Washblog - Front Page

On Murdoch And Google, Or, Hey, Rupert, Where's My Check?

fake consultant — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:59:42 PST

Our favorite irascible media tyrant is in the news once again, and once again it’s time for me to bring you a story of doing one thing while wishing for another.

In a November 6th interview, Sky News Australia’s David Speers spent about 35 minutes with the CEO of NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch; the conversation covering topics as diverse as software piracy, world economics, the role of Fox News (and Fox NewsPinion�) in American politics, a strange defense of Glenn Beck, and, not very long afterwards, an even stranger defense of immigration.

We have heard a lot about the...how can I put this politely...challenges Murdoch seems to face associating factual reality with his reality, and we could have lots of fun going through his factual misstatements—but instead, I want to take on one specific issue today:

Rupert Murdoch says he hates it when people steal his content from the Internet to draw readers to their sites...which is funny, if you think about it, because he has no problem at all stealing my content (and lots of yours, as well) for his sites.

(To begin, a quick note: all the Rupert Murdoch quotes you’ll see today came from the YouTube, specifically the Sky News Australia interview, which is there posted in its entirety. Although each quote presents Mr. Murdoch’s words exactly, they aren’t necessarily in their original order; that’s so we don’t go jumping around from topic to topic too much in this story. When that happens the quotes will be split into separate paragraphs, each with their own set of quotation marks. Words in italics were words Mr. Murdoch himself emphasized.)

David Speers began the interview by asking Murdoch about the concept of public access to free news content online:

“Well they shouldn’t have had it free all the time, I think we’ve been asleep, ar, and, it costs a lot of money to put together good newspapers, good content, and you know they’re very happy to pay for it when they’re buying a newspaper...and I think when they read it elsewhere they’re going to have to pay...”

And it’s not just the public, either. Murdoch is particularly incensed at the idea that one news organization would intentionally steal content from another:

“Well...the people who just simply pick up everything and run with it...and steal our stories, ahh, we say they steal our stories they just take them, ummm, without payment...”

“...if you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we’ll be suing them for copyright. Ummm, they’ll have to spend a lot more money on reporters, to cover the world...when they can’t steal from newspapers...”

Mr. Murdoch is, after all, running a business...but beyond that, he acknowledges that the News Corporation “experience” is also critical, and that creating that experience requires him to deploy top-notch talent.

For that reason he is dismissive of the suggestion that he might establish a free site augmented by a “premium” site that charges for...well, premium content:

“...there’s also, in in a newspaper, uh we got a newspaper, or a news service, there’s a thing called editorial judgment, there’s a thing called quality of writing, um, quality of reporting, and, ah just to say you know we’ll take what’s average stuff that comes from an agency and uh, not charge for that, it’s okay but I think you’re really degrading the whole experience if you do that...”

And this is the part of the story where I come in.

It was with great surprise that I heard Mr. Murdoch saying all this, because, for the longest time, Murdoch’s own newspaper, “The Wall Street Journal”, has been carrying my stories (along with hundreds of others daily) on their WSJ.com website. In fact, my most recent story, “On Determining Impact, Or, How Stimulative Is Stimulus?” ran on their site just a couple of days ago, on November 18th.

Now don’t get me wrong: in contrast to Mr. Murdoch, I like being carried in as many places as possible, even if I don’t always know about it, and I’m glad the WSJ likes the work, so I am surely not complaining...it’s just that I was surprised to discover that News Corporation’s editors, exercising on a regular basis what can only be considered fine judgment, had apparently recognized the “quality of writing, um, quality of reporting” that I bring to the table, and, in an effort to enhance the experience they provide their clientele, have been regularly posting that writing...and Mr. Murdoch hates news organizations that steal content...and yet, despite all that, News Corporation never seems to send me a check.

So, Rupert...where’s my money?

But it’s not just bloggers and the WSJ: the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes is owned by IGN Entertainment, which is owned by FIM, which is part of...wait for it...News Corporation.

And what is the Rotten Tomatoes business model, exactly?

That would be to be the website that gathers movie reviews from a community of reviewers, posting them all in one space, and to use those reviews as the basis for the “Tomatometer” ratings they apply to movies...the Tomatometer being the central brand identity around which the entire franchise is built.

What's not included in the business model?

Paying money for those reviews, a fact I was able to confirm after an exchange of email today with the folks at Rotten Tomatoes.

So, Rupert...where’s their money?

We could end this story right here, but there is one other quote from the Sky News interview that deserves to be put in the record, not only because it’s a comment on Murdoch’s view of the newspaper business, but also because it may be instructive as to how he views television as well:

“...people who have been buying papers for 20 years, um, even bad newspapers, it’s hard to see them, um...can’t stop buying all papers or even changing newspapers...”

(For the record, I attempted to obtain a comment for this story from Dan Berger, who is News Corporation’s primary press contact, but that effort was not successful as of the time this went to print.)

And with that, we come to the “wrap it up” part of the story:

Murdoch is quite upset at the idea that other news organizations will steal the stories that he invests time and effort and money into creating, and yet at the same time he’s absolutely dependent on acquiring content for his own sites that he doesn’t pay for—and my guess is that virtually every one of the people who have been providing him this content, myself included, are at least reasonably happy with the process that got us here...but we’d be even happier if he would get those checks out to us in time for a bit of extra Christmas shopping.

Oh, yeah, and one other thing: when it comes to news, Murdoch believes that brand loyalty is apparently capable of trumping quality of content in the eyes of at least some beholders...and in truth, I think he’s right.

On Determining Impact, Or, How Stimulative Is Stimulus?

fake consultant — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:15:10 PST

We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I’ve had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.

To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the “stimulus”), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?

They’re great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.

A few facts will help set the stage:

I post on numerous sites, one of those being Blue Oklahoma, and about ten days ago I received an email from a reader who wanted me to know that he had data up regarding how effective stimulus dollars are at creating construction jobs.

He also wondered if I would be willing to blog about his work, which is itself posted in the form of a blog, with handy charts and graphs; I’ll quickly summarize what he had to say for your dining and dancing pleasure:

Although the goal of the stimulus was to create construction jobs, today’s data suggests that roughly 10 times as many jobs were lost in the construction industry in the recent past 12 months (September 2008 – September 2009) than were created by the stimulus efforts this year to date.

“The major question surrounding the ARRA and the construction industry on this reporting deadline is: How many construction jobs has the stimulus bill actually created or retained?”
--Chris Thorman, “State by State: Is the Stimulus Bill Creating Construction Jobs?” �[emphasis is original]

In the blog he reports that if you were to go to the Recovery.gov website, download the state summary data located there, and then do a bit of quick math, you’d find that:

“...the ARRA has created or saved 73,352 construction jobs across the nation at a total cost of $15.8 billion since the bill was signed into law.
That’s $222,107 per construction job.”

He has also created a chart, that is intended to show, on a state-by-state basis, the cost per job—and there is enormous variation in the results, from a low of $47,536 in Minnesota to a high of $535,171 in California.

As a result, he’s come to this conclusion:

“Jobs are being created and saved but nowhere near a rate that will allow the stimulus bill to claim victory over construction unemployment.”

So the question for us becomes: how solid is his analysis?

In order to get a better answer, I decided to examine some of the underlying data supporting his conclusions—and to put it as gently as possible, the numbers that we’re seeing today are a bit...squishy.

There are a couple of reasons why, which, naturally, require a couple of quick explanations. (This is a “quick and dirty” education; there are exceptions to some of what you’ll see described below.)

Right off the bat, it appears that identifying exactly how many jobs are being saved is more difficult than it seems—but before we can really understand that, we need to take a moment and understand exactly how jobs are counted.

If you work 40 hours a week, which is the equivalent of a full-time job, you would equal one (warning: technical term ahead) “Full Time Equivalent”, also known as an FTE. Two people, each working 20 hours a week, are also one FTE, as are any other combinations that you can come up with that get you to 40 hours a week. From here on, when we use the word “jobs”, we also mean FTEs, and vice versa.

The rules of the stimulus program are unique unto themselves, and one of the unique rules, at least for the moment, is that overtime hours don’t count when counting FTEs; since we’re talking about the number of construction jobs the stimulus might be creating, and about 25% of construction jobs involve overtime work, this rule is probably distorting the outcome.

States are also having problems translating FTE tracking systems they already have in place into the new Federal FTE definitions being used to figure out how many jobs are being created with stimulus funds.

An example of this problem is laid out in a document from the University of Connecticut (UConn) describing how their FTE reporting is going. The State FTE tracking system uses “cumulative” reporting, the Federal system, “incremental” reporting; the only thing you need to know about the two systems is that, quoting from the report:

“...At no time would the state and federal FTE figures match.”

There’s another issue in play here: this is a brand-new bureaucracy, and everyone is still “finding their way”, on both the State and Federal sides. Here’s another quote from the same UConn progress report:

“Note #2: We have experienced challenges in reporting, primarily with formatting issues. Solutions include working directly with OPM (the State’s Office of Policy and Management) and the respective OSPs (the University’s Office for Sponsored Programs) to enhance timeliness and formatting accuracy. The reports submitted June through September 2009 were definitely part of the learning process. Currently, we are working directly with the respective OSPs to ensure the correct reporting templates are used for state reporting purposes.

Put all that together, and you have a collection of “structural” issues that will probably cause the “real” construction FTE numbers to be somewhat different from today’s “reported” numbers by some currently unknown amount that can probably be “estimated out” later on.

The biggest distortion in statistics, however, is a “timeline” issue, and it’s because trying to estimate the “cost per FTE” at the beginning of construction projects is inherently problematic.

To illustrate this point, let’s drill down to one individual project and see how things work:

Award number OK56S09550109 was granted to the City of Shawnee's Housing Authority to modernize the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) system at a public housing development. The current reporting is that $856,585 was awarded for the work, for which 2.5 FTEs have been reported.

However, as of the reporting date only $61,674 has been expended (or $70,084--both numbers appear on the same webpage); that money going to Childers-Childers, Architects.

The 2� FTEs are .5 each of two administrators and 1.5 architects.

Obviously there will be more jobs created as this project moves from design to construction, and the estimate of roughly $340,000 per FTE that could theoretically be cited as accurate today will no longer be valid once a bunch of people show up and actually start installing stuff.

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the "correct" number is $24,669 per FTE (or $28,034), based on the amount expended and jobs created to date.

This “timeline issue” is a statistical problem that Thorman himself acknowledges in his blog:

“With 73,352 jobs created/saved during this reporting period, the number will undoubtedly go up in future months as more projects begin and as more projects enter more labor-intensive phases. The construction jobs created/saved by the stimulus will likely get better before they get worse.”

(Just for the record, a third method you could use to count FTEs would be to divide total grant awards against total estimated construction employment throughout the lifetime of these projects.)

You may recall that the reason we’re having this discussion is because we are trying to come to some conclusion about what impact the stimulus is having on creating jobs—or, alternatively, creating even more geeky FTEs.

Well, having looked at the thing all the way down to the individual project level, it may be that the best answer that’s available...is that there’s no answer yet available.

With that in mind, my conclusion is that we will need some time to create a large enough “statistical universe” of completed or nearly-completed projects before we can begin to make useful extrapolations about the stimulus’ future success, and my guess is that it will be six to 12 months before that threshold is reached...which means I have no idea whether the stimulus is creating or will create a sufficient number of construction jobs relative to its budget, and it may well be summer of 2010 before we do know.

And that, my fellow political observers, has the potential to make the ’10 Congressional midterms very, very, interesting.

