John D. Rateliff's Blog, page 172
November 7, 2012
What a Week!
So, busy week.
Monday was the D&D Next playtest, where we spent so long re-doing characters to match the latest iteration of the playtest rules that we didn't actually play. Better luck next week -- except that several of us are tied up then, so it'll really be two weeks before we play again. Assuming the approaching holiday doesn't throw that off.
My note for their next encounter reads: Sheep on a rock.
Tuesday was the presidential election. Woo-hoo. I was on edge all day and excited to watch the coverage that night. So Nate Silver's still right. Good to know. Here's hoping the President is able to enact more of his agenda in the second term than in the first.
Earlier in the day, I renewed my driver's license. Amazingly enough, I passed the vision test. Which makes me wonder about some of my fellow drivers out there . . .
Wednesday's a quiet evening at home, waiting for the season debut of our favorite show, TOP CHEF. This season's set in Seattle, so there'll be the fun of spotting familiar sights in the background throughout the season.
And, of course, this morning was my time with the Purrfect Pals cats. Speaking of which, Mr. Pitts is now in one of the adoption rooms, which is good. Unfortunately, it's the one furthest from where I live, all the way up in Mt. Vernon. Still, it's good to know he's safe and sound and being well cared for. Now I just hope he finds a home soon. Here's a link to his on-line posting; if you click on his name you get more information (including the information that I am "a kind man"; good to know).
http://www.purrfectpals.org/CatsByLocation.asp?fid=23
I'll post this week's Cat Report here once I have time to write it up.
Thursday marks the day of Wayne & Christina lecture at Marquette, the second in their 'Year of the Hobbit' series. If you're interested in Tolkien and anywhere in the area, you shd definitely go to this; Wayne & Christina really know their stuff, and they give a great lecture. I can pretty much guarantee you'll come away knowing something about Tolkien you didn't before.
http://www.marquette.edu/library/news/2012/Hammond-Scull.shtml
Oh, and I'll be seeing the dentist that day. I'd rather be seeing friends at a Tolkien event at Milwaukee.
Friday starts a three-day weekend, during which we're looking forward to getting together with a friend we haven't seen in a while.
So, like I said: busy week.
--John R.
current reading: ISLE OF DREAD (D&D adv), and Lemony Snicket's WHO COULD THAT BE AT THIS HOUR?, part one (apparently) of ALL THE WRONG QUESTIONS.
Monday was the D&D Next playtest, where we spent so long re-doing characters to match the latest iteration of the playtest rules that we didn't actually play. Better luck next week -- except that several of us are tied up then, so it'll really be two weeks before we play again. Assuming the approaching holiday doesn't throw that off.
My note for their next encounter reads: Sheep on a rock.
Tuesday was the presidential election. Woo-hoo. I was on edge all day and excited to watch the coverage that night. So Nate Silver's still right. Good to know. Here's hoping the President is able to enact more of his agenda in the second term than in the first.
Earlier in the day, I renewed my driver's license. Amazingly enough, I passed the vision test. Which makes me wonder about some of my fellow drivers out there . . .
Wednesday's a quiet evening at home, waiting for the season debut of our favorite show, TOP CHEF. This season's set in Seattle, so there'll be the fun of spotting familiar sights in the background throughout the season.
And, of course, this morning was my time with the Purrfect Pals cats. Speaking of which, Mr. Pitts is now in one of the adoption rooms, which is good. Unfortunately, it's the one furthest from where I live, all the way up in Mt. Vernon. Still, it's good to know he's safe and sound and being well cared for. Now I just hope he finds a home soon. Here's a link to his on-line posting; if you click on his name you get more information (including the information that I am "a kind man"; good to know).
http://www.purrfectpals.org/CatsByLocation.asp?fid=23
I'll post this week's Cat Report here once I have time to write it up.
Thursday marks the day of Wayne & Christina lecture at Marquette, the second in their 'Year of the Hobbit' series. If you're interested in Tolkien and anywhere in the area, you shd definitely go to this; Wayne & Christina really know their stuff, and they give a great lecture. I can pretty much guarantee you'll come away knowing something about Tolkien you didn't before.
http://www.marquette.edu/library/news/2012/Hammond-Scull.shtml
Oh, and I'll be seeing the dentist that day. I'd rather be seeing friends at a Tolkien event at Milwaukee.
Friday starts a three-day weekend, during which we're looking forward to getting together with a friend we haven't seen in a while.
So, like I said: busy week.
--John R.
current reading: ISLE OF DREAD (D&D adv), and Lemony Snicket's WHO COULD THAT BE AT THIS HOUR?, part one (apparently) of ALL THE WRONG QUESTIONS.
November 4, 2012
Best Flight-Information Video, Ever
So, Janice shared this with me a few days ago, and I thought I'd pass along the fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc&feature=youtu.be
Enjoy.
--John R.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc&feature=youtu.be
Enjoy.
--John R.
November 3, 2012
Voting (Wrapping Things Up)
So, only a few more races to go, some of them more or less local, some judicial (the hardest of all for me to get a good grip on).
Most important among these are for our two state legislators (apparently our state senator's term's not up for re-election this cycle). Both Orwall and Upthegrove (yes, that really is his name) have done a good job, so that raises the bar for any challenger. And both these challengers, Benge and Metz, wd lose on a tie in my book: Metz for some talk about "reducing Governmental burdens on local businesses" (usually code for 'cut taxes') and Benge both for similar language ("reduce excessive municipal and state burdens") and for his rather bizarre response, when asked about his education, that "American's greatest achievers are self-made" -- which is true enough in one sense, but makes him feel like someone who dodges questions. Do have to say that one aspect of Benge's platform is v. appealing: his advocacy for more urban vegetable gardens and for fruit trees in public parks. Let's hope he gets appointed to some park commission to carry out that part of his agenda.
For the next contest, Sheriff of King County, I have to switch to the other Voter's Pamphlet, which deals with county and city-by-city measures. Here the two candidates -- new appointee Strachan and former dept. spokesman Urquhart are both kind incumbents and both kinda shake-things-up new brooms. Both the Seattle police and the King Co. sheriff's department are badly in need of re-training and de-programing; the question is which of these men is better able to do it. I's frankly torn between the two. I was originally leaning towards Urquhart, but a little digging around turned up an incident where, when the department's spokesman, he helped cover over a nasty case of a deputy smashing a guy's head into a wall, resulting in permanent brain injury. The incident clearly wasn't Urquhart's fault, but his complacency in trying to cover it up is a bad sign. As a result, I think I'll follow Grubbstreet's recommendation, go with Strachan, and hope he does indeed turn out to be the "much needed change agent" he promises to be.
And that just leaves the judges, which are always difficult, since they're theoretically non-partisan -- meaning that they may have party affiliations but don't reveal them during elections. However, this year they've made it easier for us: two of the State Supreme Court positions (Judge Owens* and Judge Gonzalez) and two of the Appellate Court positions (Judge Cox and Judge Appelwick) are unopposed; luckily they all seem to be pretty solid, given their write-ups (one, Cox, even bemoans low-information judicial voting and urges voters to resort to votingforjudges.com (which Grubbstreet also recommends).
Of the two contested seats, the Supreme Court position seems to have attracted the most attention. Of the two candidates, I'd pick McCloud over Sanders, the latter having been booted off the court in the last election. Leaving aside the red flags in his write-up (a call-out to 'property rights' and backing from the Libertarian Party), a little poking around online reveals that he's what's called by admirers "a character" and by others a loose cannon, who tended to collect a string of official rebukes while on the bench. In short, a dinosaur. Which, contrasted by McCloud's commitment to women's issues makes her v. much the kind of justice I want on the court.
Finally that just leaves the King County Superior Court judgeship, Parisien vs. Washington. Here I initially leaned towards Parisien, but Judge Washington's write-up is ultimately more impressive -- not least because his is positive while hers includes a somewhat incoherent attack on her opponent.** Amusingly enough, it turns Washington is a Marquette grad., but I'm more impressed by his taking part in 'mock trials', which are a great outreach to show folks (esp. students) how our legal system works. In any case, sounds like he's doing a pretty good job, and so he gets my vote to continue doing so.
And that, at last, is in. Next up: a brief Tolkien-related post (you didn't forget that this is a Tolkien blog, did you?
--John R.
*interestingly enough, from her write-up it turns out she spent years as a tribal judge, for the Quileute and Lower Elwha S'Klallam
**"52% rated the incumbent Chris Washington's legal decision making as unacceptable or poor" -- 52% of what? You can eventually find out the answer, if you go on-line and frame yr query carefully enough, but that really shd have been in the write-up. In any case, it doesn't include his fellow judges, several of whose endorsements he includes in his write-up.
