will all tell you "what the bank really meant was.." so what they're telling you is that the bank didn't mean what it said. Doesn't cost the realtors anything; doesn't cost the bank (seller) anything. Doesn't cost the lender anything. Costs the prospective buyer at least few hundred dollars, maybe even a thou or two.

It's just a risk/gamble, right? But when you ask about the rate at which a particular seller (bank) or their agent is walking away (or refusing to budge.. same thing) and your agent is advising you to play this game, but nobody has any numbers to bolster their advice... shouldn't the alarm bells start ringing? Because at this point somebody is giving advice with no facts and no experience they can share to back it up: what's the payout ratio on this gamble? Once gets the impression that these people used to know, but they don't any more; and they want to tell you the way they think it ought to be, but they don't want to be liable in case it ain't that way any more.

Now let us examine the interesting phenomenon of short sales, which will allow us to bring up deceptive practices (although they can be explained away) on the Multiple Listing Service, as well as abuse of the Multiple Listing Service's Form 17. This is something the MLS came up with to implement the intent of RCW on seller disclosure. To make it even more convoluted an additional checkbox/clause has been added to the main agreement Form 21: "Buyer will/will not have a remedy for Seller's negligent errors, inaccuracies or omissions in Form 17." In commercial situations, I was always told that one cannot contract away negligence: that is the advice I was given by lawyers. But, whatever.

The same real estate agent may represent buyers in some transactions and sellers in others. I have had them tell me "I always tell my sellers to check 'will not' and the buyers to check 'will'". So how is that resolved? But I digress...

Back to short sales. In these cases the homeowner is underwater. They want the bank to allow them to sell the property for less than they owe the bank, and they want the bank to forgive the difference.

In some cases (I'm hearing many, actually... or at least that in many cases the lender isn't going to acknowledge that the seller has inquired, the seller doesn't have anything saying the bank is aware that the seller is seeking a short sale... are the alarm bells going off?) the seller hasn't even approached their lender and inquired about their lender about a possible short sale. But no matter.

They list it on the MLS. They should list it as a short sale. They could. Nobody would stop them. But if they don't (and a fair number don't), nobody is going after them for this deception.

First intrusion of the Form 17: "Do you have legal authority to sell the property?"

They get an offer, accept it, and submit it to the lender. By common practice at this point a property is "pending" on the MLS ("BU" is typically seen in the comments). But if they don't change it to "pending" or put "BU" in the comments, nobody is going to stop them.

An occasional (at least) practice is to give the initially accepted offeror in a potentially competitive situation a right of first refusal.

Second intrusion of the Form 17: "Is title to the property subject to... First right of refusal?"

So it's interesting when you are almost ready to make a bid on a property and you've seen the Form 17 (you haven't gotten to that "negligence" question yet, that's on the actual contract) and neither of those Form 17 boxes are checked in a factually correct manner. But your (buyer's) agent finds out (weren't told any of this by the seller's agent) and is told that the seller is "accepting other offers" as, you know, an explanation for not updating things.

Yet again: nobody is going after these misrepresentations on the Form 17.

Once a prospective buyer commits to a short sale, then they've got earnest money on the table. One wonders what their out is: how much earnest money, and what's the out?

A scenario where a buyer commits to numerous short sales, and the sellers update their listing status to "pending" is readily apparent. Clearly the buyer is going to abandon all but the first one which actually comes through (keep in mind, in many cases they never had prior written approval from their lender to seek a short sale).

Maybe the "accepting other offers" ruse works for some sellers. But here again we've ventured into uncharted, and highly leveraged, territory: with an unknown quantity of people playing musical chairs with an unknown quantity of chairs. My thinkin in this case is that there are far more chairs than buyers, so none of the buyers gets the booby prize (and they're only out their earnest money which, given the risks, they've probably negotiated as really low). But of course, these houses weren't really for sale... but that can of course be explained away.

The final item (there are many others which I am omitting) which deserves mention on this turbulent continuum which I have constructed in my mind is the observation that realtors are relying on recent decisions in litigation to guide whether they have to disclose known defects to buyers (and buyer's agents), and the advice they give to their clients (the sellers) in this regard. Bottom line: their thinking seems to be that they don't have to disclose much, or at least that the buyer doesn't have much recourse.

Happy days are here again!

As always: buyer beware!

Are Gary Randall and Larry Stickney Capable of Keeping a Promise?