�

Is Washblog Washed Up?

leduc — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:48:45 PST

[editor's note, by The Left Shue] Front paged due to relevance of the post - TLS

Every couple of days or so I come to this site hoping to see something profound regarding progressive politics.

It's been really dry lately. �Check out the dribble below this post and you will see what I mean. �Pretty much useless stuff by pretty much the same people. �Nothing to get excited about.

I am looking for an alternative to this list where I can exchange ideas with other progressives. �Anyone got any suggestions?

At 50th Birthday Party, Geov Parrish Announces New Lobbying Career

fake consultant — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:39:42 PST

Longtime activist Geov Parrish unexpectedly revealed to the crowd gathered to celebrate his 50th birthday Friday evening his impending plans to end his decades-long career as a public issues advocate in exchange for new opportunities in the field of corporate communications management and image development.

The announcement appeared to be even more shocking to the glitterati gathered for Parrish’s 50th birthday extravaganza at Seattle’s tony Rainier Club than the fact that the event was sponsored by longtime Parrish nemesis Frank Blethen, publisher of the “Seattle Times” and a frequent target of Parrish’s acerbic criticism regarding the state of corporatocracy and its negative impact upon the state of the Nation.

A new commercial venture and three new business relationships were unveiled: a corporate communications consultancy, tentatively to be named “I Am The State!”, is to be opened in the next few weeks, after suitable office space is located, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and The Seattle Times Company as the first two business associates; additionally, Parrish will be joining the Board of Directors of the Strangelove Foundation, an organization devoted to maintaining the purity and essence of our precious bodily fluids.

A book deal was also announced.

Parrish was in an ebullient mood as he explained the thought process behind his decision:

“After spending so many years fighting for affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans—all to no avail—I’ve decided to focus my efforts on getting myself high-quality health care, no matter what the cost…and considering, on the one hand, that my projected income next year from just the US Chamber of Commerce and Seattle Times operations are going to be somewhere in the range of $2.5 million dollars, and, on the other hand, that when my company pays for my new gold-plated executive health insurance plan it’s fully tax-deductible, I’m thinking the cost of health care is probably not going to be a problem for me going forward.

And then I thought: what better day to make the announcement…than Friday the 13th?” �

Apparently channeling Dave Chappell, Parrish then offered the crowd a certain single-fingered gesture before shouting:

“I’m rich, bitchaaas!”

In an exclusive interview, Frank Blethen explained to me the rationale behind the surprising new relationship:

“There was a time when we could afford to ignore publications like “Eat the State!”, but as conditions for traditional publishers continued to deteriorate we found ourselves having to face the uncomfortable reality that last year Parrish’s paper was actually more profitable than “The Seattle Times”, and it was at that point that the Board and I decided to approach Parrish with an offer of employment.” �

Parrish declined the offer, citing his unwillingness to be anyone’s employee. Blethen, however, would not be dissuaded:

“…we were determined to have him, in whatever capacity we could, and finally we hit upon the idea of hiring him as a consultant. We still couldn’t come up with enough of an annual retainer for Parrish to be fully persuaded, so I made a quick call to Tom Donohue at the Chamber, which is how we came up with the proposal to have him advise not just The Seattle Times Company on media outreach and branding strategies, but, through the auspices of the Chamber, to provide those same services to other companies that could use ‘the Parrish Touch’.”

As the Obama Administration’s plans for a new energy policy begin to become more certain Parrish’s I Am The State! is also expected to provide services to companies outside the media community.

I was able to confirm this with a quick call to Exxon/Mobil spokesman Harry Paratestes, who told me that:

“…we are one of several companies that are seeking to reinvigorate our corporate image ahead of any new energy legislation that might be forthcoming from this and future Administrations.

Parrish’s ability to successfully position his own media property while simultaneously destroying three competing papers—first, the “Seattle Weekly”, then, Hearst’s “Seattle Post-Intelligencer”, and finally, the “Seattle Times”—gives us the confidence we need to invest in his ideas and every expectation of a profitable and mutually satisfying outcome.”

Based on a recommendation from Tom Donohue, Center Street Publishers is rumored to have offered a $3.5 million advance for the rights to Parrish’s new book documenting his change of circumstances, “The State Can Eat Me!”; it is anticipated that distribution will be not only through traditional retail channels, but also through Conservative websites such as Human Events, which is currently offering books by Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin at deep discounts to entice new website subscribers.

A number of times during the evening I attempted to obtain a comment directly from Mr. Parrish regarding these developments, but due to my inability to penetrate either the cordon of sunglass-wearing security personnel or the ever-present entourage that now surrounds him that effort proved to be impossible.

In a written statement, Parrish’s people informed us that his next move will be to visit the Columbia Tower, Carillon Point, and the South Lake Union area to identify a suite of offices that can be redesigned to meet his specific requirements (which, I’m told, include an indoor shooting range, a cafeteria operated by the local “Popeye’s” chicken franchisee, and the largest organ in the State of Washington); during the period of construction, we were informed, he will be in residence in either the other Washington, at the Hay-Adams Hotel, or Atlanta, Georgia, at the Omni Hotel at CNN Center, where, despite the fact that he was initially recruited by the “Times’” Blethen, he will be doing his first consulting work for other members of the Chamber.

On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

fake consultant — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:18:33 PST

There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats’ concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House’s version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

�The goal is to limit women’s access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn’t have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I’m starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I’m also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak’s logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It’s Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we’re done here it’s entirely possible that you’ll see Stupak’s logic in a whole new light.

So let’s go back a moment and reconsider what Stupak wants: his religious beliefs are offended by the concept of abortion, and he is taking steps to ensure that the government is not using his taxpayer dollars to pay for the procedure.

This precedent is fascinating—and what I’m inviting you to do today is to consider, for a moment, what our government might look like if we take his logic and...extend it a bit.

“...In the game of life, the house edge is called Time. In whatever we do, Nature charges us for doing it in the currency of time...”
--Bob Stupak, “Yes, You Can Win!”

I always try to find common ground with those I oppose, and the most logical place to start would be to consider the fact that Stupak and I are both morally offended by the idea that we use taxpayer dollars to go around killing people.

So where do we differ?

For starters, I find it morally offensive that my taxpayer dollars are used, on a daily basis, to fund the actual killing of actual, living, people by my Government...so, Congressman Stupak, in the name of finding common ground, how about if the same day your Amendment goes into effect we also stop funding any military activities that might reasonably be expected to, as I hear people say, “stop a beating heart”, so as to prevent offending my religious sensibilities?

John Allen Muhammad, the so-called “Washington Sniper”, is scheduled to be executed today. Are you prepared to support legislation, Congressman Stupak, which will prevent his “post-term abortion” and the potential abortions of all those other human lives on Death Rows around this country if those state-sponsored abortions are as much of an affront to my religious beliefs as they should be to yours?

During the more or less four months worth of slow-walking and stalling that we have seen so far in this process 15,000 Americans have died...or, if you prefer, five 9/11s...simply because they have no health insurance—and unless your religion is a lot more bloodthirsty than mine, the abortions of 15,000 people because of the...what’s the word I’m looking for here...let’s see...could it be...sloth...of your colleagues should be an act as reprehensible as the greatest of blasphemies ever recorded in The Bible.

With that in mind, are you prepared to join me in cutting off the use of my taxpayer dollars to fund the salaries, the “public option” health care, and the office operations of those legislators who are behind these killings?

What else do we do that’s aborting lives on a daily basis that I’m sure Congressman Stupak would be glad to allow me, as a result of the offense to my conscience (and, presumably, his), to “negatively fund with extreme prejudice”?

There’s that Drug War, of course, and whatever we're doing in those secret prisons—and public ones—and subsidies for those who clear mountains and poison lands...not to mention the tax dollars I’ve been providing for a company who did electrical work that’s aborting soldiers.

So whaddaya think, Congressman Stupak?

Since you’re so proud of your pro-life credentials, are you ready to stand up with me and defend the principle that all human lives deserve to be protected, and that we have the right to withhold funding for all those activities that are morally repugnant...or are you just another one of those “enablers” who helped kill 15,000 people this past few months?

Enquiring minds want to know.

On Closing The Deal, Or, Referendum 71 Polling Analyzed

fake consultant — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:07:35 PST

It is now Election Day around the US, and one ballot question that is attracting national attention is Washington State’s Referendum 71.

Voting “yes” on the Referendum would codify in law various protections for same-sex domestic partners, and it is similar to a measure that the citizens of Maine are also voting on today.

We have polling data that is fairly fresh, so let’s take this last chance to look at where we might be, and what you should be looking for over the next few days as you attempt to judge how this one is going.

As always, a few words of setup are in order.

Washington State is one of two vote-by-mail states (Oregon is the other). Ballots went out to voters 20 days before Election Day, and any ballot postmarked before midnight, November 3rd will be counted. (In the November 2008 election, 50% of ballots were still in the mail at the close of business on Election Day)

As a result, there will not be a “final” count tonight…and if the race is exceptionally close, it could be weeks before the recount process is complete.

You should also be aware that the lead can change after Election Day, based on how many votes are coming in, and where they’re coming from. You can track the statewide results at the Washington Secretary of State’s website.

(And if you want to learn more about Washington’s unusual ballot system, visit your local library…or my last story.)

This vote is on a Referendum. What that means is that the Legislature initially passed the bill we are considering today, and now a group of citizens, who didn’t like what the Legislature did, have gathered sufficient signatures to force a final vote by the People before the bill can become law.

Voting “yes” means the bill granting additional rights to “committed couples” will become law (the law would apply to same-sex couples of any age, or male-female couples if one partner is over the age of 62); voting “no” will prevent the bill from taking effect.

If you support the Legislature’s actions, you would have opposed the proponents of the Referendum while they were gathering signatures—but now you would be voting “yes” on Referendum 71. This is more than a bit confusing, and a poll conducted this summer suggested as many as 10% of voters shared that confusion. (Since then, of course, people have been running ads.)

Now, a few words about the poll we’ll be discussing. There is no daily tracking poll for us to work with, which means we won’t be able to analyze trends over time. Instead, we have a “snapshot in time” with which to work.

This study (“The Washington Poll”) is conducted two to five times per election cycle by members of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Washington, and it appears to have been a “neutral” poll over the years.

The poll was conducted over a period of two weeks, from October 14-26th. 724 people were interviewed, and there is a 3.6% margin of error. Because results were collected over a two-week period, we do not know if opinions have been shifting or if respondents have been holding firmly to their positions during the collection period.

All that said, here’s what we do know:

First, the Secretary of State projects 51% of Washington’s 3.5 million voters will be heard in this election, which is lower than the 85% last year, which is no surprise.

And how that 51% views The Big Question, Yes or No: among all voters, it’s 56% yes, 39% no, among likely voters, 57% yes, 38% no, and among those who report they have already voted, it’s 55% yes, 45% no. These numbers are all outside the margin of error, suggesting we can have high confidence that “yes” is ahead.

Roughly 5% of both likely voters and all voters report that they might change their minds, and that holds true for those who support and oppose the Referendum, suggesting the two groups might well cancel each other out.

Democrats are more likely to support the Referendum than Republicans are likely to oppose it, and centrist voters are leaning slightly in favor (48%-46%, with 7% unsure.)

Roughly 4.8 million of Washington’s nearly 6.7 million residents live in Western Washington, and more or less 4 � million of those are residents of the Puget Sound region.

Puget Sound voters are running 60-35% in favor, all voters in Western Washington are leaning 55%-40% for, and voters in Eastern Washington are leaning slightly against, 46%-49%.