Most important among these are for our two state legislators (apparently our state senator's term's not up for re-election this cycle). Both Orwall and Upthegrove (yes, that really is his name) have done a good job, so that raises the bar for any challenger. And both these challengers, Benge and Metz, wd lose on a tie in my book: Metz for some talk about "reducing Governmental burdens on local businesses" (usually code for 'cut taxes') and Benge both for similar language ("reduce excessive municipal and state burdens") and for his rather bizarre response, when asked about his education, that "American's greatest achievers are self-made" -- which is true enough in one sense, but makes him feel like someone who dodges questions. Do have to say that one aspect of Benge's platform is v. appealing: his advocacy for more urban vegetable gardens and for fruit trees in public parks. Let's hope he gets appointed to some park commission to carry out that part of his agenda.
For the next contest, Sheriff of King County, I have to switch to the other Voter's Pamphlet, which deals with county and city-by-city measures. Here the two candidates -- new appointee Strachan and former dept. spokesman Urquhart are both kind incumbents and both kinda shake-things-up new brooms. Both the Seattle police and the King Co. sheriff's department are badly in need of re-training and de-programing; the question is which of these men is better able to do it. I's frankly torn between the two. I was originally leaning towards Urquhart, but a little digging around turned up an incident where, when the department's spokesman, he helped cover over a nasty case of a deputy smashing a guy's head into a wall, resulting in permanent brain injury. The incident clearly wasn't Urquhart's fault, but his complacency in trying to cover it up is a bad sign. As a result, I think I'll follow Grubbstreet's recommendation, go with Strachan, and hope he does indeed turn out to be the "much needed change agent" he promises to be.
And that just leaves the judges, which are always difficult, since they're theoretically non-partisan -- meaning that they may have party affiliations but don't reveal them during elections. However, this year they've made it easier for us: two of the State Supreme Court positions (Judge Owens* and Judge Gonzalez) and two of the Appellate Court positions (Judge Cox and Judge Appelwick) are unopposed; luckily they all seem to be pretty solid, given their write-ups (one, Cox, even bemoans low-information judicial voting and urges voters to resort to votingforjudges.com (which Grubbstreet also recommends).
Of the two contested seats, the Supreme Court position seems to have attracted the most attention. Of the two candidates, I'd pick McCloud over Sanders, the latter having been booted off the court in the last election. Leaving aside the red flags in his write-up (a call-out to 'property rights' and backing from the Libertarian Party), a little poking around online reveals that he's what's called by admirers "a character" and by others a loose cannon, who tended to collect a string of official rebukes while on the bench. In short, a dinosaur. Which, contrasted by McCloud's commitment to women's issues makes her v. much the kind of justice I want on the court.
Finally that just leaves the King County Superior Court judgeship, Parisien vs. Washington. Here I initially leaned towards Parisien, but Judge Washington's write-up is ultimately more impressive -- not least because his is positive while hers includes a somewhat incoherent attack on her opponent.** Amusingly enough, it turns Washington is a Marquette grad., but I'm more impressed by his taking part in 'mock trials', which are a great outreach to show folks (esp. students) how our legal system works. In any case, sounds like he's doing a pretty good job, and so he gets my vote to continue doing so.
And that, at last, is in. Next up: a brief Tolkien-related post (you didn't forget that this is a Tolkien blog, did you?
--John R.
*interestingly enough, from her write-up it turns out she spent years as a tribal judge, for the Quileute and Lower Elwha S'Klallam
**"52% rated the incumbent Chris Washington's legal decision making as unacceptable or poor" -- 52% of what? You can eventually find out the answer, if you go on-line and frame yr query carefully enough, but that really shd have been in the write-up. In any case, it doesn't include his fellow judges, several of whose endorsements he includes in his write-up.
Voting (State Level)
So, once we come down to state and local elections, I start to run into less information to base decisions on. Part of this is from not watching more tv: one night last week when I watched some local news for a change the commercials were flooded with political ads. And there are a few phone calls, a few flyers, and the occasional radio message.
Still, less information still means enough to make decisions. So here's my thinking for the state level.
SENATOR: Cantwell vs. Baumgartner. Heard a little of a radio debate between these two, and happy to report that both were treating the questions and issues seriously. Cantwell was a great disappointment her first term, too timid to take a principled stand on any of the great issues of the day, but she really came into her own with her second term. Now she's seeking a third, and if she carries on as she is now, she'll be a credit to the state. Which is not to say that Baumgartner might not wind up being a good choice for another office down the road; think he's the best the state Republican party has to offer this election season and that we'll be hearing of him again, and in a good way. The one real red flag re. Baumgartner is his citing Michael Medved's endorsement: I've heard enough of Medved's talk radio show to know that anybody Medved wants elected is someone I definitely shdn't be voting for.
CONGRESSMAN: Adam Smith has done a really good job, being especially strong on environmental (green) issues. His opponent, Postma, wants to cut taxes, pay off the national debt (two contradictory goals), "save" Social Security and Medicare, stop inflation (was not aware inflation was currently much of a problem), make the US run entirely on domestic oil & gas, bring the price of gasoline down to $2.00 a gallon (how, he doesn't say), have full employment, etc. Smith is too defense-spending friendly for my taste, but otherwise his record is good, and I prefer a Congressman living in the real world to one who, like Postma, wants to try to legislate fantasies.
NOTE: Luckily, Reichert's not in my district, so his probable re-election isn't anything I can affect one way or the other.
GOVERNOR: Inslee vs. McKenna. Unfortunately Gregoire, who did a really good job, isn't running for re-election, or she'd get my vote for a third term. Personally McKenna's fairly appealing; he's been working the nerd look really well, with a sort of gosh-wow Bill Gates geekiness. It doesn't surprise me at all to learn he serves on the Boy Scouts area council. Both men have good write-ups, but there are some iffy bits in McKenna's that hint at overly careful phrasing, while Inslee in his supplemental advertising has been pushing support for Green Energy -- a definite plus (Washington state having no oil gas coal but being ideally positioned for wind energy (all that coastline) and solar (all those bright open spaces east of the Cascades). So it's Congressman Inslee over Attorney General McKenna.
LT. GOVERNOR: Owen vs. Finkbeiner. Here's a dilemma. On the one hand, the incumbent (Owen) has iffy bits in his write-up, where he claims credit for things that seem inherently unlikely to fall within a Lt. Gov's purview. And Grubbstreet did a good job highlighting his underwhelming performance in his job so far. On the other, Dino Rossi (the kind of Republican who gives the state Republican party a bad name) endorses the challenger. Janice points out that Mrs. Finkbeiner is really impressive in her own right, as founder of something called MomsRising (check out MomsRising.org). If she were running, she'd get my vote, but voting for him on her behalf is, to me, like voting for Schwartzenegger because he married a Kennedy; too strong a likelihood of voter's remorse a few years down the line. Plus, of course, coming from Arkansas I take Lt. Governors v. seriously; that was how the disaster that was Hucklebee got in. So it's Owen, w. reservations.*
SECRETARY OF STATE: Wyman vs. Drew. Sam Reed, the most highly respected Republican in the state, is stepping down, unfortunately. Both the women running to replace him seem like they'd do a decent job. Of the two, Wyman seems to have the most experience, but Drew's concerns align more with mine (e.g., pledging scrutiny of the initiatives process, promising to fight voter-suppression efforts), so she gets my vote.
STATE TREASURER: McIntire vs. Hanek. Here one candidate (McIntire, the incumbent) is massively more qualified, and the challenger gives a wink to Tax Deadbeats, so this one's easy: McIntire.
STATE AUDITOR: Watkins vs. Kelley. Again, this one is easy: Watkins boasts about his lack of elective experience and his contempt for those who possess it (calling his opponent "a professional politician" is apparently the nastiest label he can think of). He also gives a strong shout-out to the Tax Deadbeats ("Citizens won't allow the legislature to raise taxes" -- excuse me?). Kelley, on the other hand, has a much less dramatic write-up, which nonetheless quietly boasts about how he cut his own pay as a legislature because of the economic downturn -- something I think our legislators, state and national, shd do as a matter of course but seldom do. Less posturing and more leading by example: Kelley.
