Happy Halloweeny, Mr. Reichert

HA! My favorite parts are when he gets the giggles and when he checks his notes...

You like me! You really like me!

Historic Switzerblog moment approacheth

As I write this, my counter shows I've had 1995 visits, meaning I'm oh, let's say a day away from reaching 2000. Woot! Yeah, I know, others have 2000 a day, but I measure my visits per day using one hand. Meaning, this is mostly a milestone of longevity (I've been online since late 2002 and owned Switzerblog since 2003-ish). Whatever, I'll take it.

Later today or tomorrow I'll write some shit about Dave Reichert and his support of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions, choosing to come between the doctor-patient relationship. But for now, just bear with me as we count down! (In fact, please check the counter - right column, near the bottom - when you visit and leave a comment with the number showing there. That way we can track the progress)

Thanks to the eight people who have visited repeatedly and to the fundamentalists who sought answers to their marital problems, accidentally finding SB. Without you, I wouldn't be here today. No, without you, this day would have come several weeks or months from now! :-)

Oh, heck, if you're a repeat customer, leave a comment with your favorite Switzerblog moment (preferably from this website, but could be from Kos or Washblog diaries/comments. Whatever. This could be fun!

Please stop fucking up the estate tax argument

So, I-920 was debated at the League of Women Voters' event on Mercer Island. The repeal supporter, Dennis Falk, ran the standard Wing formation play of decrying "punishment" of people who achieve the American dream.

"It is wrong to target a group of people because they've been successful," Falk said.

Fair enough; pretty standard boilerplate opposition to the estate tax- it assumes that most people believe they will join that successful group of people. It's the response that gets to me, though. Jeri Wood had this to say:

In rebuttal, Jeri Wood said the estate tax only applies to a couple of hundred individuals. The funds it generates go toward financing public education.

This tax affects millionaires, many of whom have made money from the efforts of state-educated employees, Wood said.

Jeri stutter-steps up to the right argument at the end, but the opening salvo is way off the mark, IMO.

A tax is fair or it is not fair - it doesn't matter how many people it affects. Saying a tax only affects a couple hundred people actually underscores the repealists' argument, that a few successful people are being "punished".

The real, and significantly more important, argument is that without public education, business loans, business tax cuts, public roads, student loans, etc. etc. etc., no one would achieve their success. It is a public duty to repay some of that debt that has accumulated. The millions one accrues during life represent a debt owed to both past and future generations through the public trust.

A person's heirs have actually less claim to an inheritance than does the public. This is not punishment for success, this is simply paying the cost of success owed to public assistance, from which every person in this country benefits, whether they like it or even know it or not. This is the moral, public-interest side of the argument.

The other, less-visited side of the argument, is this: Farms are exempt from it. Businesses would have to be very badly run to be affected by it. And the honest reality is, it just isn't that onerous. We pay income taxes on all money we earn - whether through working or simply waiting. This is nothing more than an income tax on heirs - not on millionaires or billionaires, but on people who are inheriting money they did not earn through their own work.

Them's my thoughts, anyway...

Things to bitch about today

* It's seriously hard to type
* Slings look idiotic and I hate them
* My shoulder hurts now
* Shaving left handed = hard
* Same with brushing teeth left handed

Switzerblog...is wounded

So, I had a bit of a rough afternoon...

Yes, this is my right arm with my fancy new soft cast. I took a little break from work about 4 today and went outside to toss a football with some buddies. What you're seeing is the result of my lack of talent at catching a well-thrown football (the Seahawks ain't calling...). The "crack" I heard didn't quite convince me I'd done serious damage - I'm a chronic knuckle-cracker, so it could have just been my already-wrecked joints. The pain didn't do it, either; I've jammed fingers before and assumed it'd subside. Unfortunately, it just kept getting worse and worse until I finally took my sissy ass to the hospital.

Turns out I got the double-whammy: Broken bone, to which is attached a ligament enabling me to control lateral movement. (I'd been betting on a torn ligament) So now I get to wear this purple monstrosity until next week, when I learn if I have to have a pin inserted to hold it together. *sigh* Changes for switzer in the next week or so:

* Typing is damn slow...I type just under 100 words per minute. Now it's about 15 or so as I try to move this awkward thing around.
* Gots to get a trackball mouse - the Intellimouse guys are hard to control with a big awkward thing on your thumb!
* No. Xbox. Must kill self.
* Dressing/undressing/restroom, um, projects...suddenly complicated maneuvers.

Others as unpleasantness develops. Oh yeah, I should mention that the constant cramping in my hand is frickin' horrible! Okay, enough bellyachin'.


Adding to my bad mood this week: On the way to work last week, a huge rock knocked a softball size crack in our windshield. The rock came from a truck run by King County, so I called the "Comments about my driving" number and reported it. After a week, I got a call back from Safeco insurance (you can see where this is going, right?), and they took a recorded report from me. Another week goes by, and I get a letter from them telling me that I can't prove where the rock came from, and that they aren't responsible for common "road hazards". Take a look at this photo and tell me if it was caused by a common "road hazard", or by a construction truck dropping extra-large rocks on the freeway where they don't belong...