Independents and Republicans are the most likely to be undecided, at 7% and 6%, respectively.

Females are more likely than males to support R-71 (62% yes, 33% no, versus 49% yes, 47% no). Moderates are leaning for it by 57%-36%, and Liberals like it better (87%-11%) than Conservatives dislike it (27%-68%).

All age groups are leaning for R-71, with the ever-reliable voters over 65 supporting the measure by a 52%-42% margin.

A Survey USA poll released October 6th showed the yes/no results were within the margin of error, with 13% undecided. The more recent Washington Poll shows undecideds under 3%, suggesting that the more people think about this, the better they like it.

So that’s the story as of this morning: Referendum 71 looks like it might pass, but a lot of the votes will be in the mail, which means the results might be unclear at the end of this evening.

There are very few left to make up their minds, one way or the other, although it is possible that some will be confused as to whether “yes” means “no”, and vice versa.

The fact that most of the results are well outside the margin of error suggests that the “yes” supporters should be feeling pretty good about their situation…and in about 12 hours, we’ll see if that’s going to be true—or not.

On A New System (Sort Of), Or, Referendum 71 And Mail-In Voting

fake consultant — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:55:55 PDT

We are now about two weeks away from the November election in Washington State, and one item on the ballot that has national attention is Referendum 71, the so-called “everything but marriage” proposal that would give same-sex couples more rights and protections than they have today.

There has been a lot of conversation about whether it will or won’t pass—and a lot of conversation about whether it should pass.

I hope it does, and if you live here I encourage you to vote “yes” November 3rd.

But that said, you may not be aware that Washington has an electoral system in transition, and that as a result of the transition Washington has some idiosyncrasies that will make forecasting the results a bit tougher, and determining the results a bit slower.

We’ll talk about that today, and by the time we’re done you should have an appreciation of the odd way in which things can work out—and that, absent a landslide, we aren’t likely to know the results on Election Day.

These Are Not Normal Times

We have the strangest weather here: it is not quite 50 degrees F. as I write this, in midafternoon; but by tonight it’s expected to get warmer as the rain moves in.

In normal times, this is the kind of thing experts would be considering as they tried to estimate what turnout might be in the upcoming election—but these are not normal times. After the November ’08 election, Washington, following Oregon’s lead, became the second “vote-by-mail” state, and now the question has become not whether weather will impact the turnout...but if it will matter at all.

“Democracy is only an experiment in government, and it has the obvious disadvantage of merely counting votes instead of weighing them.”
--Dean William Ralph Inge, “Possible Recovery?”

The first unusual thing about Election Day in Washington is that there no longer is an Election Day. Voting now begins when the ballots begin to arrive in voters’ homes (20 days before Election Day), and as of Sunday, October 25th, King County Elections (Washington’s largest county; the county that includes Seattle and almost 1/3 of the State’s population) reports that 8.59% of the ballots are already in. All ballots with a postmark before November 4th will be counted, which means there will be new ballots arriving for several days after the “polls close”.

(As you may have guessed, each county operates their own elections office. All elections in the State are regulated by the Washington Secretary of State, which is also the office that handles paperwork for State-level candidates, initiatives, and referenda.)

This is driving the professional political community nuts, because it means every day there is a smaller pool of voters to influence, even though the cost of advertising time isn’t going down. Additionally, it is at the moment unclear exactly who has voted and how; over time, I think we’ll begin to see patterns emerge.

For example, in King County in this election cycle, the locations most likely to have already voted are, for the most part, the wealthiest regions of the county. A group of six communities clustered around Bill Gates’ house all have “in” rates above 10.5%, including three above 13%. The Town of Beaux Arts Village is at the top of that pack, running almost double the countywide rate at 16.74%.

The other communities most likely to have already voted are among the most rural in the County. Skykomish has 16.31% in, Enumclaw 12%. Unincorporated rural King County, however, is only running 8.49%, suggesting that the trend to vote early among the wealthy is more predictable than that same trend among the rural voters.

Among the many communities with average “in rates”, however, are clusters of low- and upper-income housing—and that’s where it is impossible to determine precisely who’s voted already and who is left to influence. With polling reports on Election Day you can track by precinct (and that type of tracking will be available after November 3rd), but for now an effective method of tracking has not emerged.

We assume that over time we’ll see the development of some form of “exit polling” of those who have already voted...but this is the first significant election since all-mail voting began, and prediction tools are as of yet untested.

“Message, We Have A Problem”

All of this is affecting advertising—after all, if you don’t know what portion of the electorate has already voted, how do you target your message to the remaining voters? When we get a week out, if we have 20% or more of the ballots in, this question will begin to loom very large as campaigns have to decide whether they have spent enough campaign dollars to buy airtime...or not...and whether the target audience they seek to influence is actually responding to the message...or not.

This all becomes even tougher to figure out because it’s a series of state and local races that are being contested in this election; as a result there is no daily tracking poll data available from which we might draw some near real-time conclusions.

Speaking of polling data: here’s some. A Survey USA poll conducted October 3rd and released October 6th of 548 likely voters suggests R-71 was winning 45%-42%. Women were both more likely to vote for the measure and more unsure as to how they would vote, relative to men (48% yes, 36% no, 16% unsure for females; 42% yes, 46% no, 12% unsure for males).

Voters 35-49 were simultaneously the least supportive of the measure and the most unsure as to how they’ll vote (35% approve, 49% reject, with 20% unsure). Voters over 65, the group most likely to vote, were supporting the measure (44%-40%, 16% unsure) as of October 6th.

The poll has a 4% margin of error, and some of these results are within that range, so as of October 6th this was still a race that’s very much up for grabs.

There are no Federal or State offices being contested in this election, and the only other statewide ballot issue, Initiative 1033, seeks to limit the growth of State income. The presence of the two ballot measures is likely to increase voting by 3% to 8%. It is suggested that a lower turnout will help the anti-71 crowd, a higher turnout, the pro-71 crowd.

All of this has had a major impact on “get out the vote” efforts as well—for example, no one volunteers to drive voters to polling places anymore...because there aren’t any polling places left. (There are a few exceptions for the disabled.) Instead, the effort here is to make sure those ballots get in mailboxes before Election Day.

It is possible to construct ads that attempt to “close the deal”: suggesting, in the last 20 days, that voters vote right now for or against the candidate or issue, but I haven’t seen ads of that type yet.

Finally, a few words about the “after Election Day” action. If this election is close, the number of votes that are in the mail in the days following the close of voting (and where they’re from) will be critical—and in the ‘08 cycle 50% of the total votes cast were in that “in the mail” category.

(Washington has been moving to voting by mail for some time, and in the 2008 cycle more than 90% of the votes cast were mail-in ballots. At that time 37 of the State’s 39 counties were voting entirely by mail.)

The bad news: it could take anywhere from several days to several weeks before we absolutely know the results. This process may include “reevaluation” of votes after Election Day and efforts by either party to disallow votes based on what they think they can get away with, and the result could be litigation.

The good news: there are no electronic voting machines in this system, and every ballot is a paper ballot. This means we can determine, eventually, exactly how the votes were cast—and if it takes a few recounts before we know the results, well, that’s what it will take.

So as of right now, that’s where we’re at: it’s the first major election since mail-in voting was adopted statewide, we are not sure of exactly how the impact of early voting is being felt, even though we know that almost 10% of the votes are in, professionals are still not exactly sure of what’s going on, and there should be a higher turnout due to the fact that we have two questions on the ballot for the entire voting public to consider.

Don’t expect a final result on Election Night, and if we do have to go to a recount, there won’t be any electronic voting machines to screw things up. Instead, every vote will be on a paper ballot. Most importantly of all: this ain’t Florida, we’ve been through recent close elections and recounts before—and we were able to work things out just fine.

On Being A Government DJ, Or, "Torture? You Call That Torture?"

fake consultant — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:32:29 PDT

It's become more or less common knowledge that US forces have been using music as an operational tool for some time now, and I've begun seeing lists of the songs that are being used either to inflict pain, to demoralize, or to just generally disorient various people in various sorts of situations.

There are others, wiser than I, who will opine as to the questions of efficacy and the moral issues surrounding these kinds of operations; I will opine, instead, as to the quality of the songs used.

Frankly, had anyone asked, I could have put the torturers onto much better musical choices, just by selecting from my own "My Music" folder--which left me thinking: "hey, it's the weekend...why not do exactly that?"

Got any psychological warfare missions planned for the weekend? Expecting to have to direct amplified sound at an angry mob in a defensive maneuver Saturday night? Planning a Halloween haunted house that goes a bit...fuurther?

Come along with me then, soldier, and I'll provide you a playlist that should do the trick in almost any foreseeable emergency.

Before we go any further, a word of warning: some of the links in this story will lead to material that is extraordinarily offensive and, in some cases, exceptionally distressing in nature.

If you are reading this, and you're, say, eleven years old, go get your parents and make them read this with you so that they can also learn about some sweet death metal; later on you can all listen to better music in the car on family outings.

What's On Guantanamo's iPod?

So the obvious first question: what songs are the government using?

If the lists that I've been seeing can be believed, there is a fair collection of songs being used to create "environmental manipulation", including songs like Eminem's "White America" and "Kim", �the obvious choices like "Born in the USA", songs from the super-patriotic county song genre like that "boot in your ass" song, sexually suggestive songs like Christina Aguilera's "Dirrty" (which has a waaaay dirtier video than lyrics...), and a heavy diet of heavy metal. (According to Justine Sharrock's reporting at Mother Jones, MPs on duty in the detention facilities would often be making the choices about what detainees would hear.)

"The healthy man does not torture others -- generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers."
--Carl Jung

The odd thing about the metal: most of the songs seem to be far more tame than what they could have found--and a lot of the songs are actually among my "Rocktober" favorites...although at least one song was new to me, and I liked it, too.

Examples included Nine Inch Nail's "March of the Pigs", AC~DC's "Hell's Bells", Drowning Pool's "Bodies", Mettalica's "Enter Sandman", and a song by Deicide that I had never heard before...but, to borrow from "American Bandstand", it had a great death metal beat and you could mosh to it. �

Now if it had been me in there, I would have suggested, for starters, some good old New Orleans Goatwhore, like "Alchemy of the Black Sun Cult", or maybe some delightful Cannibal Corpse ("Barbaric Bludgeonings" being a good place to start), or perhaps something that draws from Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" concept, like "Upper Decker", by The Red Chord.

One of my friends suggested I consider a Norwegian Black Metal band (which is a good choice due to the Satanic messages that are literally at the core of the music); and you can't go wrong with either Gorgoroth's most excellent "Carving a Giant" or a selection from Emperor's "The Nightside Eclipse" (which should also be mandatory for any haunted house soundtrack anywhere).

Did You Say Sex?

Songs with gay-oriented themes work in both PsyOps and "friendly" haunted house environments; my suggestions would include two long-time favorites: The Mike Flowers Pops' rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" (which actually manages to be amazingly perky, unabashedly "pop", samples "The Macarena", and, despite all that, doesn't suck), or, when you're ready for the big guns, the Keta-Men's super-masculine, give-it-a-beat, four-part-harmony reworking of Sheryl Crow's "Strong Enough"; which should be effective, as I said, for any PsyOps you may have planned--or any friendly haunting.