ATTORNY GENERAL: Ferguson vs. Reagan Dunn. Yes, 'Reagan Dunn' really is named after the president -- the v. thought of wh. makes me feel old, and wonder anew at the cruel things parents do to their children sometimes. Again here we have a clash of styles, w. Dunn boasting of his TOP SECRET security clearance (how is this relevant?) and promising to make Washington "the best place [in the country] to start a small business and the worst place to commit a crime" -- which is a nice line, but exactly how is the first half of that the Attorney General's job? By contrast, Ferguson comes across as calm, confident, and competent. I'll take competence over bombast any day: Ferguson. In addition, Dunn (who's currently on the King County Council) has a nasty habit of absenteeism -- I get the sense that he considers the job of Councilman beneath him, which isn't a good sign -- we want an attorney general who's actually going to show up. And finally, GRUBBSTREET reports that lots of out-of-state money is coming in to run negative ads against Ferguson. So, Ferguson it is.
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS: Goldmark vs. Didier. An important job that doesn't get much attention, being considerably down-ballot. Goldmark's write-up is all about conservation and sustainable use and renewable resources; Didier's about getting more out of public lands. Didier, who lacks any elective experience, lists as his qualifications being a farmer and football player -- the one of which is relevant, the other not so much. Goldmark is a rancher and volunteer firefighter with advanced degrees is neurobiology and molecular biology. On the surface, both seem acceptable, but I feel a sense of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in Didier's write-up -- perhaps unfairly, but there it is. So, Goldmark.
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Dorn (unopposed). No red flags in his write-up, and his emphasis on fighting for more education funding is a good sign. He's unopposed, so let's hope he delivers the goods.
and, last and least, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Kreidler vs. Adams. Here I'm getting way out into a low-information zone, but luckily the voter's pamphlet helps. Kreidler, the incumbent, strikes a reasoned tone to convey a sense that he's got this down; we're in good hands with him. Adams says Kreidler's been doing the job too long (eleven years) and that, if elected, he'd use the office to undo ObamaCare as much as possible. Declaring his attention to do his best to sabotage federal law at a state level is an excellent reason why he shd never be elected to this, or any other, position. So, Kreidler.
Next up: state legislature, sheriff, and judgeships, which will wrap things up for this election year.
--John R.
*oddly enough, one fairly elaborate flyer we got in the mail urges votes for Obama, Inslee, and Ferguson vs. Romney, McKenna, and Reagan Dunn, but makes no mention of Owen.
Still, less information still means enough to make decisions. So here's my thinking for the state level.
SENATOR: Cantwell vs. Baumgartner. Heard a little of a radio debate between these two, and happy to report that both were treating the questions and issues seriously. Cantwell was a great disappointment her first term, too timid to take a principled stand on any of the great issues of the day, but she really came into her own with her second term. Now she's seeking a third, and if she carries on as she is now, she'll be a credit to the state. Which is not to say that Baumgartner might not wind up being a good choice for another office down the road; think he's the best the state Republican party has to offer this election season and that we'll be hearing of him again, and in a good way. The one real red flag re. Baumgartner is his citing Michael Medved's endorsement: I've heard enough of Medved's talk radio show to know that anybody Medved wants elected is someone I definitely shdn't be voting for.
CONGRESSMAN: Adam Smith has done a really good job, being especially strong on environmental (green) issues. His opponent, Postma, wants to cut taxes, pay off the national debt (two contradictory goals), "save" Social Security and Medicare, stop inflation (was not aware inflation was currently much of a problem), make the US run entirely on domestic oil & gas, bring the price of gasoline down to $2.00 a gallon (how, he doesn't say), have full employment, etc. Smith is too defense-spending friendly for my taste, but otherwise his record is good, and I prefer a Congressman living in the real world to one who, like Postma, wants to try to legislate fantasies.
NOTE: Luckily, Reichert's not in my district, so his probable re-election isn't anything I can affect one way or the other.
GOVERNOR: Inslee vs. McKenna. Unfortunately Gregoire, who did a really good job, isn't running for re-election, or she'd get my vote for a third term. Personally McKenna's fairly appealing; he's been working the nerd look really well, with a sort of gosh-wow Bill Gates geekiness. It doesn't surprise me at all to learn he serves on the Boy Scouts area council. Both men have good write-ups, but there are some iffy bits in McKenna's that hint at overly careful phrasing, while Inslee in his supplemental advertising has been pushing support for Green Energy -- a definite plus (Washington state having no oil gas coal but being ideally positioned for wind energy (all that coastline) and solar (all those bright open spaces east of the Cascades). So it's Congressman Inslee over Attorney General McKenna.
LT. GOVERNOR: Owen vs. Finkbeiner. Here's a dilemma. On the one hand, the incumbent (Owen) has iffy bits in his write-up, where he claims credit for things that seem inherently unlikely to fall within a Lt. Gov's purview. And Grubbstreet did a good job highlighting his underwhelming performance in his job so far. On the other, Dino Rossi (the kind of Republican who gives the state Republican party a bad name) endorses the challenger. Janice points out that Mrs. Finkbeiner is really impressive in her own right, as founder of something called MomsRising (check out MomsRising.org). If she were running, she'd get my vote, but voting for him on her behalf is, to me, like voting for Schwartzenegger because he married a Kennedy; too strong a likelihood of voter's remorse a few years down the line. Plus, of course, coming from Arkansas I take Lt. Governors v. seriously; that was how the disaster that was Hucklebee got in. So it's Owen, w. reservations.*
SECRETARY OF STATE: Wyman vs. Drew. Sam Reed, the most highly respected Republican in the state, is stepping down, unfortunately. Both the women running to replace him seem like they'd do a decent job. Of the two, Wyman seems to have the most experience, but Drew's concerns align more with mine (e.g., pledging scrutiny of the initiatives process, promising to fight voter-suppression efforts), so she gets my vote.
STATE TREASURER: McIntire vs. Hanek. Here one candidate (McIntire, the incumbent) is massively more qualified, and the challenger gives a wink to Tax Deadbeats, so this one's easy: McIntire.
STATE AUDITOR: Watkins vs. Kelley. Again, this one is easy: Watkins boasts about his lack of elective experience and his contempt for those who possess it (calling his opponent "a professional politician" is apparently the nastiest label he can think of). He also gives a strong shout-out to the Tax Deadbeats ("Citizens won't allow the legislature to raise taxes" -- excuse me?). Kelley, on the other hand, has a much less dramatic write-up, which nonetheless quietly boasts about how he cut his own pay as a legislature because of the economic downturn -- something I think our legislators, state and national, shd do as a matter of course but seldom do. Less posturing and more leading by example: Kelley.
ATTORNY GENERAL: Ferguson vs. Reagan Dunn. Yes, 'Reagan Dunn' really is named after the president -- the v. thought of wh. makes me feel old, and wonder anew at the cruel things parents do to their children sometimes. Again here we have a clash of styles, w. Dunn boasting of his TOP SECRET security clearance (how is this relevant?) and promising to make Washington "the best place [in the country] to start a small business and the worst place to commit a crime" -- which is a nice line, but exactly how is the first half of that the Attorney General's job? By contrast, Ferguson comes across as calm, confident, and competent. I'll take competence over bombast any day: Ferguson. In addition, Dunn (who's currently on the King County Council) has a nasty habit of absenteeism -- I get the sense that he considers the job of Councilman beneath him, which isn't a good sign -- we want an attorney general who's actually going to show up. And finally, GRUBBSTREET reports that lots of out-of-state money is coming in to run negative ads against Ferguson. So, Ferguson it is.
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS: Goldmark vs. Didier. An important job that doesn't get much attention, being considerably down-ballot. Goldmark's write-up is all about conservation and sustainable use and renewable resources; Didier's about getting more out of public lands. Didier, who lacks any elective experience, lists as his qualifications being a farmer and football player -- the one of which is relevant, the other not so much. Goldmark is a rancher and volunteer firefighter with advanced degrees is neurobiology and molecular biology. On the surface, both seem acceptable, but I feel a sense of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in Didier's write-up -- perhaps unfairly, but there it is. So, Goldmark.
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Dorn (unopposed). No red flags in his write-up, and his emphasis on fighting for more education funding is a good sign. He's unopposed, so let's hope he delivers the goods.
and, last and least, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Kreidler vs. Adams. Here I'm getting way out into a low-information zone, but luckily the voter's pamphlet helps. Kreidler, the incumbent, strikes a reasoned tone to convey a sense that he's got this down; we're in good hands with him. Adams says Kreidler's been doing the job too long (eleven years) and that, if elected, he'd use the office to undo ObamaCare as much as possible. Declaring his attention to do his best to sabotage federal law at a state level is an excellent reason why he shd never be elected to this, or any other, position. So, Kreidler.
Next up: state legislature, sheriff, and judgeships, which will wrap things up for this election year.