Lurleen — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:00:23 PDT

Friday, June 5, 2009
I just got off the phone with Larry Stickney and those working with us to get the Referendum 71 petitions to the press....It will go to print this afternoon. �--Gary Randall

Uh huh. �Now where have I heard that before?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009
...we will now go to print Wednesday afternoon, June 3. �--Gary Randall

Ah, right. �But wasn't there another even earlier promise? �Oh yes, here it is:

Monday, June 1, 2009
Larry Stickney just called...said he's putting the final touches on the referendum drive petition and hopes to start printing copies as early as Tuesday. �--Gary Randall

Preceded, of course by this

Friday, May 29, 2009
R-71 petitions will be available at various locations (to be announced and posted on the website this week). �--Larry Stickney

Well, it's not like you had been planning on running a referendum or anything. �Oh wait, you've been fundraising since February off of the referendum promise. �And here we thought you had your act in gear the day before the governor signed the legislation, when you said this

Sunday, May 17, 2009
The R-71 petitions will be printed and made available shortly after the Governor puts her signature to a final bill (which she is expected to do on Monday) and after final text and summary are approved by the Attorney General (expected within five days of the Governor's signing). �--Larry Stickney

Gee, that "5 days after the signing" thing didn't work out too well, did it, seeing as you yourself WASTED 10 days challenging the ballot language yourself, only to prematurely ejaculate that plan.

Scamalicious. �Don't forget to donate! �Gary needs help paying those $38,491.63 (or so) in back taxes!

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight against Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

WhoSigned.org Needs to Bow Out Gracefully

Lurleen — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 06:05:00 PDT

Before WhoSigned.org came on the scene, the public conversation around Referendum 71 was one of positive consideration of our families. �WhoSigned.org has disastrously changed the focus to a negative one about fringe tactics. �Since the debut of WhoSigned.org last week, I have identified over 45 news stories, editorials, letters to the editor and blog diaries about Ref 71. �Not one of them focused on our families and the importance of protecting the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009, as they had done previously. �Only one focused on the dubious activities of the Ref 71 proponents, which we know to be legion. �WhoSigned.org has taken all attention from our two greatest assets: our loving families and a morally bankrupt Radical-Right fringe trying to strip us of equality under the law.

Until WhoSigned.org came on the scene, there was only one fringe element in the debate: the Ref 71 proponents. �Rightly or wrongly, much of the public brands all LGBT people with the actions of the one or two who say the most controversial things. �So now, in the public's mind, there are two fringe elements in the Ref 71 debate: the Ref 71 proponents AND ALL OF US. �It is unfair that the public lumps us all together like this, but it is a reality of our oppression which must be accounted for in our collective strategies. �Radical-Right Christians work openly to enshrine bigotry into our laws, and the average Christian (unless they be LGBT) remains untarnished by association. �We don't have that luxury. �Wouldn't it be nice to go back to the glory days where only Gary 'n Larry looked stupid? �Let's hand back the Fringe Queen crown to its rightful owners, Gary Randall and Larry Stickney.

Initially I saw real potential in WhoSigned.org to the extent that it could help us detect petition fraud. �However, because its backers have declared that unwelcome, uncomfortable conversations with the Radical-Right fringe (most petition signers) is the main reason for the organization, the public will never see it as anything more than an intimidation tactic. �We will not win the Referendum 71 battle or future struggles by locking horns with the Radical-Right fringe. �We will win by continuing our positive conversations with the movable middle about why they should protect our families. �WhoSigned.org is scaring away the movable middle. �We can't resume the positive conversation until WhoSigned.org steps aside.

Let's return to the positive conversation that Washington Families Standing Together started with their Decline to Sign campaign.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend

The Big Lie on Unemployment

dlaw — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:47:10 PDT

Today the monthly unemployment report came out and it was, in some ways, much better than expected (BTW, the video at that site is good).

So, there's no reason to "talk down" the economy for that reason and these:

People are gloomy enough.

We have the right kind of Administration in place and they are trying very hard to do the right things.

As long as America is creating things like Google Wave (which may, in my estimation, help completely change the world), there is much to be hopeful about.

But exactly because there's much to be hopeful about, there's also no reason to lie about the unemployment situation ...or is there?

If you had a business-conservative friend send you an email entitled "Possible Signs of the 'Econolypse'," you would expect to see things like this:

Countrywide CEO indicted - OK, a gimme.
Hedge fund indicted for fake tax shelters - let's note that their clients included former President Clinton.
Banks not going forward with FDIC plan to sell troubled mortgages - plan has been pulled due to lack of response, blamed partially on the fact that they'd have to take the writedowns upon sale (this is my favorite datum on this list).
Bernanke says we need to get on a path to balance and toward smaller deficits.
Rio Tinto deal now being questioned.

[That last referred to the proposed sale of Australian mining giant Rio Tinto to China.]

And in the follow-up email you would of course expect this:

...the Rio Tinto deal officially cratered tonight.