As for other songs with a sexual connection: well, you could do a lot better than Christina Aguilera. How about, just to get things rolling, 20 Fingers and Gilette's "Short Dick Man" ...and then, after midnight, you gotta dig up the impotent sea snakes' "Kangaroos (Up the Butt)" (which is, indeed, about an Australian lifestyle choice gone horribly, horribly, wrong)

Apparently songs like "Wind Beneath My Wings", "Mandy", Air Supply's "Lost in Love", the entire Celine Dion catalog, and Morris Albert's unforgettable "Feelings" (unforgettable? After you hear it, you wish you could forget it...) did not make the list (although the public record is incomplete, and that may yet prove to be incorrect). The "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack apparently did make the cut, which confirms some theories I've had about the Brothers Gibb and torture that date back to the 1970s...but that's a subject for another day.

It also appears that no one went for the industrial/dance bands, and as far as I'm concerned, no serious haunted house (or PsyOps mission) is complete until the Negativland comes out to play--but there's a lot of other top-quality disorienting and jarring music available, including music from :wumpscut: and ohGr and Einst�rzende Neubauten...or even Twink's "Pussy Cat".

Finally, a few words about what might be the cruelest songs to make it on the list.

The theme from the Meow Mix commercials made the list.

The Sesame Street theme song made the list.

And, finally, in what might be the most barbaric act ever perpetrated by the American Government...Barney the purple dinosaur's "I Love You", a song you always said was torture to have to listen to, has now actually been used to soften up detainees for interrogation at Guantanamo Bay.

Amazingly, the song that might be the worst ever to have deployed against you in any PsyOps operation--or any haunted house, for that matter--is not on any list I've seen so far: the theme from the Disney ride "It's a Small World". I can testify to this personally: as a kid at Disneyland I was stuck on the ride, one summer day, for about an hour-and-a-half.

All I can say...is that it changes you.

Check out the link. It's almost 11 minutes long, and I challenge you to sit through the whole thing. If you do make it, I challenge you to get that song out of your head...ever...again. Good luck.

On Using Mr. Bullhorn, Or, DC Health Summit Thursday: Come Say Hi...Loudly

fake consultant — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:33 PDT

It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid “Town Hall” protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I’m not likely to ever visit.

Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.

So wouldn’t it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?

By an amazing coincidence, that’s exactly what’s going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.

Follow along, and I’ll tell you everything you need to know.

The Who, The What

There are two important bits of setting up that are required to make this story work; and the first is to explain who the PCPCC is, exactly. To quote their website:

"The Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative is a coalition of major employers, consumer groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, labor unions, hospitals, clinicians and many others who have joined together to develop and advance the patient centered medical home. The Collaborative has well over 500 members.
The Collaborative believes that, if implemented, the patient centered medical home will improve the health of patients and the viability of the health care delivery system. In order to accomplish our goal, employers, consumers, patients, clinicians and payers have agreed that it is essential to support a better model of compensating clinicians."

The "patient centered medical home"?

Is that anything like "precious bodily fluids"?

Actually, the original idea was to create a "home" where a patient's scattered medical records could be gathered. Forty years later, the concept has evolved to a "home doctor" who coordinates all your health and wellness care from all your providers.

This is a huge shift in how care is delivered (and how healthcare dollars would be distributed), which is why the Collaborative has so many members...including seven of the top ten health insurers in the country.

The Why

I've been getting emails that tell me CEOs such as Stephen Helmsley of UnitedHealth and Angela Braly of WellPoint (insert booing and hissing here) will be present--and these are the exact people that you should be giving a "Town Hall-like" welcome of their own when they hit Washington.

Groups such as Democracy for America and TrueMajority will be working together to bring people who have been personally affected by the insurance crisis to the meeting--even though we're not invited inside to support something like, oh, I don't know...maybe a public option?

They want you to attend as well, to make lots of noise, and to send the message that we won't be ignored. It's a critical time in the debate, as there are Democrats yet to be convinced, and if you can be at this meeting it will capture media attention that could help move those Democrats to our positions.

The Where, The When

The event takes place in Washington DC all day Thursday (from 9-4:30) at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, conveniently located at 801 Mount Vernon Place NW; just six blocks from the Executive Office Building and the White House complex...and, on its south side, just 50 feet from K Street, the "Glitter Gulch" of lobbying.

There's a handy Metro station, and if you walk to the south end of the Convention Center (the Mt. Vernon Square end of the building) you'll find that the American Federation of Labor occupies a building across the street from the Square on the west side--and National Public Radio occupies a building diagonally across the Square on the east side.

So if you're planning to be in Washington Thursday--or you've been looking for an excuse to visit--make a day of it: stroll by the White House, see lobbyists and unions and National Public Radio at work...and most importantly of all, make sure the CEOs of the health insurers in attendance get the same kind of rousing "Town Hall" welcome at the Convention Center that they spent millions of dollars to create in our own home towns.

In other words, bring Mr. Bullhorn--and the extra batteries.

Of course, I don't want to make this too much of a hard sell.

After all, it's not as if your life depends on you attending some--hey, wait a minute...actually, I guess it kind of does.

Susan Hutchison - "Sort-of-Republican" or "Republican Religious Wingnut"?

Valerie Tarico — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:36:38 PDT

Next week in King County, Washington, "nonpartisan" Susan Hutchison will be vying with Democrat Dow Constantine for the role of County Executive. The seat controls significant resources in a region that often plays a leadership role in future oriented public policy. If King County were a state, its budget size would be 13th in the country. Economically, the county lives on cutting edge science, engineering and technology: Microsoft, Boeing, Amgen, Nintendo and a host of tech/biotech start ups.

What national precedents is King County likely to be setting in the next go around? That depends in part on who sits in the executive seat. Constantine has track records in brokering anti-sprawl, sustainable development and historic preservation. He's a proponent of strong, innovative carbon policies. But who is the elusive Hutchison? Seattle Times reporter Danny Westneat called Susan Hutchison a sort-of-Republican. Erica Barnett at the Stranger called her a Republican Religious Wingnut. A member of her own party called her "our Sarah Palin." Is Susan Hutchison a Palin in the making? You be the judge.

In this post, Bill Alford at Moral Politics Television, Seattle, interviewed Dr. Valerie Tarico, author, activist, and former evangelical about what she perceives behind the nonpartisan veil.

Is Susan Hutchison a stealth right winger and closet fundamentalist, as some folks are saying?
Let's start with her political leanings. Hutchison is a solid triple R: Religious Right Republican. Since 2003, her political giving supported Mike Huckabee (over John McCain), George W. Bush, and Dino Rossi. She spent $3000 trying to get Rossi into office. All of her political/religious affiliations are with what I would call effective, conservative or evangelical organizations with good PR. Calling herself "nonpartisan" is a smart posture, because King County majorities probably wouldn't vote for Susan Hutchison if they were clear on her political identity. And it works. In an early interview with Seattlepi.com reporter Neil Modie, Hutchison herself said, "Our polls showed that 10 percent of the people responding thought I was extremely liberal." Her team is working to sustain that confusion.

Solidly Repubican. How about fundamentalist?
Well that depends on what you mean by fundamentalist? If you use fundamentalist to mean strident, cut-off-from- the-world, and fringe, then no. Hutchison is gracious and charming and obviously right in the swirl of the Seattle's fine arts community. If you mean a fundamentalist from a theological standpoint: the Bible is the literally perfect word of god, Jesus was born to a literal virgin, Jesus was a human sacrifice, people who don't believe that are going to be tortured forever. Yes. It would appear from Susan Hutchison's own words that she's a born-again fundamentalist who thinks that politicians should use their status to promote their religious beliefs. Hutchison gave the keynote at a prayer breakfast this spring. Here is a reading she chose, which was followed by her own born again testimony and exhortation for politicians to use their bully pulpit to promote their (Christian) religion.

"It was through what his son did that God cleared a path for everything to come
to him all things in heaven and in hearth . . . for Christ's death on the Cross
has made peace with God for all by his blood. . . . He has done this through the
death on the cross of his own human body . . . The only condition is that you
fully believe the truth, believe the truth, standing in it and never shifting
from trusting him to save you. This is the wonderful news that came to each of
you and is now spreading throughout the world. Prayer
Breakfast 1:02:35 to 1:04:40

Note the emphasis on blood sacrifice, belief, and spreading the good news. This is a very evangelical choice, and she follows it with stories that reinforce the message. You can hear Hutchison's message at WTV, linked above through Barnett's article. Hutchison begins around 47 minutes into the breakfast.

What exactly is the part you quoted?
Well, what she was actually reading from is something called the Living Bible. It's not a translation, so you won't find it even at Evangelical sites like www.biblegateway.com that allow you to compare Bible translations side by side. Back in the 1970's a fundamentalist preacher and writer named Kenneth Taylor decided he wanted the Bible to be more accessible, so he wrote his own version, an admitted "paraphrase." That means he put in his own words what he thought God was trying to say. I can't resist quoting George Bernard Shaw here: No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.

Actually, it's not unusual for Biblical literalists to pick and choose what translations or paraphrases they use to make a point, as Hutchison has done. In The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren uses over 15 different translations, if I remember correctly. He chooses whichever translation best suits his point for different verses he cites.

Hutchison chose not only her Bible but her text fragments carefully. She left out some parts that might have been a bit jarring. For example, early in her message she emphasized that Jesus made : "the earthly world with its rulers and authorities, its Washington State government, . . . ." The words Washington State government replaced the words, all were made by Christ for his own use and glory. His own use? His own glory? It sounds kind of ugly. So she put in something benign that doesn't jar listeners out of the narrative flow and in fact brings it closer to home. She is a wonderful evangelical speaker. Her message quality is on par with that of Joel Olsteen or Rick Warren. In a denomination that allowed women in the pulpit, she could draw a large congregation.

But wouldn't any real Christian be comfortable with those words she wrote? Wouldn't they agree with them?
Not necessarily. Many, many Christians would chose other words to represent their faith. Remember that for Susan Hutchison to read these words -- there are layers of filtering here. As more is known about the Bible through linguistic analysis and archeological discoveries, more and more Christian theologians don't think of the Bible as the literally perfect word of God. We know that some parts were copied from Akkadian and Sumerian texts, some parts were handed down through oral traditions. The Catholic councils that decided what got into the Bible and what didn't -they didn't have access to the same quality of information we have now, and they were responding to a specific political context. Hutchison's reading is her edited selection of a paraphrase by Ken Taylor of the book of Colossians. But who wrote the book of Colossians? Scholars aren't so sure any more. You can get a glimpse of the dispute even on Wikipedia.

Hutchison chose this fragment of writing by a contested author paraphrased by a fundamentalist to fit her own beliefs about blood atonement and salvation--and her evangelistic message to electeds. This is a fundamentalist evangelical choice. People hear that Hutchison attends a Presbyterian church and they assume that she is mainstream in her community and beliefs. What they don't know is that fundamentalism as a movement actually emerged out of the Presbyterian seminaries in the early Twentieth Century, and Presbyterian churches vary widely in terms of where they fall on the continuum. Hutchison's church is not middle of the road for Presbyterians in this region. It is fairly middle of the road for evangelical churches. During the prayer breakfast message, Hutchison made another move that reflects both fundamentalist theology and her personality. She very graciously but clearly used evangelical language to dismiss other forms of Christianity.

What do you mean?
Well, part of the talk is a classic evangelical "testimony." This is a stock form of proselytizing in which the speaker shares their own born again experience. She talks about how she was raised in Christianity, knew the Bible but she wasn't a real Christian until she realized she needed a "more personal faith" and had this "thing happen to her." The word personal - personal relationship with Jesus, personal salvation and so on--it's a big word in Evangelical circles. She emphasizes salvation by belief in blood atonement. She repeats it several times. This is a way that Protestants, particularly Evangelicals differentiate themselves from Catholics, who believe that salvation comes through both faith and works. The message is that you are not really a Christian until you have this personal relationship, and salvation is about belief.