Reichert and McMorris: Worst in the state at supporting the troops

First, 'cause the Google-bombs gots to be done:
WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
WA-08: Dave Reichert

Now onto the amazing information revealed today. IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) released today their rankings of support for veterans' issues by members of Congress. IAVA is a non-partisan group made up of veterans, as the name suggests, of the contemporary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their interest is in gaining support for their wounded and traumatized brothers and sisters when they come home; no more, no less.

Their ranking of Congressional support is based on specific votes which pertain to body armor, health care (i.e. VA funding), research into brain trauma and other urgent care both in theater and at home, etc. What's interesting about the results? This:

Name	Party	Grade
Rep. Brian Baird	Dem	B
Sen. Maria Cantwell	Dem	A-
Rep. Norm Dicks	Dem	A-
Rep. Doc Hastings	Rep	C
Rep. Jay Inslee	Dem	B+
Rep. Rick Larsen	Dem	A
Rep. Jim McDermott	Dem	C-
Rep. Cathy McMorris	Rep	D
Sen. Patty Murray	Dem	A-
Rep. Dave Reichert	Rep	D+
Rep. Adam Smith	Dem	A-

What's this I see? 11 total members of Congress, nine Democrats and three Republicans. Among the Democrats, five "A's", two "B's", and one "C" (Jim, what up?). Among the supposedly troop supportin' Republicans: one "C" and two "D's". Now, I will give Dave Reichert this much: He got a D+, so he definitely is doing better than Cathy McMorris.

But what the hell is he doing voting against veterans in a district FILLED with veterans? How do these people live with themselves? I know what's coming to mind for me, having seen this - there's really only one vote to truly support the troops and the veterans: vote for Peter Goldmark and Darcy Burner, because the numbers don't lie. Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris simply do not support our veterans.

And just for fun, I like to remind people that our Senators are the best in the country for veteran's benefits and rights, and now we have proof! Bob Geiger made a neat graph of the Senate rankings from the IAVA grades, and who's at the very tippy-top? Why, our very own Maria Cantwell! Joined with Patty Murray (with any luck, soon to be the second-ranking member of the majority on the VA Committee and soon after the first woman to chair that committee...), every single Democrat scored higher than the highest-scoring Republican. Wow - who supports our troops, now? Simply amazing...

Party of Personal Responsibility

From Postman:

Q: Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.

I can scarcely find words.

But I'll keep going anyway.

In the 47th, someone who lacks the balls to take responsibility for their action has created a website attacking him for past family difficulties and posted yard signs pointing people to it. Thoughts:

* If you're going to slander people, at least have the balls to put your name on it. This lying, cowardly moron went to great lengths to hide themselves. Whois points you to an unmonitored mailbox and a phone number that belongs to a hosting company.
* Mr. Simpson's family difficulties are resolved and in the past. Oh, and nobody's fucking business.
* Family difficulties: Ugly. Doesn't matter who you are, when they come, they're not pretty.

To the person who created the website: I won't link to it because I'm not going to do your work, and know this - you are the worst kind of coward. Show yourself, you pussy, and let's see what's in your closet.

Next, the King County Republicans and their trial-lawyer Chair, the untalented she-beast Diane Tebelius, at least had the cojones to leave their contact information on a misleading attack website (and commensurate yard signs) going after Deb Eddy. Again, I won't link to this shit because A) both these sites are horribly done and amateurish, and B) I won't do their work for them.

Hey, Diane Tebelius, is your Eddy attack site as poorly researched as the shitty work Lori Sotelo did last year? (You know, that you did such a horrible job defending? Because you're a sad excuse for an attorney...)

Seriously, I've seen Republicans dip into the sleaze pool in desperation, but they've completely abandoned any sense of ethics, decency, morality, or, well...anything else that is good in the human condition. They will abandon everything for the sake of winning elections. This is something we've said for a long time, but this year we're going to see how horribly true it is.

*sigh* That is all. They just make me sad.

The REAL stakes

Republicans - never so easy to top.

"I do it"

To the many douchebags who complained that Darcy Burner's introductory ad was horrible because it didn't hit Reichert...

Are we hitting him hard enough for you yet?

Cantwell debate tonight - Burner liveblog on Saturday

Via email from Cantwell's campaign:

Thursday’s Spokane Rotary debate will air in Spokane, Tri-Cities, and Yakima from 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on KXLY, KXMN-TV, and KXLY 920 AM in Spokane, KVEW-TV and KVEW-D in Tri-Cities and in Yakima on KAPP-TV and KAPP-D. It will be available online at www.kxly.com and on C-SPAN nationwide.

Cantwell and McGavick’s first side-by-side appearance at the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board will air on TVW at 9:00pm on Thursday, October 12.

After taking questions from the Spokane Rotary, Cantwell and McGavick will head to an hour-and-a-half meeting with the Spokesman Review’s editorial board, to be broadcast live on the paper’s website at http://www.spokesman-review.com/.

Got all that?