But what you might not expect is this:

State Tax Revenues.
Some examples from NY Times:
Washington State sales tax revs down worst-in-nation 14%.
Corp income taxes in Oregon down 44%.
Income taxes in NY down 49%!!!!!!!
Sales tax up in 8 states, and personal income tax collections up in 3 - North Dakota, Alabama, and Kansas.
29 states are down in all major categories.
Collective budget gap for the fiscal year ending this month for all states was estimated at $102 B (which seems low) and is projected at $121 B for next fiscal year. �Again, this seems low to me, but I live in California.

So I called my capitalist pal (whom I now label a "Contra-Democrat" rather than a "Republican" since he voted for Obama and against Prop 8). I noted with interest his sudden concern about government finance and added: "Hey, we've got to remember the city and county governments."

To which he replied:"Yes, there may come a time when we all say to each other: 'Hey remember back when we had city and county governments?"

That $121 billion in deficits (which I agree is a lowball estimate) doesn't take into account the cities and counties, which are often highly dependent on property taxes. Ouch.

Together we reckoned that there are about 18-20 million state and municipal workers in this country. My friend was a management consultant so I asked him what he thought the effect on those workers would be:

"Well, governments shed workers slower than businesses, so I'd say about 7% of them get the axe."

"So, about one point two five million workers?"

"Yeah, about that."

"At about, what, 50K in compensation?"

"Sure, about $60 billion in wages."

"Well, that's bad. Now how do the states and municipalities come up with the rest of their deficis?"

"Kite checks."

And with that we parted in good cheer.

The take-home there is not about the $60 billion or governments kiteing checks, since I think we all knew that was going to happen. The take-home is about those one and a quarter million people who will lose their government jobs. While the CBO said that "unemployment will likely keep rising through 2010 to peak over 10 percent", in fact the expected state and municipal job cuts are enough all on their own to drive unemployment to about 10.1-10.2% - and states and municipalities are planning to start those cuts next month.

Add to that the planned, permanent job cuts we know will happen at Chrysler, GM, their dealerships and suppliers and we are talking about 10.3-10.4% unemployment, minimum and in short order. Even that number assumes the rest of the economy not only doesn't shed any more jobs but actually makes up for the knock-on job losses that will come from shutting government offices and facilities, as well as car plants and dealerships.

This is important enough for the sake of the people who will lose those jobs, but there's more to think about:

For unemployment, service cut and other reasons that shall remain nameless in this particular missive, prudent people have to plan for another deflationary wave to hit us. The coming of this wave makes it absolutely essential that people like our friends in Olympia **NOT** make decisions that leave the institutions which support our economy denuded, abandoned and broken. Interest rates are still low. Now is the time to borrow-and-educate, borrow-and-reform, borrow-and-build - not the time to burrow and hide from voters.

Legislators will find than they can run, but they can't hide.

They must decide whether they believe the state of Washington is destined to be a development and innovation center for the world's future or a "failed state" - a quagmire of inequality, poor education and social ills that can't get out of its own way and is therefore not worth the investment. Will we use our gateway to the Pacific and high-tech accomplishments to challenge beleaguered California's economic leadership or will we quit?

Now is the Winter of 2008 made glorious Summer by this native son, Barack Obama. I think now is the time for hunchbacked Democrats, used to stooping for Republican hypocrisy, to straighten up and fly right.

The Skinny on DP Dissolution Rates in Washington State

Lurleen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:22:18 PDT

Remember this nugget from Larry Stickney's attorney, Mr. "Government was created to kill" Stephen Pidgeon?

Same-sex divorce...is 8 times higher among homosexual men, and 300 times higher among homosexual women.

Pidgeon said these numbers were from a study looking at France, but there can be no study on the divorce rate of same-sex couples in France because same-sex marriage is not legal in France. �Similar wild and unsubstantiated numbers have been fabricated by many anti-family activists. �Larry Stickney has posted a video of Pidgeon speaking this lie on the Protect Marriage Washington website (they're the Referendum 71 people).

I decided to check the actual, meaningful numbers here in Washington. �Not same-sex divorce rate, because as in France, same-sex couples can't get married in Washington. �But domestic partnership dissolution rates. �After reviewing the numbers, I can see why Pidgeon resorted to make-believe; reality just doesn't jive with his apparent need to vilify gay families.

Before we get into the DP dissolution numbers for Washington state, let's just pause to see how the local professional heterosexuals are faring. �Larry Stickney has a 67% personal divorce rate (3 marriages, 2 divorces) and Rep. Matt Shea a 100% divorce rate (1 marriage, 1 divorce). �Both men are on the Protect Marriage Washington Board of Directors. �Both men say that marriage is "one man and one woman for life", and use an ideal that they personally failed to attain as some sort of weird rationale for repealing the domestic partnership law.