The real question here is: What are the implications for her likely priorities in public office?
What is the old saying? We are known by the company we keep. That is actually reasonable folk wisdom. James Wellman, University of Washington sociologist likes to say that, "Our sense of reality is socially constructed." It makes sense to assume that Hutchison's priorities are shaped by her expressed values and her associations, just like the rest of us. So, independent of her work for the Simonyi Foundation, who does Hutchison hang out with?

Her prayer breakfast talk was hosted by an organization called Washington Leadership. Their tag line is: A place where state and community leaders can come together with emerging leaders around the person of Jesus. I might expect her to be a bit fuzzy on church/state separation issues, because the evangelical mandate as I know it, and as she manifested it in her prayer breakfast talk trumps separation. Hutchison appears to have a strong value on leveraging public exposure to spread her version of Christianity. Hutchison is on the board of Young Life international, which fits perfectly. It is a fun, smart evangelical organization that seeks to convert teenagers and get teenagers to convert each other to this fundamentalist theology we heard her reading.

Until she began her run for office, she also was on the board of the Discovery Institute, which gets evangelical funding to undermine secular "materialist" science education and replace it with a sophisticated version of creationism called Intelligent Design. They claim ID is science, but even the Templeton Foundation, an organization that funds the intersection between faith and science disagrees and won't give them money. I find it dismaying that Hutchison has been around the caliber of scientists she claims to have encountered through her work at Simonyi without developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method and why it works so well.

Hutchison spoke this month at a conservative think tank, the Washington Policy Institute that espouses free market fundamentalism and right now is promoting a film trying to deny climate science and dissuade climate action. So again you see this inclination toward undermining the scientific enterprise--in the WPI case with an eye toward economic policy. In my mind the connection between free market fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism is an orientation toward ideology (ie. strong narrative filters that screen out contradictory information) and perhaps consequently a weakened ability run a recalc on early assumptions and decisions.

Any final thoughts?
I look at Susan Hutchison, and as a former evangelical I see a woman on a mission, in that sense much like Sarah Palin, but without the weird exorcism of witches stuff. Hutchison's evangelical associations have steered her in a very specific political direction: She gave money to evangelical Republican Mike Huckabee over John McCain. She refuses to answer questions about reproductive rights. Heck, she even refuses to tell people that she's a Republican. While working for Charles Simonyi and giving away his money, she has had plenty of opportunity to become more sophisticated about the scientific method and data based decisions - but instead I might worry that she has become better at clinging to an ideology in the face of evidence to the contrary. I personally prefer having someone in the King County Exec office who bases their policy decisions on data and who is on a mission to serve the people of King County.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org

On Learning To Love Homegrown, Or, Baucus' Fundraising Considered

fake consultant — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:54:13 PDT

So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.

We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.

But most of all, we’ve been asking ourselves: “why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?”

Today’s conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana’s Senator Max Baucus—and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.

“The idea of covering even the early stages of the cynical and increasingly retrograde campaign has already plunged me into a condition bordering on terminal despair, and if I thought I might have to stay with these people all the way to November I would change my name and seek work as a professional alligator poacher in the swamps around Lake Okeechobee.”
--Hunter S. Thompson, “Jimmy Carter and the Great Leap of Faith”

Now any normal person trying to analyze last year’s election would have said something like “the fact that Obama was promoting a new type of politics—and that a large majority of the public liked what they were seeing—should have meant that politicians would finally do what the public wanted”...and if you’re as cynical as I am, you might have thought that the fact that Obama is the most successful fundraiser in the history of politics would have made other candidates figure that supporting Obama, politically, would be the easy way to put more cheddar in their own pockets.

But here’s the thing: Senator Baucus has been in Washington, in the same job, since 1978, which is about three years short of half of his entire life (and he spent those three years in the House), and unless he wakes up dead one morning or Montana secedes from the Union he’s pretty much guaranteed to be there until at least January 2015.

In those three decades he’s been able to create, and then “outsource”, his own independent fundraising operation—and he’s been so good at doing this that he can donate money from his own Political Action Committee (Glacier PAC) to other Democrats, which is the Congressional version of acquiring really cool “Magic: The Gathering” cards now in an effort to both control votes today and become a more powerful player later on.

He did it by cultivating people in his own office who later went on to become lobbyists. At least 24 of ‘em. Since Baucus now runs the Senate Finance Committee and every bill in the Senate that needs money has to pass through his Committee for approval, all those hard working lobbyists now lobby...wait for it...their former boss.

This creates a fundraising “virtuous circle”: “Baucus-affiliated” lobbyists sell access to Baucus...and part of the price of that access is donating to Baucus...which, since “the fix is in”, creates legislative successes that lead to more people wanting more access for bigger favors...which makes the prices all go up, creating more power and influence for Baucus and his orbiting constellation of homegrown lobbyists.

And now that the enterprise has reached the point where the entourage has gone on to have their own entourages, Obama’s vision of “change you can believe in” is sounding more like a promise to screw up a perfectly good hustle than it is a way to run a country.

So how does all this influence the healthcare debate?

At the moment, Baucus could literally coach a basketball team of former staff members who now lobby Baucus on behalf of health care clients:

--David Castagnetti of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, Inc. is the vertically integrated busy beaver of the group, representing drug powerhouses Abbot, AstraZeneca, and Biogen, device manufacturers like GE Medical, service providers like Humana and the American Clinical Lab Association, and AHIP, the trade association of health insurers, among others.

--Jeff Forbes, who is currently self-employed, is representing drug maker Roche Group, Manor Care (who provides long-term care services in nursing homes and other environments), and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), a group which includes many of the big players in the medical business.

--Roger Blauwet (he of DC’s Canfield and Associates), is representing Wyeth and Pfizer (two more major drug manufacturers), the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, who are the “reinsurers” who help carry risk for other insurers (in return for a piece of the action), and the Rx Benefits Coalition, which reports that it represents companies that support “market solutions” to make prescription drugs available.

Some clients feel that their needs require more than one “Baucus alumnus” on the payroll, which is why Scott Olsen and Jeff Forbes are working for biotech giant Amgen (along with about 150 other lobbyists), David Castagnetti and Angela Hofmann are slogging it out for Wal-Mart, and Roger Blauwet and Castagnetti are both hoofing it for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), who is, literally, the “Big PhRMA” that everyone talks about.

Drug manufacturer Merck hired three of the anointed: Forbes, Blauwet and Castagnetti.

All of this effort is working—and working well. According to OpenSecrets.org, somewhere in the range of $4.5 million has been donated to Baucus during his career by insurance and healthcare interests.

It isn’t just health care, either. Because somewhere around two dozen former Baucus staffers turned lobbyists are “home on the Washington range”, no matter what is being debated in Congress, Baucus gets paid (two quick examples of his Committee’s jurisdiction: changes in tax policy and financial industry regulation—or the lack of it).

In truth, “Baucus gets paid” is probably a bit too cynical.

What I really should say is that Baucus has been exceptionally successful in listening to all points of view when considering ways to make the lives of every American all they can be, that the people who get listened to are exceptionally grateful for this attention, that millions and millions of dollars worth of gratitude have been funneled to Baucus over the years because he’s such a good listener, and that, from now until at least 2015, if you need a Senator to support “status quo you can believe in” you might want to try launching a great big brick of cheddar into the Senator’s constellation.

So the next time someone asks you how “change you can believe in” could have possibly morphed into “buy insurance or we’ll put you in jail”...well, now you know—and given the choice, wouldn’t you rather watch someone make sausage?

Educating Susan

Valerie Tarico — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:28:14 PDT

World renowned evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, will be at the University of Washington Thursday night (7:30, Hec Ed Pavilion, free). � His new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, distills the overwhelming evidence for evolution. �Dawkins has been called: �"a great explainer, taking complex biological processes and making them accessible. Here, that includes the development of the embryo in early pregnancy, the wonkiness of giraffe anatomy, and our own fishy ancestry." �I'm hoping Susan Hutchison will be in attendance. �It would demonstrate that she is open to learning.

Until her candidacy for King County Exec was announced, the creationist Discovery Institute claimed Hutchison as a board member. � Discovery's biggest accomplishment may be their contribution to Ben Stein's wacky film, Expelled, which attempted to link Darwin's work with Nazi gas chambers.

Expelled was promoted through Evangelical churches across the country. �The movie claims in its first half to be about academic freedom: �creationists (Creation Science-ists, aka Intelligent Design-ists, aka teach-the-controversy-ists) are being unfairly excluded from academic positions. �The complaints have nothing to do with religion--just an earnest desire for our universities to be places of open inquiry. �Seattle-based Discovery Institute staff are featured in interviews.

Then, abruptly, the focus changes. �In the second half, Stein wanders around concentration camps trying to make connections between the evolutionary biology and the final solution (and a host of other godless evils). �The academic balance agenda vanishes, replaced by fear mongering: �It doesn't matter what's real, if people accept the findings of the biological sciences (evolution via natural selection) they will have no morals and will kill each other, just like the Nazis. �(Never mind Hitler's appeals to religion to justify his priorities.) My head was reeling a bit by the end. �I had expected the producer to stick with compatible ploys.

Multiple reviewers derided Expelled as a propaganda piece, on top of which it got terrible ratings. �One of the few positive reviews came from Christianity Today. � But that didn't stop the Discovery Institute -with Susan's vote of approval?-- from offering private screenings for legislators as part of their anti-evolution campaigns �called Academic Freedom bills .

Academic Freedom: the freedom to teach astrology, alternative physics, and intelligent design. �Just what we need. �Not. �With Seattle Public Schools straining to lower graduation standards, and with US students in general falling behind their international peers in science and math, I personally don't want public officials in any capacity who support a race to the bottom.

It's unfortunate that Hutchison's own science education wasn't adequate to let her differentiate science from religion. �Then again, we all have points of ignorance and ideological blind spots. �The question is, can she learn. �Or, as in the past, is she forever at risk of putting her energy behind poorly thought out and ideologically based priorities? �

Noble Victimhood

zappini — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:43:29 PDT

I continue to wonder how the modern Republican (conservative) mind works.

Hatred, anti-intellectualism, self-delusion, willful ignorance, authoritarianism, projection (playing the victim while terrorizing others), etc. -- the common element is mental illness, mental disease.

If we just understood these pathologies, or singular root cause pathology, we could somehow treat it.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest Has Beautiful Eyes" by Ta-Hehisi Coates notes the South's continued remything of their defeat into "noble victimhood". I think all cultures and societies do this active remything, to make one's actions and past more palatable. Otherwise, facing the truth, and oneself, your psyche would be crushed. Now that the Republican's Southern Strategy has played out, is that pathos all that is left?

I have some experience with denial. In the back of my mind, I always knew I'd someday have to address my issues (baggage). But not today. I'm busy. And I knew that facing myself would crush me.

It took a few life threatening experiences and the utter failure of my marriage for me to "hit bottom". When I no longer had any choice but to address my baggage.

When I hear Republicans spew, the dysfunction is all too familiar. I wonder what, if anything, will cause conservatives (collectively) to hit their bottom, causing them to face themselves. Then they'll have the choice, the opportunity, to begin the long, hard work towards recapturing their humanity, to become whole persons. Should that happen, I wonder what I can do to help the process.