--John R.
*oddly enough, one fairly elaborate flyer we got in the mail urges votes for Obama, Inslee, and Ferguson vs. Romney, McKenna, and Reagan Dunn, but makes no mention of Owen.
November 2, 2012
The Cat Report
So, each week I volunteer one morning (Wednesdays) for Purrfect Pals, a no kill shelter that takes care of cats (and only cats). The main shelter is up in Arlington, but they operate adoption rooms throughout the Puget Sound region (you can see a map on the following link; clicking on any of the cat-faces will show which cats are at each site):
http://www.purrfectpals.org/adopt/BrowseCats.asp
Here's this week's report:
Wednesday, October 31st, 2012: Halloween
Quite a lot of changes in the past two weeks. Congratulations to Callista (Sorsha) for coming out of her shell at last, and to little Dopey for being the means whereby it happened and also benefiting by the change: great news that they're being adopted together. Hope Mr. Niko and Cecelia get over their colds and are soon feeling better and can rejoin us. And congratulations, since Wednesday, of sweet little Molly Tamale being adopted!
It really does feel like a whole new cat-room, with seven cats, only three of whom were there as long ago as last week (and they were newbies then). So to GABRIELLA (our little black dust-mop with the twisty tail) and Miss MOLLY (our pastel kitty) and Mr. BROTHERS (our beautiful brown tabby) are now added ASHWYN (a huge white and grey giant of a cat, weighing almost twenty pound and looking even bigger with all that fur), SEECONNIE (a sleek grey cat with a long, siamese-like face), little QUIBBLE (a beautiful tiny Siamese) and TARAH (all black & v. shy)
We started out with walks, as usual: Gabriella loves being carried around the store, purring all the while. When walking on her own feet, she (a) wanted to avoid dogs (they're bigger than me!) and (b) went up to people asking to be petted. Mr. Brothers did great, following a dog at one point, and ranged near and far, charming folks as he went. Little Quibble wanted to be carried, and was much fussed over. The other four were too nervous to try or else immediately wanted back in.
With only seven cats, there was room for everyone who wanted to come out of their cages to do so without being in another cat's face. Quibble and Tarah and SeeCon stayed in, mostly (S.C. did come out a little towards the end of morning), while Gabriella and Ashwyn and Mr. Brother and Molly all wanted out. Molly went into the blankets on the top shelf in the cabinet, which she thought bliss. She's obviously feeling much better, and even enjoyed playing the gopher game. Gabriella claimed the top of the cat-stand furthest from the door and relaxed as only a cat can relax: absolutely limp, deep deep asleep. She was happy to be petted from time to time, but it was being out she really enjoyed. Mr. Brothers did a lot of exploring; he and Ashwyn haven't quite worked out their relationship, but it seems like Brothers is content to be second in the cat-room pecking order and that Ashwyn is willing to accept that. They did have some competition over who'd get to be in the little box I brought (which had some catnip in the bottom); whoever wasn't in it immediately got in when the current resident left, back and forth several times. In addition to the box (which was far too small for him, making for an endearing and amusing sight) Ashqwyn also discovered Sheeba's rondel -- maybe it just appeals to supersized cats? -- while Mr. Brothers enjoyed going Up High.
Tarah was very nervous when taken out so I cd clean his cage: he hid first in the corner by the laundry, then in the bottom of the cabinet. Brothers and Ashwyn were interested in him in the first spot (I put the cat-litter container to block them off) but didn't know about the second. Quibble made herself small (quite a feat, given how small she is already); I put her atop the cat-stand by the door and covered her with a blanket, which seemed to help. SeeConnie eventually came out on his own for a while; he shd be fine once he gets used to the room.
Must say that Ashwyn and Gabriella and Mr. Brothers and little Quibble were all much admired by visitors and by-passers alike.
Health Concerns: don't think Tarah and Quibble feel altogether well -- both very quiet and low-key (though some of that was no doubt shyness). Tarah threw up while hiding by the laundry hamper: digested food and hair mixed together. No other sneezes or throw-ups, but Quibble's eyes look a little watery. It was great to see Molly feeling so much better, and Gabriella keeping her fur nice and clean.
Also: went up to Arlington on Tuesday to turn over the lost cat I'd been taking care of for a week. His name is Mr. PITT, a v. friendly yellow-and-white fellow. He's a great cat; here's hoping he soon finds a good home. While I was there, I didn't get to see Mr. Niko or Cecelia, both of whom are in the sick room, but I did see CINI BON, who's living out her final months as a much-pampered office cat. Checking the website cat-listings afterwards, I see that four cats I remember from Tukwila are currently elsewhere in the system: SWEET PEA in Kirkland, BRIDGET in Bellevue, ELVIRA in Issaquah, and JOSIE in Everett. And of course while there I went into the Feline Leukemia room and petted the cats there, all of whom v. much wanted the attention (as had been the case on my one previous visit, back for training when I first started volunteering -- was it really two years ago?). It's a long drive, but good to have a reminder of all they do at the main shelter on the cats' behalf.
And that's about it for this week.--John R.
http://www.purrfectpals.org/adopt/BrowseCats.asp
Here's this week's report:
Wednesday, October 31st, 2012: Halloween
Quite a lot of changes in the past two weeks. Congratulations to Callista (Sorsha) for coming out of her shell at last, and to little Dopey for being the means whereby it happened and also benefiting by the change: great news that they're being adopted together. Hope Mr. Niko and Cecelia get over their colds and are soon feeling better and can rejoin us. And congratulations, since Wednesday, of sweet little Molly Tamale being adopted!
It really does feel like a whole new cat-room, with seven cats, only three of whom were there as long ago as last week (and they were newbies then). So to GABRIELLA (our little black dust-mop with the twisty tail) and Miss MOLLY (our pastel kitty) and Mr. BROTHERS (our beautiful brown tabby) are now added ASHWYN (a huge white and grey giant of a cat, weighing almost twenty pound and looking even bigger with all that fur), SEECONNIE (a sleek grey cat with a long, siamese-like face), little QUIBBLE (a beautiful tiny Siamese) and TARAH (all black & v. shy)
We started out with walks, as usual: Gabriella loves being carried around the store, purring all the while. When walking on her own feet, she (a) wanted to avoid dogs (they're bigger than me!) and (b) went up to people asking to be petted. Mr. Brothers did great, following a dog at one point, and ranged near and far, charming folks as he went. Little Quibble wanted to be carried, and was much fussed over. The other four were too nervous to try or else immediately wanted back in.
With only seven cats, there was room for everyone who wanted to come out of their cages to do so without being in another cat's face. Quibble and Tarah and SeeCon stayed in, mostly (S.C. did come out a little towards the end of morning), while Gabriella and Ashwyn and Mr. Brother and Molly all wanted out. Molly went into the blankets on the top shelf in the cabinet, which she thought bliss. She's obviously feeling much better, and even enjoyed playing the gopher game. Gabriella claimed the top of the cat-stand furthest from the door and relaxed as only a cat can relax: absolutely limp, deep deep asleep. She was happy to be petted from time to time, but it was being out she really enjoyed. Mr. Brothers did a lot of exploring; he and Ashwyn haven't quite worked out their relationship, but it seems like Brothers is content to be second in the cat-room pecking order and that Ashwyn is willing to accept that. They did have some competition over who'd get to be in the little box I brought (which had some catnip in the bottom); whoever wasn't in it immediately got in when the current resident left, back and forth several times. In addition to the box (which was far too small for him, making for an endearing and amusing sight) Ashqwyn also discovered Sheeba's rondel -- maybe it just appeals to supersized cats? -- while Mr. Brothers enjoyed going Up High.
Tarah was very nervous when taken out so I cd clean his cage: he hid first in the corner by the laundry, then in the bottom of the cabinet. Brothers and Ashwyn were interested in him in the first spot (I put the cat-litter container to block them off) but didn't know about the second. Quibble made herself small (quite a feat, given how small she is already); I put her atop the cat-stand by the door and covered her with a blanket, which seemed to help. SeeConnie eventually came out on his own for a while; he shd be fine once he gets used to the room.
Must say that Ashwyn and Gabriella and Mr. Brothers and little Quibble were all much admired by visitors and by-passers alike.
Health Concerns: don't think Tarah and Quibble feel altogether well -- both very quiet and low-key (though some of that was no doubt shyness). Tarah threw up while hiding by the laundry hamper: digested food and hair mixed together. No other sneezes or throw-ups, but Quibble's eyes look a little watery. It was great to see Molly feeling so much better, and Gabriella keeping her fur nice and clean.