Next, our own mcjoan will be shadowing Darcy Burner on Saturday, and together they will be live-blogging at Kos at 1:00pm local time - so mark your freakin calendars! In mcjoan's own words:

Update by mcjoan: I'm going to be spending the day with Burner on Saturday. We've got a half hour live-blogging segment on her schedule at 1:00 Pacific time on Saturday, here on the front page. So mark your calendars and be here Saturday afternoon.

Longest debate thread ever

So I went to the Darcy Burner/Dave Reichert debate last night, and oh my was the fur a-flyin'! And it wasn't just the Republican wives with their coats, either, HAR! *sigh*. Okay, that was really weak. Anyway, if those two liked each other at all before the debate, they sure can't stand each other now. Dave was pissed by the end of the night. I hope everyone's had a chance to see it on TVW by now, and if now, both they and KUOW have it archived. Below is my inordinately long recap (my apologies, but I do try to be thorough!).

The packed house at Meydenbauer Center last night was treated to a good time and fun-to-watch debate between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert. The crowd was (I'm estimating here) about 2/3 tilted towards Darcy, which made for a more homey atmosphere for those of us wearing a "D".

Here's a weird thing I noticed: Republicans seem to keep themselves uniformly well-coiffed. Good hair and in some cases evening dress were the order, and I saw a couple women in their 20's who more closely resembled my grandmother in their dress, makeup and mannerisms. Very bizarre - like they have to manifest their beliefs through their clothes.

Anyhoo, the first question of the evening came from a gentleman who angrily wanted to know why there was no American flag on the stage - a good question, most of the audience thought. Our trusty moderator didn't agree, it seems, and just moved forward. This sort of set the tone for the evening.

The panel was made up of Seattle Times staffers and Steve Scher from KUOW - Jonathan Martin, Kate Riley, and Ryan Blethen.

The first question got us off to a good start, IMO: Why should the architects of the Iraq war continue to stay in office? Reichert fumbled this one a bit, because he can't sell out his party. He decided to talk about "not staying the course", and being "flexible" in our policy and dealing with an ever-changing enemy. Unlike Dave, Darcy was able to actually answer the question: The Bush and Reichert plan for Iraq has failed, and we need new leadership.

Now, I have to interject here. To the Democrats who attend these things: SHUT. UP. Darcy got wild applause for the Iraq comment, after the audience was asked to hold their applause for after the debate, and this was a problem through the evening. Can't we go to an event without acting like assholes? It's a debate, you cretins, not a campaign event! (and to the Republicans at debates: SHUT. UP. Your incessant muttering is rude and frankly a bit childish)

Unsurprisingly, even though she made no indication she has any plan to pull out of Iraq quickly, some GODDAMN MINDLESS MORON shouted “Cut and run!”. (first of the night-long chorus of “mm-hm” and “that’s right” from R’s sitting behind me) So. Reichert’s response began as follows: “We have to remember that we were attacked” (while making his "sheriff face"). Followed by an immediate raucous cheer from his supporters – I think to one-up the Burner boneheads who couldn’t contain themselves, but also because the phrase “we were attacked” has a visceral, positive reaction for Republicans that is honestly a little creepy. Knowing that we were attacked makes me more sad and angry than ecstatic, but maybe that’s just me (it also makes me want to pursue, you know, the people who actually attacked us!). Advantage: Burner

Annnyhoo, next question was about support for the guest worker program. Darcy’s answer was good, need to be sure everyone has a chance, no on guest worker program because she doesn’t want to see a two-tiered society. Dave answered that we need to secure our borders (something Darcy also believes, btw, although with different means’n’methods in mind, I’m sure), and told a weird story about some Cambodian who is here illegally (I think? His stories really ramble), but volunteered in the army. I think his point was that he doesn’t support the guest worker program, but it was hard to say. Advantage: Burner

Next up, Net neutrality. Darcy supports, and told a great story about why she does – she avoided the technical reasons for Net neutrality and went for the heartstrings; a good tack for someone who, btw, DOES know the technical reasons for NN. Dave revisited immigration for some reason, then said he supports Net neutrality. Mcjoan, sitting next to me (and who was a freaking delight, as always), mentioned to me that he’d voted for the Telecom bill that in fact is intended to end Net neutrality. Advantage: Burner sliiiightly, only because of Dave’s rambling story

Next question to Darcy: Why should we let the tax cuts expire. Now, this is one where I think both gave strong answers, although Dave played loose with the facts. Darcy’s answer was that taxes should be fair and reward work, not wealth. Our current tax policy is exactly backwards, and she believes working people should pay less in taxes. Dave’s answer was that tax cuts created 5.5 million jobs since 2003 and near 4% unemployment, which is considered full employment. Truthfully, the tax cuts were passed in 2001, not 2003, and an increase in production to replenish the inevitable decline in national inventory is what’s created 5.5 million jobs, but it ain’t worth arguing the point. He handled the question well. Advantage: Draw