Reform for Judicial Elections

zappini — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:17:50 PDT

Goldy argues for retention elections in Lack of leadership obstructs judicial reform. This is Missouri's system for selecting judges. It has effectively stopped big money from buying their courts, a serious threat in Washington state.

Why stop there? All judicial election campaigns should also be publicly financed.

When judges can't even ask for campaign contributions, judges with big money backing are even more likely to get elected.

I posted a comment to haseattle.org about what I learned from watching judges campaigning, included here (below the fold).

http://horsesass.org/?p=20655&cpage=1#comment-948990

30. Jason Osgood spews:

Hi Goldy.

There's something deeply wrong with WA's system of electing judges. I'm kind of ignorant on the issue, but have a suggestion.

I met lots of judges while campaigning in 2008. We'd all stand in back, accosting any fresh face, ask for their support. You get to know people you see night after night.

When stumping, judges can only talk about themselves. They can't talk about any issues, because they're supposed to be impartial. For the same reason, they can't ask for money.

Judicial candidates can't even say if their a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

So they talk about their past. You have to infer their judicial philosophy (abortion, bill of rights, corporate personhood, etc.) from their CV and their endorsements.

It's a ridiculous system.

Everyone running knows it's a ridiculous system. It's a huge distraction from their day jobs. (Most candidates are currently judges or practicing law.)

Being ignorant, I asked pretty much everyone how they thought things should be done.

A few suggested Missouri's system of retention elections.

The basic idea is that Missouri got sick of the money corrupting judicial elections, decided to appoint judges (with a confirmation process), and then judges face the voters for a retention election.

I kind of like this idea. Regular retention elections puts the onus on the judges to show their worth. Versus impeachment process, to remove horrible judges, which puts the burden on the opposition.

So, now for my suggestion:

All judgical election campaigns should be publicly financed.

Washington Public Campaigns has been working on this for our supreme court races.

I have no doubt that Missouri's system of selecting judges is superior to Washington's. I think I'd be happy with retention elections, if they were publicly financed.

09/27/2009 at 9:42 am

On Improbable Realities, Part One, Or, "I Want A Jet Car With Frickin' Lasers..."

fake consultant — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:04:10 PDT

When it comes to getting around, Americans love to consider the question of “what if…?”

As a result, our cars have evolved into “land yachts”, our trucks have become “monster trucks”, and the desire to drag our living spaces around with us has morphed into converted busses with rooms that pop out of the side, a Mini-Cooper hidden under the master bedroom floor, and self-tracking satellite dishes that fight for space on the roof with air conditioning equipment.

And for more than a few of us, “what if…?” has even extended to “what if my car…was a jet car?”

In today’s improbable reality I’m here to tell you that Chrysler engineers asked that exact same question, for roughly a quarter of a century, and as a result they actually designed and deployed seven generations of cars with jet engines—and they came darn close to putting the eighth-generation design on sale to the general public.

It’s a story of pocket protectors and slide rules and offices full of guys who look a bit like Drew Carey…but as we’ll see in Part Two, it may also be a story of technology that couldn’t be perfected “back then”, but could be reborn in our own times.

As so often happens, a bit of “setting up” is needed, and to get this story going we need to discuss exactly how jets—particularly gas turbines—work.

In the case of an automotive engine, the idea is that air is drawn into the engine, that air is compressed, fuel is added, and the air/fuel mixture is then set on fire with a spark plug. This rapidly heats the mixture, it expands, and the energy created by that expansion is used to turn a turbine (a variation on a fan) which is connected to the driveshaft that eventually turns the wheels.

Some aircraft and helicopter engines also use this design to turn propellers, but the majority of aircraft jet engines force the expanding air/fuel mixture out the back of the engine in the form of “thrust” that, to put it as simply as possible, “make airplane go fast”.

From an engineering point of view, there are a lot of advantages to a turbine engine.

In contrast to a design that requires pistons and valves and a crankshaft and a cooling system and a system for oil distribution, turbine engines have very few moving parts, are cheaper to manufacture, and require a relatively small amount of maintenance. They also have very long service lives compared to piston engines.

Beyond that, turbines start right up on very cold days. Because jets output lots of heat you never have to wait for the jet car’s heater to “warm up”, and they can burn virtually any combustible liquid or volatile gas as fuel.

Vibration is very low, and you get 100% of available torque at 0 rpm, which means you don’t have to “rev up” the engine to get the wheels to start turning (something that is also true of vehicles powered by electric motors).

“Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines”
--John Benfield

So that’s the why…now how about the “who did what when?”

1954, 1955, and 1956 saw Chrysler rolling out the first-generation CR-1 turbine engine. One vehicle was produced in each of those years; the ’55 version was designated the Plymouth Belvedere Sportone CR-1 Turbine Special. (The 1956 version of the same vehicle was rated at 100 horsepower and 13 MPG.)

By 1959 the CR-2 engine was in service, again only in “testbed” vehicles, and it had achieved ratings of 200 horsepower and, after a 1,200 mile demonstration run from Detroit to Princeton, New Jersey, a far more respectable 18 MPG.

Operating these vehicles had taught Chrysler a few things about the disadvantages of turbine designs:

--the gases that come out the back of the car are really, really hot (temperatures can climb above 1000 degrees F.).

--after you put your foot on the gas, there is an annoying delay before the turbines (and the wheels) start spinning faster.

--because you’re basically dumping fuel into the combustion chamber, fuel economy sucks.

--the CR-1 and CR-2 engines did not offer “engine braking”, which means there would be extra wear and tear on the brakes at the wheels, and, because the driver would be constantly “riding” the brakes, increased potential for a heat-related braking system failure.

An engine was coming along that would address these problems, and in 1961 it was dropped into the visually stunning TurboFlite, which looked like a cross between two famous automotive avians: an early 1960s T-Bird and a late 1960s Plymouth Superbird. This Chrysler-designed and Ghia-built car even featured a clear “bubble” canopy that lifted up to allow passengers to get in and out.

The CR-2A engine featured fancy new engineering that dramatically reduced the acceleration delay and provided engine braking, and in 1962 one of the two Dodge Darts that was fitted with this engine was taken on a 3,000 mile national tour (New York City to Los Angeles) to introduce the concept to the public. (Two other cars, both Plymouth Furies, were also fitted with turbine engines that year.)

At this point we need to talk about the most unusual characteristic of this type of car: its singularly unique sound.

If you can imagine the sound of a Learjet taxiing several hundred feet away you might have a pretty good idea of—well, actually, you don’t have to imagine it if you don’t want to. You can hear it for yourself by watching the film produced by Chrysler to document that 1962 cross-country trip.

By 1963, a fourth-generation engine had deployed new technology that recycled heat from the exhaust to “preheat” the intake air. This dramatically reduced the exhaust temperature while making it easier to set the intake air on fire, which significantly increased both fuel economy and horsepower.

Other improvements further reduced “acceleration lag” and provided better engine performance while idling.

There is just too much story for one day, so we will stop right here and pick up the rest next time. Before we finish, a quick recap of where we’ve been, and a preview of where we’re going:

Chrysler, among other manufacturers, was experimenting with using jet engines to turn turbines; the idea being to replace the piston engines used in virtually every car built from that day until this with something better.

Four generations of engine had already been produced, many of the problems that were associated with the original design had been either partially remediated or fully resolved, and a significant effort was underway to introduce the idea of “jet cars” to the motoring public.

In Part Two, Chrysler puts a turbine car in the hands of 200 lucky families, we continue a history that may not be over yet—and in a most unexpected development, we’ll discover the common heritage that links the 1956 Ford Thunderbird, the 1961 Lincoln Continental, the 1964 Chrysler Corporation Turbine Car, and the 2009 Dodge Challenger.

So how about that? A decade-long story of history, engineering geekery, and conceptualism…and all of it presented in the form of useful objets d’art.

And in Part Two: lots more to come.

What’s not to love?

We're Sorry

zappini — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:57:26 PDT

Mount Vernon's mayor Bud Norris plans to give Glenn Beck the keys to the city. In response, Bellingham mayor Dan Pike proposes the same for John Stewart, host of The Daily Show.

As a Washingtonian, and a human, I want to apologize. We have done some horrible things. Including, but not limited to:

creationism

caught orcas used at SeaWorld (and elsewhere)

neoconservativism

birthplace of Glenn Beck

On Understanding Your Market, Or, Mr. Obama, We Need To Talk

fake consultant — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:56:47 PDT

So it’s the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital “T” right here in Health Care City.

What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will “go along with the program”, or is there a risk that the calculus doesn’t work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?

Well, lucky for you, I’m a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your “target market”, so before you answer that question...we need to talk.

So the common sense approach to handling this situation is to make any deal required to get a bill passed, because otherwise your entire Presidency will be tagged as “strong on oratory but unable to govern”. Since the Far Left supports Democrats today and won’t be supporting the Republican Party under any circumstances, they’ll have no choice but to follow the “centrist” (read: “bluedog”) Democratic lead.

What you don’t want to do, common sense tells us, is demand that reform contain elements that simply are too tough to get through Congress. Insisting on a public option is absolutely out of the question, the new “preexisting conditions” requirements would be too onerous on the insurance companies—and requiring everyone to purchase insurance, with no public option competition at all to moderate the prices private insurers charge, and, for that matter, no guarantee of universal coverage, somehow makes perfect sense.

To mollify those who will object, we can hold out “triggers” as a compromise: in other words, Government says “hey, let’s wait a few years, and if the insurance companies still haven’t changed their ways...then we’ll do something.”

If you decide upon this approach, then the speech you want to give is to remind the Far Left and those pesky bloggers that political progress is incremental, you take what you can get, and that we can always come back later and make this whole stew of compromise better than what we propose to cook today.

While that’s a pretty good approach...most of the time...it won’t be this time.

There are two major reasons why, and, ironically, they’re both derived from your success in 2008.

Right off the bat, this strategy assumes the millions of new voters—and even more importantly, donors—that you attracted in 2008 are Democrats, and that, no matter what, they will continue to support Democrats. The problem is, they’re not....and they won’t.

Why? Because the vast majority of those new voters weren’t “redirected” from another Democratic candidate. Instead, they were “political non-participants” who had previously held no political affiliation whatsoever—and other than supporting you personally, the vast majority of those new voters have no long-term political affiliation now, other than, perhaps, “Progressive”.

The only reason they voted for you in the first place was because you were out promoting that whole “change you can believe in” thing. They saw you on TV telling people that universal access to care “...is a moral responsibility and a right for our country...”, and saying you would:

“...set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance”.

At that same evening’s event (the Democratic Presidential Debate of January 31, 2008), they also saw you say this:

“...because my view is that the reason people don't have health care... [w]hat they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.
Senator Clinton...believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
...I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance.”

The fact that you said all those things brings us to problem number two: if you don’t live up to your...exceptionally public...campaign promises, you’re gonna get YouTubed.

Forget about the Republicans. The Netroots will dig these quotes up in about two seconds—in multi-part harmony, I suspect—and all of a sudden, all those “new voters” who helped put you over the top last time, instead of seeing change they can believe in, are going to start seeing you as the “same old same old”...and if that happens, they won’t be voting Democratic again (or for anyone else, for that matter) for years to come.

And if they won’t vote for you...they most assuredly won’t be giving money to Democratic causes and candidates...including you in 2012.

You have to understand, it’s a question of trust. We want to believe that you’ll do the right thing, but we have been lied to for eight years straight...and we now fundamentally mistrust our elected representatives...including you.

Not all the news here, however, is bad news.