Also: went up to Arlington on Tuesday to turn over the lost cat I'd been taking care of for a week. His name is Mr. PITT, a v. friendly yellow-and-white fellow. He's a great cat; here's hoping he soon finds a good home. While I was there, I didn't get to see Mr. Niko or Cecelia, both of whom are in the sick room, but I did see CINI BON, who's living out her final months as a much-pampered office cat. Checking the website cat-listings afterwards, I see that four cats I remember from Tukwila are currently elsewhere in the system: SWEET PEA in Kirkland, BRIDGET in Bellevue, ELVIRA in Issaquah, and JOSIE in Everett. And of course while there I went into the Feline Leukemia room and petted the cats there, all of whom v. much wanted the attention (as had been the case on my one previous visit, back for training when I first started volunteering -- was it really two years ago?). It's a long drive, but good to have a reminder of all they do at the main shelter on the cats' behalf.
And that's about it for this week.--John R.
October 31, 2012
Blaming the Messenger
So, this was an interesting development.
All this election season, I've been following Nate Silver's site (fivethirtyeight.com) for his analysis of the polls and what they tell us about the presidential race. It's been his conclusion that beneath the surface noise and media obsession with the 'horse race' it's been a remarkably stable election, with the incumbent maintaining a slight but significant lead throughout.
Now commentators who like to position themselves as thoughtful conservatives, like David Brooks and Joe Scarborough and Politico.com and the National Review, are attacking Silver, claiming that just because his method worked last time around, that doesn't mean it has any validity this election -- e.g.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html?hp=r14
Silver's response ("I'm sorry that Joe is math-challenged") is amusing and his explanation moderate (you add up the states where polls you consider reliable predict candidate A is ahead and compare the total against that for candidate B) -- and of course he's explained his methodology in detail a number of times on his site, including the important caveat that the prediction only covers known facts, not 'October surprises'.*
The most interesting part about all this is that Silver showed Obama ahead for months, with his chance of winning thereby growing larger the closer it got to the election (= less time for the challenger to make up the difference). Then after the first debate that trend reversed, with Obama's lead melting away day-by-day over the next three weeks, stabilizing around the time of the final debate, and climbing steadily back up ever since.
Now, so far as I am aware, none of these conservatives attacked Silver when his poll showed that Romney was rapidly gaining ground on Obama -- this being a message they v. much wanted to hear. But once he reported that Romney's surge had proved ephemeral and was receding, they pounced.
The moral? distrust those who attack the messenger when they don't like the message. And we shd all try to be mindful of our innate tendencies to embrace evidence that supports a conclusion we like and downgrade evidence that supports one we don't like: basic human nature.
--John R., still in election mode
P.S.: Thanks to Janice for pointing out that Paul Krugman, who as a Nobel-Prize winning economist knows a thing or two about numbers and statistics, and who's never shy about offering a pungent comment, has come to Silver's defense:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/the-war-on-objectivity/
*Tues. night I heard for the first time the suggestion that Tropical Storm Sam was a classic 'October Surprise'.
All this election season, I've been following Nate Silver's site (fivethirtyeight.com) for his analysis of the polls and what they tell us about the presidential race. It's been his conclusion that beneath the surface noise and media obsession with the 'horse race' it's been a remarkably stable election, with the incumbent maintaining a slight but significant lead throughout.
Now commentators who like to position themselves as thoughtful conservatives, like David Brooks and Joe Scarborough and Politico.com and the National Review, are attacking Silver, claiming that just because his method worked last time around, that doesn't mean it has any validity this election -- e.g.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html?hp=r14
Silver's response ("I'm sorry that Joe is math-challenged") is amusing and his explanation moderate (you add up the states where polls you consider reliable predict candidate A is ahead and compare the total against that for candidate B) -- and of course he's explained his methodology in detail a number of times on his site, including the important caveat that the prediction only covers known facts, not 'October surprises'.*
The most interesting part about all this is that Silver showed Obama ahead for months, with his chance of winning thereby growing larger the closer it got to the election (= less time for the challenger to make up the difference). Then after the first debate that trend reversed, with Obama's lead melting away day-by-day over the next three weeks, stabilizing around the time of the final debate, and climbing steadily back up ever since.
Now, so far as I am aware, none of these conservatives attacked Silver when his poll showed that Romney was rapidly gaining ground on Obama -- this being a message they v. much wanted to hear. But once he reported that Romney's surge had proved ephemeral and was receding, they pounced.
The moral? distrust those who attack the messenger when they don't like the message. And we shd all try to be mindful of our innate tendencies to embrace evidence that supports a conclusion we like and downgrade evidence that supports one we don't like: basic human nature.
--John R., still in election mode
P.S.: Thanks to Janice for pointing out that Paul Krugman, who as a Nobel-Prize winning economist knows a thing or two about numbers and statistics, and who's never shy about offering a pungent comment, has come to Silver's defense:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/the-war-on-objectivity/
*Tues. night I heard for the first time the suggestion that Tropical Storm Sam was a classic 'October Surprise'.
October 30, 2012
Voting (Presidential Candidates)
So, to return to the voting, let's move on to The Big One.
I'm a Decided. In fact, I've known for over a year, since watching the bizarre array of candidates on the Republican side, who I'd be voting for. So much so that I find it hard to believe people who still claim to be 'undecided': if you haven't cared enough to pay attention, please continue to drift on your merry way and let those of us who actually care get on with the election.
Which doesn't mean that, come the Voter Pamphlet, I don't read up on the positions of the minor-party candidates. There are eight tickets that made the ballot here in Washington State: the Democrats (Obama and Biden), Republicans (Romney and Ryan), Libertarians (Gary Johnson), Constitution (Virgil Goode), Greens (Jill Stein), Socialism and Liberation (Peta Lindsay), Socialist Workers (James Harris), and Justice (Rocky Anderson). Let's take them in reverse order:
The Justice Party
These folks had the best party platform, bar none, of all the people running. I'm for virtually everything they advocate: good schools, less college debt, a WPA program, equal rights, an end to the War on Drugs, major prison system reform, healthcare for all, clean energy and "responsible environmental stewardship"; support for human rights, an end to drone killings and assassinations, a return of habeas corpus. If I thought they had the ghost of a chance I'd vote for this ticket, no question. But they don't, so I won't: I want my vote to actually count as something more than just a protest or wishful thinking.
The Socialist Workers Party
Pure pro-union. I'm all for workers being well treated, citizen or immigrant, here or abroad. But it's a pretty narrow focus: a one-plank platform, so to speak. I want more out of a presidential candidate than that. Though to be fair their vision includes an end to the war in Afghanistan and a general desire "to champion the struggles of the oppressed and exploited". They'd make a great advocacy group, but president and V.P.? I doubt it.
The Socialism and Liberation Party
My initial reaction is, which is it? Socialism or Liberation? And if they can't make up their minds, why shd we take them seriously?
My second thought: both their Presidential and Vice-President candidates have never held elective office before. Apparently they view the Presidency as an entry-level position. If they're not going to take themselves seriously, why shd we?
My third thought: these people have an extremely ambitious agenda -- free healthcare, affordable jobs for all, free education, an end to war and sanctions and occupations, an end to mass incarceration, equality for women, gay rights, forgiving college and mortgage debt, immigrants' rights, clean environment, cutting greenhouse gases, renewable energy, an end to homelessness, and more. They'll fund this by seizing the assets of all the big banks. Not quite clear how the financial system is to operate without them: maybe they'll just be nationalized rather than abolished. Also not clear how they plan to seize the banks: executive order, perhaps?
In short: pie in the sky. Good pie, but not something they expect to actually achieve; rather goals for a better world they want to work towards. In the end this isn't a presidential campaign as much as a public service announcement.
The Green Party
These are the people who made the news, in a minor way, when they got arrested trying to force their way onstage at the final Obama-Romney presidential debate. I'm generally sympathetic to the Greens (that's probably the Tolkienist in me): trying to prevent "irreversible climate change" and helping the poor sound to me like good goals for any party to espouse. And the specifics of their 'Green New Deal's not bad either: guarantee higher education, forgive student loans, Medicare for all, break up the big banks, end corporate domination of elections. But their claim that electing them will create 25 million new jobs makes Romney's claim of four million new jobs created by magic seem relatively modest. They'd do their cause better by sticking closer to the real world, and the huge change Green issues can make.