Reichert question: Who’s accountable for Foley scandal – do you support the leadership? Sheriff Hairspray put on the sheriff face and talked about his bio, and said we need justice. Responsible party should be prosecuted. If leadership is at fault, they should be charged. Darcy took the mother angle – as a mother, I’m horrified. Called on Dave to call for Hastert’s resignation. (her entire answer was met with tsk-tsk and outraged muttering from the Reichert peanut gallery). Dave rebuts by talking about being a cop. Darcy RE-rebuts by saying this isn’t about law enforcement, it’s about ethics and accountability (more outraged muttering – the R’s really really hate this scandal. And especially the word accountability). Advantage: slight Burner – she came off petty calling for Dave to call on Hastert to resign

Reichert question: What’s left undone on the 9/11 commission’s recommendations? Dave: Of 43 recommendations , 5 have come to my committee (direct quote here: “Wait, let me check my notes for a minute…”). An emergency communications bill tacked onto FEMA restructuring bill is now law. I know what it’s like to talk into a radio and wait…and wait…and wait for someone on the other side to answer. (sheriff face in 3…2…1…). Darcy’s answer, you have to deliver results or get fired. After 9/11, Katrina, it would be unacceptable to wait for another disaster before solving the problem. We need a change. Advantage: Burner – Dave pointed out that they’ve failed to act on 42 of 43 recommendations, and she nailed the entire Congress

Money moment: Should the FCC rules pushed by media conglomerates (allowing more media consolidation be passed, and should Congress pass a law requiring local, diverse media ownership.

Dave: “I don’t know enough about this issue, so I’ll pass on the question.”
Darcy: …well, I was so flustered by Reichert passing that I missed it. But it sounded good!
Advantage: Burner

Darcy question: How will you pay for healthcare coverage you call for? Darcy gave an example about her sister’s coverage, and pointed out we waste enormous amounts of money in our healthcare system. We don’t pay for preventive care, and wait for catastrophic (read: expensive) needs. We need to reform the system, and we can provide comprehensive healthcare without spending a dime more than we do today. Dave quote: “Everyone agrees we should lower healthcare.” That’s what he said, no joke. He then gave examples of HSA’s, HMO’s, etc. He also said the prescription drug plan has worked, and even the Republicans laughed at him. Advantage: Burner

Darcy question: Reichert’s campaign ads say you will attack our wallets by raising income taxes for Social Security. Some say this will make SS solvent. Will you raise the cap? Darcy indicates SS is a promise, and she would consider looking at the cap (for you boneheads out there, Social Security taxes only come out of the first $90k of income – she’s talking about raising that to $150k or so), so higher-earning Americans pay their fair share. Dave also is willing to look at raising the cap (!!!!), and claims he opposes the President’s privatization plan. Advantage: Burner, as Dave just undermined his own attack ad by agreeing with her position that he’s attacking on television

Reichert question: Burner campaign says you cut veterans’ benefits. What say you? Dave: Listed family in service, voted for 18% increase in vet funding, home loans, $3 billion in PTSD treatment funds. She’s talking about appropriations votes, etc. (he got technical here). Burner: Congress has not kept its promise. Reichert cut funding for vet benefits over 5 years (she seemed pissed/tense on this one, btw)

Kate Riley of the Times pointed out that the votes Darcy refers to were non-binding. Darcy hit a good emotional tone about supporting vets, but didn’t really address this. Dave rebutted by saying her rhetoric is wrong, listed budget money again, and said it’s ludicrous to believe he would abandon his fellow vets. Advantage: Reichert, big

Softball question about R & D tax credits – both think Microsoft is a great company, yadda yadda creating jobs. Since Microsoft is 2 miles from the debate site, this was just a chance to get warm and fuzzy. No advantage

Reichert question: Are you distancing yourself from Bush? Dave says no. Points out that he brought the President of the United States here, to his district (sheriff face in 3…2..1..). Then told stupid story about his son: My son said “you had your own brain when you got on Air Force One in DC, but you had someone else’s brain when you landed in Seattle?”. Proving only that his stories are idiotic and his son is apparently no brighter than papa. Said he’s an independent thinker and independent action-taker (??). Brought up Schiavo vote (!) and ANWR votes.

Darcy got her own question, because it’s presumed she’s distanced herself from Bush: Name 2 or 3 Democrats you agree with. Darcy went on and on about Reichert being a Bush Republican blah blah blah. Told the story of Dave saying he votes how leadership tells him, and then “Was he lying to them or is he lying to us?” Named Inslee, Smith and Dicks as three Dems she respects.