There is a way to turn all this to your advantage, and it basically involves “leapfrogging” the opposition.

Here’s what you do:

In the speech tonight, you look America in the eye and you tell us that you said all along that we must have a public option if we hope to control costs, you tell us that insurers can’t continue to “exclude” us out of insurance, and that universal coverage is, indeed, a moral obligation for our Nation—and a smart investment to boot. �

Tell America that you will fight for them and against the special interests that are trying to hustle us once again. Most importantly—and this will be The Tough Part—tell us that a bad bill is a bill you won’t sign.

You have to tell America that if we don’t get it this year, we’ll have to come back next year and try again. And if we have to, the year after that, and the next, and the next.

You also get to remind America exactly what kind of methods Republicans were wiling to use to advance their position over this past month, and whose interests they’re representing when they do it. �

To put it another way, you gave ‘em enough rope, and now it’s time for some noose-tightenin’.

The best part: not only does this approach lay to waste Republican opposition, it reels in the wavering Democrats—and it allows them to go home and tell their constituents that “Barack Obama and I are fighting for people and businesses and jobs while Republicans fight for fat cat insurance companies”.

If it's done correctly, the 2010 midterms will be y’all’s to lose—but as I said earlier, if you are seen as selling a political product everyone’s seen far too many times before, the cost could be brutal...maybe even “President Palin” brutal.

We all have a busy day today, especially you, Mr. President, so let’s wrap it all up:

You made a lot of campaign promises about public options and universal coverage and ending exclusion abuses, and now it’s come time to make good.

A lot of the people who supported you didn’t do it because you’re a Democrat—and not because they are, either. If you don’t make good, you got a problem, and so do the Democrats, possibly for years to come.

YouTube was a fantastic tool for you and the seed of trouble for many Republicans in ’06 and ’08—but if you’re not careful, the tables will turn, and a lot of the people doing the turning will be to your left.

Do it right and you and the Democrats have a superb opportunity to pivot on the opposition and imprint the Democratic “brand” for a new generation of voters—and donors—and an aggressive approach tonight could be the opening salvo of a message barrage that either forces Republicans to become more moderate, or turns them into a crazier political movement that loses seats and Governors in 2010 and carries even fewer states in the 2012 Presidential than they did in 2008.

Screw it up, and even Tina Fey might not be able to save us from the wrath of “Palin/Gingrich 2012”.

Van Jones

zappini — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:08:51 PDT

Van Jones was ousted by the Obama White House. Apparently by right wing whack jobs. I first heard Van Jones on KEXP talking about creating green collar jobs as a way to get poor people working. Pure genius. He makes perfect sense. Which I suppose is why he had to go.

Does anyone recall the ouster of any Bush Administration minions due to liberal outrage?

How did the troglodytes get to be the tail that wags the dog? It's not just the money.

The use of fear and anger to control other people is an exploit. There's something core to the nature of humans that our immediate response is poor when under attack. That whole fight or flight response.

All of life can be modeled as a game of rock, paper, scissors. There's a counter to the hate machine. Gandhi found it. MLK found it. Others too.

If anyone has a clue, please share.

Healthcare Rally @ Westlake 6:00pm Tonight

zappini — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:35:55 PDT

Update [2009-9-4 13:18:11 by zappini]: The rally went very well. Lots of people.

Also, I've been contacted by Suzie Sheary, chair of the KC Dems. They have been very busy fighting for healthcare reform. So my criticism below isn't entirely fair. I've made a contribution to help fund their efforts.

---

There's a rally healthcare reform tonight at Westlake Park @ 6:00pm.

Join Congressman Jim McDermott, along with Organizing for America, Health Care for America NOW, SEIU, UFCW 21, the Washington State Labor Council, WashPIRG, and Planned Parenthood Votes for an evening rally at Westlake Park. We will release the full list of speakers and acts once confirmed. Please join us as we send the strongest signal yet to Congress that Washingtonians support strong Health Insurance Reform.

Here's some announcement links.

Democratic Underground

Washington State Labor Council

Chad Lupkes on 46 LD Dems list

This is an excellent party building and fund raising opportunity. And yet, I did not hear about this event through the state party. In fact, I don't recall hearing boo about healthcare reform from the party.

I'd probably be disappointed if I had any expectations left.

Brian Baird's Successfully Civil Ilwaco Town Hall Meeting

Lietta Ruger — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:29:01 PDT

Kudos to the Congressman and his staff for hosting a successfully civil discourse Town Hall meeting last night in Ilwaco, in Pacific County, WA. And of course, the primary range of questions had to do with Health Care/Insurance Reform. �Death threats to the Congressman aside, he still managed to conduct his usual in-person Town Hall meetings in several Southwest Washington counties.

What was the process? �

� �

I can't speak to the in person Town Hall meetings he held in other counties except for what I've read in media (some of which has been reported here at Washblog). �I can speak to the TH we attended in Ilwaco last night. �Also Baird has added telephone Town Hall meetings as well to his usual array of in-person TH meetings in the SW counties. �

The Ilwaco TH meeting was orderly and permitted the many to hear both the questions and Baird's responses without interruption or interference. �Which is precisely what I wanted - information and not the drama of interference that has been the hallmark of many other TH meetings across the nation.

We arrived at the high school, and yes, there was a tiny contingent of less than impressive 'protesters' with their home-made cardboard signs. �They kept their behavior under control and did not molest the people as they were coming into the auditorium. � We signed in, and we were asked if we wanted to ask a question of the Congressman; if so, we were given a number (kind of like at an auction). �

We were seated and it was explained by the moderator that corresponding numbers were in a twirl cage (bingo comes to mind), and numbers would be picked at random. �Those persons who held those numbers would come forward to be seated in the first row of seats. �Each would then get 3 minutes of time at the microphone to state their concerns, ask their questions and the Congressman would have 3 minutes of time to respond.

Questions came from both parties. �I think people are sophisticated enough to filter out what is rhetoric and focus in on the actual question, when there is a question and not just a 3 minute pulpit for speech making. �The Congressman's opportunity to respond, or better said, give the facts as he knows them, provided a format that helped enormously to dispel some of the rhetorical myths, giving the auditorium of people an opportunity to listen to and hear the information.

In Congressman Baird's Town Halls that we have attended in the past, even when my own emotions have been highly charged, (ie, his vote in 2007 for the Surge in Iraq where our son-in-law was deployed), he has been respectful to all, including us, in responding to concerns and questions. �Last night's Town Hall was no exception. �He was respectful, courteous, and responsive to every question, even the few who formulated their questions in what seemed designed to bait him. �He actually was skillful in handling those baiting type questions, both responding and further elaborating on concerns and situations that led to the current Health Care Reform issue.

It was a 2 hour TH meeting, so obviously, there was not time for everyone who might have wanted to ask a question to have a turn at the microphone. �But with the quality of the kinds of questions asked, and Baird's informative responses, I think probably most of the concerns people had in their minds received air time in a very Civil dialogue.

Earlier in August, I was also on one of Baird's telephone TH meetings (Pacific County), and got to ask my question of him; specifically what concerns about the Health Care Reform Bill did he have as he has said he is unsure how he will vote when it comes up for vote in Congress. �Frankly, I would like to see him vote for the Bill with all of it's warts and flaws rather than to vote against it. �I sense that voting for the Bill starts the ball rolling, probably with a lot of tweaks needed in years to come. �Whereas to vote against it because of it's imperfections does little to alter or change the current deeply flawed Health Care 'system'. �

As Baird explained he has heard from doctors, it is not really a system so much as an evolution that has evolved into a complex hodge podge of health care that some get and some don't.

On a personal note, I do have to be a bit amused at one of the questions last night. �The Chair of the Republican Party in our 3rd Congressional District was among one of those whose number was called, giving her time at the microphone. �She has had time at earlier Town Hall meeting in another county to state her concerns to �the Congressman and she did make an offer of her home as a venue for the Congressman to hold an in- person Town Hall, guaranteeing him an assurance of safety she would personally provide. �He did thank her for and it did seem he accepted the offer; I'm not sure he intended to hold a Town Hall in her home, nor would that be logical. �He did hold the in person Town Hall in Ilwaco, at the high school - a more appropriate venue and approximately 2 miles from her home. �She has not been deprived of opportunity of access to the Congressman, nor of opportunity to state her concerns or questions. �

She has had a beef with what she terms his rejection of her offer, labeling it as evidence of an unwillingness on the part of Congressman Baird to hold in-person Town Hall meetings. �She has both blogged it and arranged for a newspaper article in �The Columbian, of her account of his rejection of her offer. �In my opinion, it goes to show the 'slant' �of her perspective in presenting the situation as a rejection, as an unwillingness on Baird's part to conduct in person Town Hall meetings. And it is a perspective she is pleased to broadcast in the media and telegraph to her party. It was, in fact, Baird offering a more appropriate venue with a wider opportunity, for the larger populace in the area to participate in an in person Town Hall. Probably safer for everyone also, with the County Sheriff there, and the presence of uniformed officers stationed along the side corridors. � �

Her concern as she stated it in the question last night to Congressman Baird were some remarks he had made in earlier years; favoring universal health care and duration terms of office. Baird corrected the perception she had of his earlier remarks on terms of office. �She spoke again indicating she was in favor of all people having access to health care, and when Baird asked if she was in favor of universal health care, she said no, she was not, and promptly sat down. �There was a bit of a buzz talk after that exchange amongst the people in the auditorium. �

Highlighting this more to illustrate, in my opinion, a tactic of intent on the part of the Republican party in trying to direct attention away from the Health Care Reform issue, while offering little of substantive value as an alternative method to adjust the disparities in health care as we know it today. �Congressman Baird is not the issue, nor is the next election. �Health Care Reform is the issue on many people's mind and they seem to want information, not politicking.

My thanks to Brian Baird for the opportunity to learn what I felt I wanted and needed to learn about Health Care Reform - less the noise of disruptive interference. �Good job in putting together the Ilwaco Town Hall meeting. �

� �

Sequim just put the Mad As Hell Doctors on the map

Arthur Ruger — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:13:20 PDT

I Just got this in today's email from Mad as Hell Doctors. They are out of Oregon and are scheduled to caravan to D.C. later on. I joined their Facebook group. A.R.

Well Sequim, WA is on the map in the Olympic Peninsula of western Washington state.

And Sequim just put the Mad As Hell Doctors on the map too.

Yesterday we had our only dress rehearsal and our first live performance of our Mad As Hell Doctors Town Halls in the small community of Sequim (pronounced "Squim"), WA. When 600+ people showed up we were feeling overwhelmed.

When 600 people stood up during the dialogue from the movie "The Network", our jaws dropped.

Exceeding all expectations and giving us a great base to improve our format, Sequim really showed up in support.

There were no boos. �There were no "teabaggers" or "brown shirts."

Well actually there were, but it quickly became evident to them that they were welcome and could participate in creating a solution that isn't a bailout of the insurance industry like Obamacare.

�About a dozen left halfway through. �I guess we took the fun out of disagreeing, when you have doctors and facts on your side

Check back on the website for video of the event in the coming days.

This is really happening.

And it is going to be phenomenal.

Over 20 stops in about just as many days. And if the rest of America is anything like Sequim, WA, we will surely create waves for Single Payer.

So take a moment to find Sequim on a map of Washington. And in a little over a month when we pull into DC with a trail of cars and supporters, you'll know where it all began. In the most unlikely place with a great community.

Thank you Sequim. You gave us the wings we need to fly and there is no stopping us now.