The Constitution Party
The Know-Nothing party is always with us, and this year they're calling themselves the Constitution Part. These Nativists have a lot of things they're against, but far and away fear of immigrants is their chief concern. They advocate deporting everyone who can't prove he or she's in the country legally, then suspending all legal immigration as well (no green cards for two years). And, as if that's not enough, they want to abolish the 14th Amendment -- you know, the one that makes you an American citizen if you're born here. What standard they'd put in its place they don't say (I assume having two white parents is the sort of thing they have in mind). Oh, and they also want to get rid of PBS, ban abortion, prevent gay marriage, and support Chick-Fil-A.
Me, I say the melting pot's been good for America, which has become more wonderfully diverse than the Revolutionaries cd ever have dreamed.
NOTE: This one cd actually influence the election, since its candidate (Virgil Goode)* is a Congressman from Virginia: if his ticket draws away arch-conservative votes from Romney, it cd swing this more-or-less tied state into the Obama column -- which is why I suspect he'll receive v. few votes indeed.
The Libertarian Party
Traditionally the Libertarians have two issues: legalizing drugs and not paying taxes. This election, they're forgoing any mention of their support for ending the War on Drugs and concentrating purely on the anti-government, anti-tax message. Ex-Governor Johnson offers as his qualification for office the number of times he cut taxes and the number of government workers he put out of work. Color me unimpressed by his purely negative message that they govern best who govern least (tell it to James Buchanan and Franklin Pearce) and that less government equals better government. So far as 'The Vision Thing' goes, Johnson comes in dead last -- wh. is surprising, given that a significant chunk of the country is in a fairly libertarian mood (or at least claims to be).
The Republican Party
Romney promises to repeal healthcare reform, cut taxes so the government has less income, then spend lots more on the military (apparently spending more than the next ten countries with the largest military budget put together's not enough).** But, given that he changes positions daily, who knows? This is basically the anti-Obama vote.
The Democratic Party
The known element. Interestingly enough, the entire Voters' Pamphlet write-up deals with economic issues, and the work he's put into getting the country out of The Great Recession. Oddly reminiscent of his Inaugural speech, as if he's chosen this to be the matching bookend for where-we-were-then.
True Confessions Time: The one thing I got really wrong about this whole election season was that I thought all along that there'd be a major third party effort backing a Tea Party candidate. But that never came together; Romney's major achievement has been to keep the Tea Party firmly in his corner.
By the way, for those who don't think we've had enough debates over the last year or two, four of the minor-party candidates are having a debate on November 4th, two nights before Election Day: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice). Ralph Nader, who's still unapologetic about his role in electing George W. Bush (he maintains that a Gore Presidency wd have been indistinguishable from a Bush Presidency), will moderate. Cdn't they get Ross Perot?
Next up: State Offices.
--John R.
*I keep wanting to put a middle initial in there: Virgil B. Goode, but I guess that's just the Chuck Berry influence. Do have to admit I love the fact that among the people running for president we have a Virgil and a Rocky (and, for that matter, a Willard).
**After all, you never know when you might need to invade Grenada.
I'm a Decided. In fact, I've known for over a year, since watching the bizarre array of candidates on the Republican side, who I'd be voting for. So much so that I find it hard to believe people who still claim to be 'undecided': if you haven't cared enough to pay attention, please continue to drift on your merry way and let those of us who actually care get on with the election.
Which doesn't mean that, come the Voter Pamphlet, I don't read up on the positions of the minor-party candidates. There are eight tickets that made the ballot here in Washington State: the Democrats (Obama and Biden), Republicans (Romney and Ryan), Libertarians (Gary Johnson), Constitution (Virgil Goode), Greens (Jill Stein), Socialism and Liberation (Peta Lindsay), Socialist Workers (James Harris), and Justice (Rocky Anderson). Let's take them in reverse order:
The Justice Party
These folks had the best party platform, bar none, of all the people running. I'm for virtually everything they advocate: good schools, less college debt, a WPA program, equal rights, an end to the War on Drugs, major prison system reform, healthcare for all, clean energy and "responsible environmental stewardship"; support for human rights, an end to drone killings and assassinations, a return of habeas corpus. If I thought they had the ghost of a chance I'd vote for this ticket, no question. But they don't, so I won't: I want my vote to actually count as something more than just a protest or wishful thinking.
The Socialist Workers Party
Pure pro-union. I'm all for workers being well treated, citizen or immigrant, here or abroad. But it's a pretty narrow focus: a one-plank platform, so to speak. I want more out of a presidential candidate than that. Though to be fair their vision includes an end to the war in Afghanistan and a general desire "to champion the struggles of the oppressed and exploited". They'd make a great advocacy group, but president and V.P.? I doubt it.
The Socialism and Liberation Party
My initial reaction is, which is it? Socialism or Liberation? And if they can't make up their minds, why shd we take them seriously?
My second thought: both their Presidential and Vice-President candidates have never held elective office before. Apparently they view the Presidency as an entry-level position. If they're not going to take themselves seriously, why shd we?
My third thought: these people have an extremely ambitious agenda -- free healthcare, affordable jobs for all, free education, an end to war and sanctions and occupations, an end to mass incarceration, equality for women, gay rights, forgiving college and mortgage debt, immigrants' rights, clean environment, cutting greenhouse gases, renewable energy, an end to homelessness, and more. They'll fund this by seizing the assets of all the big banks. Not quite clear how the financial system is to operate without them: maybe they'll just be nationalized rather than abolished. Also not clear how they plan to seize the banks: executive order, perhaps?
In short: pie in the sky. Good pie, but not something they expect to actually achieve; rather goals for a better world they want to work towards. In the end this isn't a presidential campaign as much as a public service announcement.
The Green Party
These are the people who made the news, in a minor way, when they got arrested trying to force their way onstage at the final Obama-Romney presidential debate. I'm generally sympathetic to the Greens (that's probably the Tolkienist in me): trying to prevent "irreversible climate change" and helping the poor sound to me like good goals for any party to espouse. And the specifics of their 'Green New Deal's not bad either: guarantee higher education, forgive student loans, Medicare for all, break up the big banks, end corporate domination of elections. But their claim that electing them will create 25 million new jobs makes Romney's claim of four million new jobs created by magic seem relatively modest. They'd do their cause better by sticking closer to the real world, and the huge change Green issues can make.
The Constitution Party
The Know-Nothing party is always with us, and this year they're calling themselves the Constitution Part. These Nativists have a lot of things they're against, but far and away fear of immigrants is their chief concern. They advocate deporting everyone who can't prove he or she's in the country legally, then suspending all legal immigration as well (no green cards for two years). And, as if that's not enough, they want to abolish the 14th Amendment -- you know, the one that makes you an American citizen if you're born here. What standard they'd put in its place they don't say (I assume having two white parents is the sort of thing they have in mind). Oh, and they also want to get rid of PBS, ban abortion, prevent gay marriage, and support Chick-Fil-A.
Me, I say the melting pot's been good for America, which has become more wonderfully diverse than the Revolutionaries cd ever have dreamed.
NOTE: This one cd actually influence the election, since its candidate (Virgil Goode)* is a Congressman from Virginia: if his ticket draws away arch-conservative votes from Romney, it cd swing this more-or-less tied state into the Obama column -- which is why I suspect he'll receive v. few votes indeed.
The Libertarian Party
Traditionally the Libertarians have two issues: legalizing drugs and not paying taxes. This election, they're forgoing any mention of their support for ending the War on Drugs and concentrating purely on the anti-government, anti-tax message. Ex-Governor Johnson offers as his qualification for office the number of times he cut taxes and the number of government workers he put out of work. Color me unimpressed by his purely negative message that they govern best who govern least (tell it to James Buchanan and Franklin Pearce) and that less government equals better government. So far as 'The Vision Thing' goes, Johnson comes in dead last -- wh. is surprising, given that a significant chunk of the country is in a fairly libertarian mood (or at least claims to be).
The Republican Party
Romney promises to repeal healthcare reform, cut taxes so the government has less income, then spend lots more on the military (apparently spending more than the next ten countries with the largest military budget put together's not enough).** But, given that he changes positions daily, who knows? This is basically the anti-Obama vote.
The Democratic Party
The known element. Interestingly enough, the entire Voters' Pamphlet write-up deals with economic issues, and the work he's put into getting the country out of The Great Recession. Oddly reminiscent of his Inaugural speech, as if he's chosen this to be the matching bookend for where-we-were-then.
True Confessions Time: The one thing I got really wrong about this whole election season was that I thought all along that there'd be a major third party effort backing a Tea Party candidate. But that never came together; Romney's major achievement has been to keep the Tea Party firmly in his corner.