Reichert (rightly) got a chance to respond to the “lying” charge, and really didn’t. He did get a zinger by pointing out that he votes with the Pres. 86% of the time, not 96% (switzer sez: I don’t know or care which is true), and Democrats voted with him on every one. They must be Bush Democrats. Advantage: Reichert, although Darcy drew blood with the lying thing

At this point, the crowd got out of hand, and Dave got more time to answer a question, leading to more nonsense from the crowd. Again, Democrats going to debates: SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

Their last question was posed to each other. Dave’s question to Darcy wasn’t memorable (what have you done for your community), both because it was a blatant RNC talking point, and because it was intended to let him answer his own question when he was supposed to answer hers (which he did). Her question was trouble, though. First of all, to Darcy’s consultants: Please prepare her for ALL eventualities. You knew the format. You’ve been to this rodeo before. You should have had a question or three already in her hands. Instead, she made one up, and she sounded bitchy, petty and mean. (paraphrasing) ‘You’ve voted against ANWR, stem cells, etc., and voted for them. How can the voters know your values and principles when you’ve shown you can’t be trusted to have the same values and principles on those votes, and you vote for crass political gain?’ Reichert drew himself up and put on the sheriff face and said: “Did you have a question?” It was the smartest thing he did all night. She restated without the speech, and he proceeded to dumb up again by sounding defensive while talking about all these votes he took against his caucus. Advantage: Reichert, closer than it should have been because he should have stopped himself

So, other weird stuff: On a question about allowing pharmacists to deny prescriptions on moral or religious grounds, Darcy said “No”, and Dave interrupted with “Yes”. She looked at him and said, “If I could just finish…” then talked about medical privacy, and prescriptions being between a doctor and a woman, pharmacists licensed and have an obligation to fill those prescriptions, etc. Really strong answer. When it was Dave’s turn again, he was obviously pissed off and just repeated “Yes.” It was very uncomfortable and weird. Advantage: Burner

Fun stuff about Reichert: On a question about North Korea, he referred to “Kim Yung Jil” and said while studying the stem cell issue he’d visited a lab and looked in a microscope and seen the heartbeat of a stem cell in a mouse. HA! Both obviously misspoken, but still. I do think you should know without fail the name of someone who’s just detonated a nuclear device within striking distance of your state, though – that bothered me.

Dave was easily distracted throughout, and often lost his train of thought. At times, he was very forceful and turned (as always) the cop angle to great effect. He got laughed at when talking about tracking a serial killer for 19 years (nice investigative piece, P-I!), but silenced the crowd by saying “I don’t think the victims or their families find it comical.” Darcy needs to work on her delivery – she seems overly scripted and rehearsed, and on the radio came off sounding wimpy and unsure of herself, although in the room she mostly just seemed stiff.
So in all, I give the evening to Darcy, but not by as large a margin as all the issue-related "Advantage"'s might seem. She didn't come off as warm, and Reichert does to some degree - he's got a folksy thing that people like, and he nailed her hard when he got her, which kept it, in the whole, closer than it could have been. In the end, it was her first debate, and I think she has some work to do, but she really did just fine.

Now I’m tired from writing. I leave it to you, dear reader, to parse the crap I’ve said or fill in the blanks, now that the whole thing’s been on TVW. *phew!*

Dori Monson: Idiot

And I'm not the only one that thinks so. In my ongoing installments of "who finds me on Google", today I see that some blessed soul found me listed third if you Google "DORI MONSON IS AN IDIOT". Yes. Yes, he is, indeed, and I'm glad to be third on the list when you google that phrase.

It turns out when you google "is an idiot" (which I'd decided was the trigger bringing people to me - no such luck), you get the greatest fucking one-page site ever, Kip Hawley Is An Idiot. dot com. For those who don't know and didn't follow the link, Kip Hawley is the TSA director who decided we couldn't carry water on a plane because some native English Palestinians had hatched some lame-brain scheme to build a plane on a bomb using Gatorade, which wouldn't work. So we don't check luggage point-to-point, but for six weeks we were all in mortal fear of lipstick. Kip Hawley, like Dori Monson and myself, is definitely an idiot.

Reliving our Puritanism with the modern Republican

I'm reading a book written in 1917 called "The American Family in the Colonial Period" - mostly because I'm curious about the claims by Christian and other conservatives that the contemporary version of marriage has been successful and unchanged for thousands of years. It's an interesting book, although it was written at the height of a "simplified English" movement, meaning some of the words are tough to decipher. In an early chapter on Old World origins, the author breaks down some background behind the colonial family makeup, He discusses the rise of Puritanism in the early seventeenth century, and provides this snippet:

...In Germany, says Bebel,

The merry, life-loving townsman of the middle ages became a bigoted, austere, sombre Philistine...The honorable citizen with his stiff cravat, his narrow intellectual horizon, his severe but hypocritical morality, became the prototype of society. Legitimate wives who had not favored the sensuality tolerated by the Catholicism of the middle ages, were generally better pleased by the Puritan spirit of Protestantism.

The Puritan emphasis on sexual restraint was of a piece with the general gospel of frugality so appropriate among a class of people trying to accumulate capital in an age of deficit.

Is it just me, or is this a completely contemporary description of today's prototypical Republican? Accumulating capital in an age of deficit, narrow intellectual horizon, severe but hypocritical morality - this entire passage could have been written three weeks ago about any loyal Bush Republican.