You can now follow us on twitter @MadAsHellDocs. This is where the most up to date info on our travels will be.

We kick off officially in about two weeks.

Hope to see some of you on the road.

Until then...Get Mad. Stay Mad. Make History.

On gun-toting straight-shooting constitutionalists

Arthur Ruger — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:38:44 PDT

Last week I watched Chris Matthews challenge the gun-toter in New England.

Got me to thinking. It seems that the slogan driving these folks with the big iron(s) on their hips is ...

�
"If you block me from using my First Amendment Right I will exercise my Second Amendment Right and use my weapon on you!"

... or something like that.

As to who the traitorous un-American "YOU" bent on destroying our liberties is ... �and the reasoning behind the extreme step of using a weapon against another citizen, well that's up for interpretation.

Apparently whoever it is seems to be the evil spawn of the 1930's and 1940's Germanic and Italian terrorists who have somehow re-incarnated into the 21st century.

But that's confusing because aren't them guys the historic heroic idols of extreme right wing American pseudo-patriotism?

The "H" guy? Or better even, the Mussolini guy who was not ashamed of government corporatism while lying to and bleeding the common citizens in order to keep the rich in power?

I believe it is called "carrying" and is part of making what is considered a patriotic statement having to do with defending our liberties whenever and wherever those freedoms appear to be under attack.

So then, what does "under attack" mean?

What is in the mind of someone who feels the need to publicly flaunt �personal ownership of a weapon because something frightens him that is not frightening most people who are otherwise civically engaged and active.

Is there a difference?

Well, although we all have that right, some of us use common sense that dictates that one need not �"carry" unless a defense of rights is necessary right now - we are under literal and immediate physical attack, war or invasion of our country.

Otherwise, "carrying" is just another word for "packing" (as in heat) which declares

�
`I'm a macho guy who could accidently shoot a kid, a little old lady or her pet if I was of a mind to. `

A veteran myself, I know lots of other veterans in my coastal community who HAVE used a weapon in defense of our country. �We are genuine - the real thing - and wouldn't hesitate to leave our homes, leave the churches before the sermon ends, leave the tavern with the last beer unfinished, drop what we're doing, jump in our trucks, get our weapons and make haste to the scene of threat or action.

We'd do it in a moment's notice cause we know where our weapons are - kept safe under lock and key until needed.

And for most of those I know it wouldn't be any different if those attacking were government agents or military troops sent to forcibly take our weapons away, �put us in some kind of internment camp, force us to pay our taxes or execute us for fornication.

But �that is not what is happening.

Nothing even close to that is happening although in recent years I wouldn't have put such a possibility beyond the reach of the Dick Cheney imperial presidency plan. Now there was a loose cannon threatening the entire bill of rights (remember the loss of habeas corpus?

That was real.

That was political.

That was an extreme Republican Conservative move.

That was endorsed by pretend patriot blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity.

Glen Beck would have endorsed it on whatever network dumb enough to hire him back then so long as �he could see through his country-lovin snake oil tears.

So who is packing ... er, I mean "carrying?"

All I can venture is a perceptual speculation based on behavior, verbiage and posturing.

Most carriers appear to be dying to be seen �publicly wearing.

Most carriers appear to be hoping someone will challenge them so they can then draw.

Most carriers act like they will be disappointed if they don't get to publicly use the weapon so as to be seen as heroic.

It seems to me that would-be Second Amendment heroes won't hesitate to manufacture (imagine) enemies to the homeland in order to sustain a macho sense that hearkens back to every Wayne or Eastwood movie where the good guy gets to shoot somebody.

Or they are willing to suspend judgment and critical thinking by falling for any broadcast lie hook, line and sinker.

So when you see a carrier packing in public with a cold hard stare hidden by movie-hero sunglasses you can read in that stone cold facial expression and posturing this message:

�
"Please!
�
Before it's too late and I can no longer be and feel heroic!
�
Please .... somebody make my day!"

Flash your weapons guys, get out those comic books and to hell with anyone else in the crowd, their children or their grandchildren.

And just like the Hannity acolyte in Tennessee who gunned down several human beings in a church because they were Hannity-defined �"liberals" ...

Just like that ... someone's child will be accidently gunned down and it won't matter which Wayne or Eastwood character did the shooting.

It won't matter whether he believes that Beck, Limbaugh or Fox News said it would be acceptable

... there will not be anything heroic about the perpetrator.

... only �a stick horse, plastic chaps and cheap sunglasses trying to cover cowardice, a junior high maturity and a lack of the greatest civic attribute a citizen can offer the country:

Common Sense.

Thomas Paine said give me liberty or give me death.

He didn't say everybody needs to carry so town hall meetings will include intimidated participants too afraid to speak up or disagree with the heat packers.

Baird Gets Death Threats, GOP Slams Baird

zappini — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:45:25 PDT

Per The Olympian, US Rep Brian Baird receives a death threat, mentions it, and the local Republicans criticize Baird for having the gall to mention it.

Bringing a gun to a presidential visit is okay, but wearing a protest t-shirt is akin to terrorism and gets you arrested.

Bush was AWOL for much of his term, Obama takes a few days off, and now he's a slacker.

I don't even have the words to comment. Seriously. What is wrong with these people? It's not just that they're bullies, cowards, and ignorant. It's not they have this weird reality-denying double standard. This psychosis is way beyond that.

What are we witnessing? Are these people just sociopaths? I really want to know what we're up against. There's got to be an explanation.

On Brian Baird and Republican Demands for an Apology

Arthur Ruger — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:54:38 PDT

The local Republican Party published an article in the Pacific County Press in which they demand an apology from Brian Baird for his remarks about disrupted town meetings with " lynch-mob and brown shirt tactics."

Most who have read my writings over the years understand that I am for the most part an opinionated old guy with a tendency to make no apologies. Contrary to the opinion of certain American traitors who've worked hard to convince America that "liberal" is a dirty word - unpatriotic, dangerous, despicable, or socialistic, I remain willing to advocate for liberal as well as conservative positions in which I believe.

After the last two election cycles, I backed away from lots of writing. At 63, I want to retire as soon as possible from my full-time job at the local welfare office in South Bend.�

That's right, the welfare office - where a day doesn't go by without older American residents of our county coming in seeking any kind of relief from medical expenses that take larger and larger bites out of their fixed income.�

It's also the office where younger Americans come in - not asking for a welfare check - but to find out if there's any kind of help with medical expenses. They don't want a government hand out. They seek a way to keep their families safe. And they are not seeing or hearing any constructive ideas from reform opponents, especially the current minority party, it's willfully propagandistic leadership and its public broadcast shills who are all talk and no solution.

I may not be the county expert on health care reform, but I'm willing to bet that short of medical professionals, I see the problem more closely and with more clarity than most citizens nationwide who have gone to town meetings scared, worried and nervous. They seem to feel that way because they are driven by outrage and fear inspired by the disinformation and outright lying that has come out of desperate Republican political organizing, coaching and talking point tactics.

That those outraged are constituents same as me is not something I challenge. I expect them to attend the meetings. But if they come to just constantly rant in a loud voice with pointing fingers while offering nothing else and stopping everyone else from participating, I take exception.

I'm impressed with original thoughts. Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm old, slow and gab a lot, but I know a purpose-driven talking point when I hear one and immediately grab my wallet.

I also read a lot and look stuff up when I stumble into something interesting or scary. If we get scared or worried, that last thing we should do is lazily let someone else tell us, "Don't think. I'll tell you what to think."

But that's what we are seeing. I don't need talking points from Keith Olbermann any more than we need words pronounced with pretended wisdom by Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.

As for Brian Baird, this excellent US Representative does not owe anyone in the 3rd Congressional District an apology unless he has personally insulted or sullied a specific individual by name. To my knowledge he has done nothing of the kind.�

I also suggest that Nansen Malin, Pacific County Republican Party Chairwoman and Republican 3rd District Co-Chair owes all voters in the 3rd District an apology for assuming that we are stupid and gullible. Nansen should be ashamed for trying to BS young and old voters who aren't going to keep buying the current lemon no matter how often you change the tires and repaint the fenders.

Let me share something personal with you. If I stopped working at the welfare office today, my monthly medical insurance payment to cover my wife and me would be over $920 per month. That's where we have come over the past decades for not giving a damn about economic politics on the national level.

So leaving employment with a mortgage coupled with almost $1000 a month allocated to free market medical capitalism is the best we can do for each other in this country?

Do I owe it to my doctor who chose his vocation based on the assumptions of not merely making a living, but a living that buys a house that overlooks Willapa Bay with a mortgage possibly double the size of my monthly income? Is granting him his wish while quietly and without protest spending all of my pension on my own shelter and medical expense somehow showing patriotic and civic consideration for the economic realities of economic health care capitalism?

Do I buy into the idea that my $900-per-month extorting insurance company can rob me as a reasonable and undisputed right to economic profit in any or every area of life?

There are those who try to say that it's not that simple.

I disagree, the solution IS that simple. What makes people step away from it is that it can be hard and ugly - well an ugly and hurting hardship to those least vulnerable by virtue of income or prosperity that is based on health care as a commodity.

If we can see health care as a commodity, can we agree that defense is a commodity since the intent is also citizen safety and well being? Can we then agree to stop that sort of government spending and subsidy on weaponry, systems and personnel that is done outside the norms of free-market competitive capitalism?

What about our recent historical decisions to consider the need for other public necessities and well being as commodities? Deregulation ... how has that worked out for us?

This is where we've arrived with our stupid ignoring of and allowing the evolution of the non-democratic notion that health care is a commodity; that business has a right to put a price tag on health care and offer it only to those who can pay.

So we are capitalists and don't understand that health care is not the same as access to the cars for which we paid the going market value years ago and in many cases will drive around until they are too broken down to run anymore.

If health care is a commodity, will we have to shop around for used health care because we can't afford the newest market version?

If we shift gears, alter our basic assumptions about what is the best and most effective definition of common good, who will be hurt by backing away from corporate capitalism and moving into universal health care, universal education, and adequate universal housing for all citizens?

The lobbyists may lose their jobs. But then they might be grateful that the thousand dollars or so that they have to pay from their possibly smaller incomes will no longer be an expense their new job has to cover.

Health care and insurance workers may lose their jobs and have to look somewhere else to provide for their families. Was that ever a concern to corporate capitalist sociopaths who laid off workers and destroyed pension funds with impunity?

I'd rather we have to find ways to help unemployed former health care workers find work than keep dumping over half my retirement into a system that doesn't care for us at all.

Lies and noise aren't going to help us and that's all I can see from political opposition to health care reform.� I think we will better take care of each other by telling the reformers not to back down.

Spying on WA State peace groups

eridani — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:58:59 PDT

[Front paged NM]

Democracy Now! Broadcast Exclusive: Declassified Docs Reveal Military Operative Spied on WA Peace Groups, Activist Friends Stunned

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military

Newly declassified documents reveal that an active member of Students for a Democratic Society and Port Militarization Resistance in Washington state was actually an informant for the US military. The man everyone knew as "John Jacob" was in fact John Towery, a member of the Force Protection Service at Fort Lewis. The military's role in the spying raises questions about possibly illegal activity. The Posse Comitatus law bars the use of the armed forces for law enforcement inside the United States. The Fort Lewis military base denied our request for an interview. But in a statement to Democracy Now!, the base's Public Affairs office publicly acknowledged for the first time that Towery is a military operative. "This could be one of the key revelations of this era," said Eileen Clancy, who has closely tracked government spying on activist organizations. [includes rush transcript]