By the way, for those who don't think we've had enough debates over the last year or two, four of the minor-party candidates are having a debate on November 4th, two nights before Election Day: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice). Ralph Nader, who's still unapologetic about his role in electing George W. Bush (he maintains that a Gore Presidency wd have been indistinguishable from a Bush Presidency), will moderate. Cdn't they get Ross Perot?
Next up: State Offices.
--John R.
*I keep wanting to put a middle initial in there: Virgil B. Goode, but I guess that's just the Chuck Berry influence. Do have to admit I love the fact that among the people running for president we have a Virgil and a Rocky (and, for that matter, a Willard).
**After all, you never know when you might need to invade Grenada.
Pictures of Mr. Pitts
So, having talked about him so much this past week, here's a picture or two of The Stray Who Came to Stay (temporarily).
That is, assuming I can figure out how to download a photo here -- so this will be an experiment that cd affect some future posts.
Here are the pictures.
--John R.
That is, assuming I can figure out how to download a photo here -- so this will be an experiment that cd affect some future posts.
Here are the pictures.
--John R.
Farewell, Mr. Pitt
So, today I took the long drive up to Arlington to drop Mr. Pitt off* at a no-kill shelter that had agreed to take him. The last obstacle, proof that he tested negative for feline leukemia, came through yesterday.
It didn't take more than a few minutes for them to conclude this was a highly adoptable cat; less time, in fact, than it took me to fill out the paperwork. Within five or ten minutes of our arrival, he was gone, taken off to a back room to get used to his new surroundings. After a short observation period, he'll go to one of their many adoption rooms scattered throughout King County.** I'll watch their website (which lists each cat in each adoption room, with a picture of each) to see how he does. If possible, I'll pay him a visit between his arrival at an adoption room and his finding a new family of his own, but given what an all-around great cat this is I don't think he'll have to wait long to find him some new people.
Before I left, I went by and petted all the cats in the isolation room for cats who tested positive for feline leukemia --- all of them adoptable, but only by people who don't have other cats (or whose other cats have also tested positive for the disease).*** As had been the case on my one previous visit (when I started volunteering, two years ago), these cats were very friendly, indeed desperate for attention. There was much purring. In attempting to give everybody attention who came clustering round, I found myself petting four cats at once, which isn't easy. Then went into the ready-to-head out room and petted a few cats there as well (here some preferred to continue snoozing rather than be disturbed).
Then it was a brief visit to the office to see Cini Bon, who'd been up for adoption at the Tukwila site a while back but turns out to be terminally ill, so they've adopted her as an office cat at the main shelter, where she sleeps on desks and gets throughly spoiled while she lives out her final months. I don't think she remembered me, but she was perfectly willing to accept petting and purr in return. With her tiny head and otherwise general rotundity, she reminded me a little of Hastur (who has a tiny head, thin little legs and tail, and a balloon-like middle), except she was calm whereas Hastur is gooney.
And then came the hardest part: getting in the car and driving away, leaving Mr. Pitt behind and knowing odds are I'll never see him again.
So here's happiness at a good ending (or the best we cd contrive under the circumstances), and sadness at a parting. I'll miss him tonight, and for a long time to come when I go down into the box room and am greeted by no friendly purring face. But I'm glad he's at a no-kill shelter, in the hands of Good People, and basically gets a do-over on a new life with a new family soon.
So, goodbye, Mr. Pitt
--John R.
*turns out the only thing that will make him stop mewing when riding in a car is to sing to him. We did the latest Bare Naked Ladies album and some Warren Zevon ("My Ride's Here") on the ride up, and he was much quieter than on either of his rides to the vet's.
**the one I volunteer at is in the PetsMart nr SouthCenter
***a positive result does not necess. mean the cat has the disease -- it may be latent rather than active -- but does indicate it probably has a weakened immune system. And since it's contagious, even healthy cats who test positive are isolated from those who test negative.
It didn't take more than a few minutes for them to conclude this was a highly adoptable cat; less time, in fact, than it took me to fill out the paperwork. Within five or ten minutes of our arrival, he was gone, taken off to a back room to get used to his new surroundings. After a short observation period, he'll go to one of their many adoption rooms scattered throughout King County.** I'll watch their website (which lists each cat in each adoption room, with a picture of each) to see how he does. If possible, I'll pay him a visit between his arrival at an adoption room and his finding a new family of his own, but given what an all-around great cat this is I don't think he'll have to wait long to find him some new people.
Before I left, I went by and petted all the cats in the isolation room for cats who tested positive for feline leukemia --- all of them adoptable, but only by people who don't have other cats (or whose other cats have also tested positive for the disease).*** As had been the case on my one previous visit (when I started volunteering, two years ago), these cats were very friendly, indeed desperate for attention. There was much purring. In attempting to give everybody attention who came clustering round, I found myself petting four cats at once, which isn't easy. Then went into the ready-to-head out room and petted a few cats there as well (here some preferred to continue snoozing rather than be disturbed).
Then it was a brief visit to the office to see Cini Bon, who'd been up for adoption at the Tukwila site a while back but turns out to be terminally ill, so they've adopted her as an office cat at the main shelter, where she sleeps on desks and gets throughly spoiled while she lives out her final months. I don't think she remembered me, but she was perfectly willing to accept petting and purr in return. With her tiny head and otherwise general rotundity, she reminded me a little of Hastur (who has a tiny head, thin little legs and tail, and a balloon-like middle), except she was calm whereas Hastur is gooney.
And then came the hardest part: getting in the car and driving away, leaving Mr. Pitt behind and knowing odds are I'll never see him again.
So here's happiness at a good ending (or the best we cd contrive under the circumstances), and sadness at a parting. I'll miss him tonight, and for a long time to come when I go down into the box room and am greeted by no friendly purring face. But I'm glad he's at a no-kill shelter, in the hands of Good People, and basically gets a do-over on a new life with a new family soon.
So, goodbye, Mr. Pitt
--John R.
*turns out the only thing that will make him stop mewing when riding in a car is to sing to him. We did the latest Bare Naked Ladies album and some Warren Zevon ("My Ride's Here") on the ride up, and he was much quieter than on either of his rides to the vet's.
**the one I volunteer at is in the PetsMart nr SouthCenter
***a positive result does not necess. mean the cat has the disease -- it may be latent rather than active -- but does indicate it probably has a weakened immune system. And since it's contagious, even healthy cats who test positive are isolated from those who test negative.
October 28, 2012
Voting (initiatives)
So, those not interested in politics shd just ignore the next few posts, where I share my thoughts about how I'm voting and why.
Voting is already underway here. Washington no longer has voting in person at polling booths, but does all its ballets by mail -- a system that seems fraught with potential for fraud, but luckily this is a state with a really good record for squeaky-clean elections, so it shd be okay. In any case, it's what we've got so we'll have to hope for the best.
The ballet is so long and complicated this year that I thought I'd break it down into sections. First up are the Initiatives (what some other states call Propositions) and Referendums and, God help us, Advisory Votes (where we're asked what we think about laws the legislature passed). If we want a democracy rather than a republic, we shd redo the whole system, not try to have it both ways at once.
The big two are Initiative 1185 and Initiative 1240, both of which are on the ballot because of petitions, and both of which actually change the law if passed.
Initiative 1185: NO.
This one wants to keep in place a supermajority rule whereby the legislature needs a two-thirds vote to pass any tax. Because filibuster-type rules worked so well in the national congress and senate these past four years. A recipe for gridlock, this is the Tax Deadbeats' initiative of the year. We elect people to make hard decisions, including raising taxes when necessary; to then try to prevent them from carrying out that job is, shall we say, counter-intuitive.
The Wife Says: "'That operates on the assumption that at any given time two-thirds of the people are brave enough to do what needs to be done"
Initiative 1240: NO.
This is the Charter School initiative, which would create a publicly funded charter school system. Since, as I see it, the goals of the charter schools movement are (1) to loot public schools' funding till the system collapses (they're alarmingly close to success there) and (2) re-establish segregation, I'm against this one. We shd have a well-funded public school system, with those who want to home-school or private school doing it on their own dime: it's wrong to take public money to fund private schools.
Referendum 74: YES.
This is the Gay Marriage bill, which would confirm the legislature's legalization of Gay Marriage here in Washington State. Not much I cd say one way or the other on this, except that how people vote here is a pretty good indication whether they're living in the twenty-first century reluctantly or with hope.
Initiative 502: YES.
Here's an odd one: a prohibitionist voting yes on legalizing marijuana clinics. Why? Because it makes no kind of sense to have alcohol be legal and marijuana illegal. Hypocrisy poisons the system: The sooner we stop "The War On Drugs", the better.* Treat marijuana like alcohol -- taxed, regulated, restricted -- and punish its abuse, not its use, as we do with drunk drivers.
As for harder drugs, it's better to set up clinics to treat addicts and keep them functional than it is to put them all in jail.
Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221: ???
Honestly, I have no idea. The description of what this measure is supposed to do is such gobbledegoop that I'm just guessing at what we're being asked to approve. It seems that the goal is to reduce the state's ability to borrow money. Not being a big fan of the government going broke in a crisis, I'm voting against this one -- but I wish I had more confidence in knowing what I was actually voting for or against.
The Wife Says: "The one part I cd understand made no sense to me at all"
Senate Joint Resolution 8223: ??
Another poorly described measure, this one relates to where to Univ. of Wash. can invest its money. I'll be voting no: if they can't explain what they want to do differently and why, then they haven't made the case for changing the law.
Advisory Vote of the People 1: MAINTAIN
Here's we're just getting silly: a non-binding vote on whether we approve of a closed loophole. It's disguised as "they raised our taxes!", which makes it a Tax Deadbeats' measure, which is reason enough to reject it. Though it gives me pause that while the state senate passed the measure being questioned 35 to 10, my own state senator is one of those who voted against.
Advisory Vote of the People 2: MAINTAINAnother beauty contest without legal weight, and another poorly described measure. Sorting through the double negatives, it apparently relates to keeping a petroleum tax going after it wd otherwise have expired. I think. When in doubt, I consult who supports and opposes this bill. Those favoring a "repeal" vote are the Tax Deadbeats, who call it "a tax increase". For the "maintain" side, we have the fact that 93 of 98 members of the state house voted in favor of the extension (including our own two representatives, Upthegrove and Orwall, who are pretty reliable), with only one voting against and four abstentions. So it's a bipartisan measure and almost unanimous; good enough.
At this point, I have to switch over to the second voters' pamphlet, for county and local issues.
King County Proposition 1: ApprovedThis is to fund a regional fingerprinting database. Have to admit I'm tepid on this one, given how fingerprints aren't nearly as reliable a form of identification as people think (there are strict rules as to its legal admissibility in a trial, where fingerprint experts have to carefully hedge how they voice their conclusions). But they're still useful (e.g., to identify people who for whatever reason can't speak to identify themselves), and the argument against is pure Tax Deadbeat ("The Council uses homeowners as its ATM and . . . conducts business in air-conditioned offices . . . Property taxes are too high and going higher because valuations are rising . . ."**), so this one gets a (qualified) approval.
City of Kent Proposition 1: APPROVEDThis local measure authorizes the city of Kent to raise property taxes a fraction to maintain parks. This one's pretty much a no-brainer: those who like parks and walking trails will vote yes, those who can't abide any tax for any reason will vote no.***
Whew. That's it for the initiatives, much the stickiest part of the ballot. From here on out it's voting for people, not measures.
--John R.
*actually, there may be developments on that front soon: the civil war in Columbia is now winding down.
**they also complain, in their reasons against, that city bus drivers are getting paid too much. No, really.
***here the anti-tax people argue that this tax will prevent people in $300,000 homes from being able to afford milk, and suggest that it's better to discard assets than pay for their maintenance.
Voting is already underway here. Washington no longer has voting in person at polling booths, but does all its ballets by mail -- a system that seems fraught with potential for fraud, but luckily this is a state with a really good record for squeaky-clean elections, so it shd be okay. In any case, it's what we've got so we'll have to hope for the best.
The ballet is so long and complicated this year that I thought I'd break it down into sections. First up are the Initiatives (what some other states call Propositions) and Referendums and, God help us, Advisory Votes (where we're asked what we think about laws the legislature passed). If we want a democracy rather than a republic, we shd redo the whole system, not try to have it both ways at once.
The big two are Initiative 1185 and Initiative 1240, both of which are on the ballot because of petitions, and both of which actually change the law if passed.
Initiative 1185: NO.
This one wants to keep in place a supermajority rule whereby the legislature needs a two-thirds vote to pass any tax. Because filibuster-type rules worked so well in the national congress and senate these past four years. A recipe for gridlock, this is the Tax Deadbeats' initiative of the year. We elect people to make hard decisions, including raising taxes when necessary; to then try to prevent them from carrying out that job is, shall we say, counter-intuitive.
The Wife Says: "'That operates on the assumption that at any given time two-thirds of the people are brave enough to do what needs to be done"
Initiative 1240: NO.
This is the Charter School initiative, which would create a publicly funded charter school system. Since, as I see it, the goals of the charter schools movement are (1) to loot public schools' funding till the system collapses (they're alarmingly close to success there) and (2) re-establish segregation, I'm against this one. We shd have a well-funded public school system, with those who want to home-school or private school doing it on their own dime: it's wrong to take public money to fund private schools.
Referendum 74: YES.
This is the Gay Marriage bill, which would confirm the legislature's legalization of Gay Marriage here in Washington State. Not much I cd say one way or the other on this, except that how people vote here is a pretty good indication whether they're living in the twenty-first century reluctantly or with hope.
Initiative 502: YES.
Here's an odd one: a prohibitionist voting yes on legalizing marijuana clinics. Why? Because it makes no kind of sense to have alcohol be legal and marijuana illegal. Hypocrisy poisons the system: The sooner we stop "The War On Drugs", the better.* Treat marijuana like alcohol -- taxed, regulated, restricted -- and punish its abuse, not its use, as we do with drunk drivers.
As for harder drugs, it's better to set up clinics to treat addicts and keep them functional than it is to put them all in jail.
Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221: ???
Honestly, I have no idea. The description of what this measure is supposed to do is such gobbledegoop that I'm just guessing at what we're being asked to approve. It seems that the goal is to reduce the state's ability to borrow money. Not being a big fan of the government going broke in a crisis, I'm voting against this one -- but I wish I had more confidence in knowing what I was actually voting for or against.
The Wife Says: "The one part I cd understand made no sense to me at all"
Senate Joint Resolution 8223: ??
Another poorly described measure, this one relates to where to Univ. of Wash. can invest its money. I'll be voting no: if they can't explain what they want to do differently and why, then they haven't made the case for changing the law.
Advisory Vote of the People 1: MAINTAIN
Here's we're just getting silly: a non-binding vote on whether we approve of a closed loophole. It's disguised as "they raised our taxes!", which makes it a Tax Deadbeats' measure, which is reason enough to reject it. Though it gives me pause that while the state senate passed the measure being questioned 35 to 10, my own state senator is one of those who voted against.
Advisory Vote of the People 2: MAINTAINAnother beauty contest without legal weight, and another poorly described measure. Sorting through the double negatives, it apparently relates to keeping a petroleum tax going after it wd otherwise have expired. I think. When in doubt, I consult who supports and opposes this bill. Those favoring a "repeal" vote are the Tax Deadbeats, who call it "a tax increase". For the "maintain" side, we have the fact that 93 of 98 members of the state house voted in favor of the extension (including our own two representatives, Upthegrove and Orwall, who are pretty reliable), with only one voting against and four abstentions. So it's a bipartisan measure and almost unanimous; good enough.
At this point, I have to switch over to the second voters' pamphlet, for county and local issues.
King County Proposition 1: ApprovedThis is to fund a regional fingerprinting database. Have to admit I'm tepid on this one, given how fingerprints aren't nearly as reliable a form of identification as people think (there are strict rules as to its legal admissibility in a trial, where fingerprint experts have to carefully hedge how they voice their conclusions). But they're still useful (e.g., to identify people who for whatever reason can't speak to identify themselves), and the argument against is pure Tax Deadbeat ("The Council uses homeowners as its ATM and . . . conducts business in air-conditioned offices . . . Property taxes are too high and going higher because valuations are rising . . ."**), so this one gets a (qualified) approval.
City of Kent Proposition 1: APPROVEDThis local measure authorizes the city of Kent to raise property taxes a fraction to maintain parks. This one's pretty much a no-brainer: those who like parks and walking trails will vote yes, those who can't abide any tax for any reason will vote no.***
Whew. That's it for the initiatives, much the stickiest part of the ballot. From here on out it's voting for people, not measures.
--John R.
*actually, there may be developments on that front soon: the civil war in Columbia is now winding down.
**they also complain, in their reasons against, that city bus drivers are getting paid too much. No, really.
***here the anti-tax people argue that this tax will prevent people in $300,000 homes from being able to afford milk, and suggest that it's better to discard assets than pay for their maintenance.
John D. Rateliff's Blog
- John D. Rateliff's profile
- 38 followers
John D. Rateliff isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