It strikes me that the current crop of Christian evangelicals do bear strong resemblance to the Puritans (but definitely not the Calvinists) of our past. Their single-minded focus on issues of sexuality and resultant proclivity for sexual misbehavior, their pursuit of capital side-by-side with their faith, and their increasing desire to segregate and/or eliminate believers of other faiths (or no faith!) draw close comparison to 17th-century Puritanism. Hell, their pursuit of Harry Potter as a witch is practically a straight-line descendant of Puritan belief!

Switzer rounds up some stuff

First of all, throw some love to Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark. Heck, since Bruce Guthrie's selfish $1.2 million dollar King 5 debate entry fee has triggered the millionaire's exemption for Mike McGavick but not for Maria, throw Maria some turkee as well. Add $.37 to your contribution so they know it came from Switzerblog, mmkay?

Don't forget Darcy's debate tomorrow - we'll see "experience" vs. intelligence - I'm looking forward to Darcy debating the hair! See ya at Meydenbauer Center at 6:30!

Next, but no less important - kudos to Lowell Ericsson and Precinct M-I 41-0786! Lowell was elected Democratic PCO with 42 votes, outdistancing evil sloppy datacruncher Lori (Fibby) Sotelo by 15 votes in her Republican PCO election! Keep whippin' Lori by 20%, Lowell, and the 41st can stay blue!

Lastly, what's up with sloppy reporting? I've gotten so sick of misspellings, inaccuracies and just plain ol' sloppiness in the media, I can barely stand to read some websites (King 5 is one of the worst offenders, CNN not far behind).

Check out this article about the Foley affair at the LA Times, normally a bastion of good reporting. Wally Roche writes:

The Times agreed not to publish the year of his page class to protect his identity.

This is exactly as it should be - don't let people do the math and track this poor kid down. Except, several paragraphs later...

The former page, who served during Foley's xxxxx term, said that he believed Foley became bolder in his behavior during his decade in Congress.

I deleted the term reference so as to not repeat Wally's mistake. Anyone with Google and 30 seconds to spare could do the math and figure out this kid's page class. This is something they should have caught - this scandal is going to do some serious damage to some young men who did nothing worse than try to take part in our country's government, and the media has a responsibility to be double-damn sure they protect these people. I've send the LA Times and Wally my concerns, and await an answer.

And that's the news from Switzer.

"Annual December massacres"

Glad that Carl Ballard's back in the blogging fold, I was taking a peek through his new blog, EFFin' Unsound, and stumbled upon this, the greatest paragraph in the world:

It’s a known fact that if you say, “Merry Christmas” ... anywhere in America you’ll be shot. If only the Republican party had some control over the means of government, the annual December massacres could be avoided.

Thanks, Carl.

Foley, Republicans and burqas oh my!

While kicking a man while he's down is probably bad form, I've decided to revel in it a bit. While the Foley scandal festers and inch by inch destroys what remains of the myth of Republican morality, little things here and there keep popping up that show just how out-of-touch Republicans and the MSM really are.

MSNBC has a poll up asking "Should the congressional page program for high-schoolers be abolished?". (right hand column, towards the bottom)

As of this writing, with 13,000+ responses, 31% think that yes, the page program should be abolished. In other words, yes, the page program is responsible for this problem. This comes on the heels of Hastert's efforts last week to investigate and "reform" the page program - again, let's not investigate and reform Congressional leaders' management of the program nor Members' behavior towards the pages - no, let's investigate the kids.

Funny thing about that 31%. It's roughly the approval numbers for Bush and the Republican Congress in general. Hey, turns out it's also roughly the percentage of the population that self-identifies as Republican! Interesting to see the Republican mindset so exposed, isn't it?

So here's what bothers me, and what I wish surprised me: the view of this situation by 31% of our population and seemingly an entire Party so obviously resembles the views of the Islamofascists they so want to defeat in the Iraq meatgrinder. Not clear how that works? Let me lay it out:

Example 1 (Republican): Teenage pages have been treated to inappropriate and possibly illegal sexually explicit conversation, at a minimum, by at least one Member of Congress, and Congressional leaders covered it up. Solution? Ban the pages.

Example 2 (Taliban): 26 year old woman is gang-raped and beaten. She was not wearing a Burqa. Solution? Ban women not wearing burqas.

Note who does not have any responsibility in both these scenarios.

I'm just sayin'.

PS: Mrs. Switzer pointed all this out to me, so I'm honor bound to give her credit. There ya go, Mrs. S!

Somebody has to say it

The Seahawks have...offensive line problems. You heard it here first, since apparently our local sportscasters aren't going to say it. It must seem too obvious or sacreligious or something. Shaun Alexander isn't running differently from last year, Matt Hasselbeck isn't suddenly mired in mud in the pocket - the difference is that last year the pocket stayed open and holes opened on the line, while this year those holes are filled with large angry defensive players and the pocket is filled with sprinting large angry defensive players. That, my friends, is an offensive line problem.

If only we'd saved Nate Burleson's salary and kept Steve Hutchinson here...I'm just sayin'.

More obviousness for my Republican friends

Note to youse guys: If you want to blame Democrats, try using evidence.

You see, pointing to a Drudge Report post isn't "evidence". It's been long acknowledged that he posts whatever he's given without doing normal journalistic work like sourcing and confirmation - if it looks bad for a liberal, he assumes it's true (this is true of you also, my Republican friends, and is a crippling liability at the moment). "Evidence" is what ABC News has - you know, the actual IM's and e-mails which they've sourced and confirmed by getting them from either the actual pages or people involved in the case from the beginning.

Sourcing works this way: you get people who actually were involved to tell you what they did. Like, for example, the Majority Leader confirming that he personally told Denny Hastert about the Foley issue a year ago. Writing on a blog that you're "sure" Democrats knew about it and sat on it until it was politically expedient provides neither evidence nor sourcing.

Here's an interesting concept, too: Conservatives are now saying that the St. Petersburg Times and ABC News had the information and didn't release it immediately, so they must be responsible because their actions are hurting Republican election chances (because that's really the only important issue here). Has anyone in R-land considered that maybe ABC and the SP Times didn't run it immediately because it's so obviously damaging? That perhaps it was MORE responsible to sit on it until they could source and confirm what had happened - especially considering that if true, the story would certainly end careers?

NAAHHHHH, gotta be a liberal conspiracy!

Just a reminder, my Republican friends:

NO MATTER WHO LEAKED OR WHAT THE TIMING IS, MARK FOLEY INSTIGATED SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONVERSATIONS WITH TEENAGE BOYS IN THE DIRECT CARE OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, REPUBLICAN LEADERS - WHO ARE IN CHARGE - KNEW AND FAILED TO STOP HIM.

Morality takes a Republican vacation

I've been off the blog path for a little while now (sorry, busy and frustrated and just got other things to do), but the Foley debacle has me kinda lathered up. Heh. Sorry to touch on something so un-local, but the right wing spin machine is in fantastic form on this, and I thought it worthy of mention. As a warning, those who don't like lewd details should go read something else.

By now, everyone knows the landscape: Foley turns out to be a well-known lecherous scoundrel who cyber-stalks young boys for sexual release (in violation of the law he co-wrote). At a minimum, Republican leadership failed to do enough follow-up on the situation. Democrats responded with predictable and justified outrage, as have the American people. Republicans responded with initial confusion - this is their nightmare "can't happen to us" scenario. Kinda like being a poor black woman in New Orleans at the end of last August.

Now we're a week into it, it's exploded as details of Republican failures and their frankly shockingly callous dismissal of the issue have grown. Desiring to stop the bleeding, they've started to cast about for anything AT ALL to cram in the open wound of their party. Being Republicans, the only thing they know to do is blame Democrats (for the record, there are other options here: Take the blame for their own actions, admit they don't know who did what or what to do now, or...DO SOME GOVERNING AND MAKE DECISIONS TO PROTECT PEOPLE BESIDES REPUBLICANS), and they've finally started to get their "it's Clinton's fault" feet back under them.

Now, from Drudge complaining on the radio that it's these "16 and 17 year old beasts" egging him on (if you just got off the plane from freaking Mars, yes, he really said that), to O'Reilly both labeling Foley a Democrat and claiming Soros is funding this whole thing, we're beginning to hear their unified voice again. It's the Democrats' fault. In classic 5-year old child, oops, I mean Republican form, they are furious NOT that one of their own did this horrifying thing, nor that members of their party knew about it and didn't stop it, but that they got caught. And they want Americans to join them in their outrage that someone would intentionally tell on them.

While it seems that they can't get their shit together, it's actually a brilliant shifting of the conversation - away from "why didn't you stop it" to "who knew, and why did they tell us now". I'd just like to politely offer a reminder to my friends in the media of what the issue actually is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO TOLD OR WHY. MARK FOLEY IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AND HE WAS ENABLED BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP.

Let's use the GOP talking points to examine this thing...

If one accepts Republican claims that:
1. George Soros is somehow financing a smear campaign to time the release of the "reams" (heh) of Foley documents

2. The Democratic Party is helping him

3. The Democratic Congressional leadership had the documents months ago

4. Long ago and far away, Democrats had sex with pages once, too

5. The whole thing was a prank by a page gone awry

6. The pages are 16-17 year old "beasts"

You can't change these facts:
1. George Soros did not ask a teenage boy via IM to measure his penis. Mark Foley, R-FL, did.

2. The Democratic Party did not ask a teenage boy how he masturbates. Mark Foley, R-FL, did.

3. The Democratic Congressional leadership learned about the documents (if they did) AFTER Republican Congressional leadership, and
3(a): The Democratic Congressional leadership does not run House discipline, Republican Party discipline, nor the Page program. Republican Party Congressional leadership is responsible for these things.

4. And now they don't. Also, see "if they jumped off a cliff, would you?" parental logic. Prior bad acts by an opponent do not justify current bad acts by you.

5. No prank justifies a grown, adult man in a position of responsibility engaging in sexual banter with teenage boys - or girls. Mark Foley, R-FL, did engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys, and Rep ublican Congressional leadership covered it up for him.

6. No matter how beastly and helplessly attractive to their adult same-sex paramours, pages are teenage boys and girls, and a grown, adult man in a position of responsibility should never, under any circumstances, engage in sexual conversation with them. Period. This is a basic tenet of human morality. Mark Foley, R-FL, did engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys, and Republican Congressional leadership covered it up for him.

Again, here is what we know:

* Mark Foley, R-FL, violated the law by pursuing minors online for sexual gratification.

* Republican leadership learned about this a minimum of one year ago.

* Republican leadership did not stop him.

Here is what we hear:

* Mark Foley was molested as a child and is a drunk. This, of course, is an insult to every molested child and alcoholic who manage their life without ruining someone else's.

* According to rumors, spread only by Republicans such as Sean Hannity, the embattled Dennis Hastert and Bill O'Reilly, some combination of Democratic Party leaders, shadow organizations and George Soros knew about Foley's email/IMs and held onto it until it could do the most political damage. They have provided no evidence of any of this, whereas Republican Congressmen and staffers all confirm that they personally informed Republican Congressional leadership of this problem as long ago as 1998.

* Democrats did not stop him. This, of course, ignores the fact that it wasn't their job, there's no evidence they even knew about the problem, and completely ignores the reality that this is classic avoidance by the actual responsible parties.

* It was a prank, and/or pages are just too smokin' hot to ignore. Plus, they were egging him on. They wanted him to ask them to measure their penis, drink with him and have sex with him. A finer "blame the victim" game I've never seen.

Driving the scandal: facts. Driving Republican response: rumor and lies.

Best case scenario: Teenage boys played a prank on a sexual predator and he took the bait, engaging in criminally negligent online behavior with them. Republicans and Democrats knew and failed to act until a Democratic operative used the information to spring a politically motivated attack on the Republican leadership.

Worst case scenario: A sitting Congressman has been stalking and molesting teenage boys in the care of the United States House of Representatives. Republicans knew about this for years, yet did nothing to protect a seat in Florida and that Congressman's fundraising ability. Occasionally, this Congressman was aided in contacting these teenagers by other Republicans.

Most likely scenario from available evidence: A sitting Congressman has engaged in criminally negligent online sexual conversation with teenage boys who were in the care of the United States House of Representatives. He may have had sexual interactions with one or more of these teenagers. At least one member of the Republican leadership enabled him by preventing further action against him. When he tried to leave Congress, a member of the Republican leadership with knowledge of this issue convinced him to stay and run for re-election, thus ensuring at least two more classes of pages would be endangered.

Now, Hastert wants to investigate and "reform" the page program, rather than the page board, ethics panel and procedures for dealing with sexual misbehavior by members of Congress.

Hastert, who will still stay on as leader of House Republicans, according to a House GOP official, had wanted former FBI director Louis Freeh to examine the page system and make recommendations on how to improve the program.
...

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the ethics meeting. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along, If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."

In fact, Morris, who has advised both parties, offered no independent knowledge of Democrats being aware of the Foley communications before they came out. He said on Fox News that an unidentified reporter told him a Democratic leader had known about the matter.

Hastert said "people funded by George Soros," a liberal billionaire who has plowed millions into this and other election campaigns, want to see the scandal blow up. And he warned that when the GOP "base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy."

Hastert alternately says he will and he won't resign now. I don't really care about that - if he goes, it is as it should be, if he doesn't, we win 35 seats instead of 20. No, what bothers me is that he doesn't care about the immorality of what's happened, and is completely focused on Republican's re-election opportunities. Indeed, the campaigns are the only consideration for Republicans, rather than any right or wrong.

Hastert had told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday night that he had no thoughts of resigning. He blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.

"I think that (resignation) is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen -- that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House," Hastert told the newspaper.

The smear is having an effect. Some of the robots have bought the conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker, and more will of course follow. Republicans seem to have a proclivity for accepting that Democrats gaining politically, for whatever reason, is worse than sexual molestation by a Republican.

"My guess is that some liberal conspired with the liberal media to sit on the evidence for an extended period of time to wait until the revelation would have the most political impact," a reader posting as jbdjbd wrote on MSNBC.com's message board.

Similarly, a reader posting as Code3blog implied a conspiracy, criticizing "individuals, mostly smear teams in the employ of Democratic Party interests, [who] held criminally-acquired private communications that also, if their stated belief is true, were in violation of child protection laws."

Again, IF liberals conspired "with the media" to sit on the evidence (a rumor that, contrary to everything else we've seen, there is no evidence), they certainly did so for less time than the Republican leadership did.
And they didn't engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys from positions of responsibility. Mark Foley did.

Again again, IF individuals "in the employ of Democratic Party interests" (wtf does that mean?) held "criminally-acquired private communications", they DID SO FOR LESS TIME THAN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP DID.

BUT FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, THEY DIDN'T ENGAGE IN SEXUAL CONVERSATION WITH TEENAGE BOYS FROM A POSITION OF POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY - MARK FUCKING FOLEY DID. AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CONTINUES TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY KNEW AND WHAT THEY FAILED TO DO ABOUT IT.