...crites.

And now to the numbers. �The Washington Secretary of State keeps track of two numbers: the number of DP registrations, and the number of DP terminations. �DPs were first available (in a much-reduced form) on July 23, 2007. �As of June 2, 2009, there had been 5,475 DP registrations and 137 terminations. �This means that the DP termination rate is a piddly 2.5%

I'm not going to even try to compare this to heterosexual divorce rates because it's an apples/oranges thing, and heterosexual divorce rates are calculated on a percentage population basis. �But most importanly, there are some important reasons besides a broken relationship that a DP'd couple may need to terminate the DP that isn't in the heterosexual marriage equation. �For example, a same-sex couple may terminate their DP upon moving to a state or country where they can obtain bona fide marriage. �Or, an elderly different-sex couple may terminate their DP if they initially got one when the DP was little more than a power of attorney and health care proxy. �Not all heterosexual couples may choose to stay in the DP system as DPs become more robust and bind them more tightly in a legal sense.

Suffice it to say that regardless of the fake stats spewed by Stephen Pidgeon et al., the reality in Washington state is that over 97% of us with DPs are stickin' to 'em. �Too bad the professional heterosexuals can't say the same for their cohort.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

"Why Go There?"

Lurleen — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:22:22 PDT

The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA) has a clear-eyed editorial up about WhoSigned.org's announcement that they will post an online database of the names of people who sign Referendum 71, if the referendum gets certified by the Secretary of State. �Referendum 71 seeks to repeal Washington's new domestic partnership expansion law. �While I find public policy merit in making those names publicly available and I do not believe that the proposed website intends to invite harassment, it's not surprising that the idea was not well received. �As a pragmatist, I thus find myself agreeing pretty strongly with the editorial. �I think their closing remarks say it all.

We agree that signers should have no expectation of privacy, but the Web site could invite harassment and confrontation. It could also discourage people from engaging the issue to begin with.
While the Web site publishers are right about gay rights, they risk turning this issue into a referendum about their tactics. And that could spell long-term trouble.

I encourage everyone to read the whole editorial, then come back and take the poll and drop your thoughts in the comments.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

Lurleen — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:52:57 PDT

The house of cards is in slo-mo freefall.

Protect Marriage Washington is the official ballot committee set up to receive pro-Referendum 71 funds and to be the "voice" of the anti-domestic partnership referendum effort. �Larry Stickney is its campaign manager and Gary Randall is on its board. �Its web site was presumably to be the hub of referendum activity, and its donation page allows you to donate directly to the Protect Marriage Washington PAC.

But today Gary Randall unveiled his own Referendum 71 web page under the banner of the Faith and Freedom Political Action Committee. �It's donation button doesn't take you to the official Protect Marriage Washington fund, but to Gary's Faith & Freedom PAC, which we already know is not dedicated to the referendum. �Nowhere on this page is there a link to anything related to Protect Marriage Washington. �Gary's been quietly playing the fundraising shell game all along, but to set up a whole separate Ref 71 website now, when the petitions are at the printer, seems like a blatant slap in the face to campaign "manager" Larry Stickney and the umbrella organization they're both supposed to be dedicated to.

So what's going on here? �Are Gary Randall and Larry Stickney dividing the spoils, or is this a mutual greedy grab by brats who can't share? �One thing is clear, Gary Randall and Larry Stickney are not cooperating on the referendum effort. �And as Abraham Lincoln so sagely said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight against Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Larry Stickney, Always a Beat Behind

Lurleen — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:46:16 PDT

UPDATE: More than a beat behind. They're now reporting that "we will now go to print Wednesday afternoon, June 3." This means they'll have only 50 days to collect 120,577 valid signatures. Btw, over 25,000 people have pledged to Decline to Sign!

You're up against a hard July 25th deadline. �You knew months ago you were going to run a referendum. �So naturally you...don't have your petition template ready to go to the printers? �Wait, WHAT?

Larry Stickney who is running the Referendum 71 campaign which seeks to block Washington's Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill from going into effect, only hopes to go to the printer today. �This despite earlier promises by Gary Randall that

Petitions should be available by Tuesday.

The May 30th fundraising email from Protect Marriage Washington said

R-71 petitions will be available at various locations (to be announced and posted on the website this week)

Well, it's now next week. �Where are they, Larry? �FAIL.

And this on top of Larry wasting 5 precious days before contesting his own ballot language, then dropping the challenge after wasting even more days. �Does this guy really want to run a referendum, or does he secretly want this losing prospect to go away so he can concentrate on his high-paying main job as campaign manager for Snohomish County Councilmember Koster? �$3,300 per month is hard to distract yourself from, isn't it? �DOUBLE FAIL.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend