It's Time To Name The NEW Waterfront Viaduct Folks!

So the tunnel option is a dead duck. I guess for those of us that see this as total defeat it time to propose what the new monstrosity elevated highway viaduct should be called based on who’s going to be blamed in the end for the biggest debacle since Dixie Lee Ray and WPPSS. Each proposed highway name is followed by what it's public NICKNAME probably will become.

• THE FRANK “LET’S TAKE A HEAD COUNT THEN DECIDE” CHOPP ELEVATED PEOPLE MOVER

"THE CHOP-OFF”

• THE CHRISTINE “I’D LIKE A MERCEDES” GREGOiRE MEMORIAL ONE TERM PARKWAY

“CHRISTINE’S FENCE”

• THE NICK “POINTLESS” LICATA MAYBE THIS WILL ACTUALLY GET SOME ONE TO RUN AGAINST ME AT ELECTION TIME FREEWAY
  

“THE POINTLESS”

• THE PETER “I’M EMBARRASSED” STEINBRUECK ELEVATED MEMORIAL CIVIC EMBARRASSMENT
  

“PETER’S PECKER”

• THE MAYOR GREG “TEAR DOWN THIS WALL” NICKELS AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS ONE BYPASS
  

“THE WALLA WALLA”

• THE DOUG “I’M JUST TRYING TO KEEP MY JOB” MACDONALD WHAT DO YOU WANT THE REPORT TO SAY HIGHWAY
  

“THE COOK THE BOOKS”

• THE MARTIN “LET THEM EAT CONCRETE” SELIG’S NO TUNNEL WHAT’S A WATERFRONT ANYWAY ALLIANCE BIG BOXY CONCRETE HIGHWAY
  

“SELIG’S REVENGE”

• THE HELEN “ELECTED FOR LIFE” SOMMERS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY FOR QUEEN ANNE’S ELDERLY
  

“THE WHAT’S THAT”

• THE ROB “NO NO” JOHNSON OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION WE DON’T EVEN OWN A CAR EXPRESSWAY
  

“THE LA DE DA DE DA”

• THE KATE “WHAT’S THE RUSH” JONCAS DOWNTOWN SEATTLE ASSOCIATION DRIVE
  

“OH SHIT"

Also some the organizations that need to be held responsible.

• THE LIBERAL BLOGGERS WE TALK A BIG GAME THROUGH WAY
  

“THEIR MISTAKE “

• THE AIR HEAD ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHAT’S A CAR ROAD
  

“ KARMA”

• THE IT’S PRETTY UP HERE DRIVING ON THE VIADUCT SEATTLE PEOPLE ARCHITECTURALLY AND AESTHETICALLY IMPAIRED BOULEVARD
  

“A PARK”

• THE SONICS OR OTHER FREELOADING PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAMS MEMORIAL TOLL ROAD
  

“SLAM DUNK”

Finally Proof Abounds That Seattle has lost it Chutzpa

The decision today by the State DOT to endorse replacing the viaduct with a new and bigger god awful viaduct is final proof that the City of Seattle has lost it audacity and is being prepared for architecturally and environmental castration in short order. The decision was closely followed by reports that the Governor will now endorse the new elevated highway option in lock step with Speaker of the House Frank “get err done” Chopp who has been cooking the political books all along setting the tunnel and other more modern viaduct replacement options up for failure.

Add to this the announcement today that the Sonics are leaving for Renton after being pushed out by City Councilmen Nick Licata and other snobs who hate sport, and have always hated sport in this town and the handwriting in on the freaking wall.

These are the white collar nerds, political operatives and overly politically correct cheapskate scaredy-cats, weekly avant-garde newspaper snobs, white bread bourgeoisie bloggers who have slowly but surely brought what was once a audacious city to the brink. With their overly liberal, namby-pamby, narrow minded, penny pinching, gutless play is safe politics and sunny feel good bull shit. Their the never quite speak the truth phonies that out-of-towners talk about when that talk about those people in Seattle.

After the Seattle liberal sports hating crowd voted the Sonic out of town, by creating an atmosphere that would drive any major business players out, they will have to live with the Sonics in Renton, who probably will love to have them and the taxes, jobs and image, and the smarty-pants Seattleites still will have to pay the taxes to support them and drive on the new monstrosity waterfront blocking viaduct to get to the game. Stupid and shortsighted I would say.

Forty years and not one light rail car has carried a pay passenger or rolled out yet. Public transit here is probably the worst of any comparable city of its size anywhere. Anyone who has traveled to a major world city here or abroad feels impotent when they return here and find a city so lacking in ways to move people around as this city does. For God’s sake Tacoma already has their light rail up and running. But they don’t have the awful political “process” we have to deal with in Seattle. They elect people and those people make decisions. Not Seattle we talk and posture.

Yesterday Governor Gregoire was quoted as saying the following about the tunnel, "We need to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayer. I'd also prefer a Mercedes, but I can't afford that, either."

Well apparently she decided to give us a fucking used Yugo instead. Thanks Frank, Nick, and Christine for nothing.

Speaker Chopp Legislators DOT Cook the Books Then Recommend Against Tunnel

After not allowing Seattle officials to fully participate in the process. Then deciding to disband the committee constituted to study the feasibility of "Tunnel Lite" because there supposedly wasn't enough time to complete the report. After no legislative committee hearings were really held on the tunnel lite proposition or much else related to the replacement of the viaduct.

The DOT today recommends against both tunnel options and called for the legislature to vote to build an even bigger elevated highway to replace the crumbling eyesore viaduct we have now.

This demonstrates a lack of leadership from the likes of Speaker of the House Frank Chopp and other key elected officials in Olympia.

It is even more important now that Seattle voters reject the elevate highway at any cost on their election ballots. Seattle needs to find a way to keep the funds previously allocated for viaduct replacement by the legislature. The City must aggressively seek additional means of finance to go forward with either a tunnel or opted out in favor of the surface transit option .

"We Shall Not Elevate No More"

Dammit Governor It's Not Just About the Money! As Tunnel Bashing Lite Continues

Governor Gregoire continues to dig her political grave for two. Her and Frank Chopp. He has blocked the tunnel option from the beginning. Not willing to even consider it once he went down the road of political expediency. Not many legislators are willing to take on the Speaker of the House unless they know they can win. Thus the inaction from Olympia. Key transportation committees have not even held hearings on the tunnel option.

I sense a large political backlash down the road for these two if Seattle ends up with another elevated highway. Also for several members of the council who have bungled this badly. This will happen when Seattle residents finally awake from their slumber and realize that a catastrophic mistake has been made by rebuilding a elevated highway. If Gregoire loses a close rerun election to Dino Rossi I would bet the viaduct scandal will be what puts him over the top. Sad because she has been great on nearly all the other issues. But if she loses enough votes in Seattle over her screwing up viaduct replacement it may be her demise.

As for Chopp. He's gotten a little to big for his britches on this and other issues and worked as an obstructionist. Maybe the voter next time will realize he also needs to be knocked back into political place.

Yes, the Seattle City Council is guilty of not getting their shit together on one of the most important pieces of transportation policy to happen in their or our lifetimes. Their ability to lead on this issue should be addressed squarely at the time of next election cycle.

As much as most would like to bash Mayor Nickels on this, he is been pretty much the one constant person in power calling for the tunnel from the beginning.

Gov says Seattle viaduct ballot flawed, but won't pull money yet!

Gov. Chris Gregoire said Monday that Seattle's upcoming vote on replacing the quake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct will be flawed and without credibility, but rejected GOP calls to shift billions of dollars in state financing to other mega-projects.

House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said the March 13 advisory vote will be largely irrelevant as Olympia moves inexorably to approve a rebuild of the elevated highway along Seattle's downtown waterfront. That would cost about $2.8 billion, most already approved by the Legislature.

Seattle leaders prefer a tunnel, with a pricetag of $3.4 billion - a scaled-backed version of a $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel the city had promoted until recently.

Gregoire acknowledged the passion of some Seattle leaders for the tunnel, but said, "We need to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayer. I'd also prefer a Mercedes, but I can't afford that, either."

Neither she nor Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, were willing to flatly declare the tunnel option dead, although many House Democrats have.

"I don't see the tunnel as an option," Clibborn said in an interview. "So the elevated proposal is all that is left. I didn't even have a hearing on the tunnel option."

Gregoire and key legislators said the revised tunnel plan hasn't been studied by experts enough to make sure the pricetag and other details are valid.

The governor was biting in her comments Monday about Seattle's handling of the vote, and said it's no wonder that some lawmakers are lusting after the billions in viaduct money to use on other projects.

"You know, I tried to warn Seattle," she told a news conference. "I tried to tell them while you're indecisive and rethinking and asking for extensions of time, the fact of the matter is that every legislator outside of Seattle is looking at that money and saying, `We're ready to spend it and not debate about it. Our projects are ready.'"

12 Billion Missing In Iraq As Bush Turns America Into Marx Brother's Movie

Waterfront Tunnel Maybe The Real Compromise To Surface Transit Option Or Viaduct

As the important March 13 mail ballot on whether to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct with a tunnel nears, a third option is becoming popular. Basically don’t build either. This third option, for some reason unfortunately, is not even on the ballot. This was pointed out competently by the Stranger in an article calling for the so-called No and No vote rejecting both the tunnel and viaduct on the election ballot.

This third choice has been referred to as the “surface transit option”. It does not mean that nothing would be done of course. To quote:

“The sad thing is, there is another option—an option that doesn't block the waterfront, doesn't include a giant trench through Belltown, and doesn't serve cars at the expense of the environment. It's the same solution that other cities around the country—from New York to San Francisco to freaking Chattanooga, Tennessee—have implemented, to literally universal success: Tear down the wall, improve surface-street connections downtown, and spend our tax dollars putting transit, not pouring concrete, in the Alaskan Way corridor.”

Unfortunately, I feel that the surface transit option is not widely understood by the electorate. I would strongly lean in support of the surface transit option over building any viaduct ever period if those were the two choices.

But I also realize that the voters are probably not as up to speed on all the alternatives as they should be at this point in time. Most, according to the surveys seem to just want to blindly replace the viaduct with another new monstrosity elevated roadway. It maybe condescending to say that about such a large group of people, but time is short and I think we need to be realistic about the attention levels of the average voter on this subject.

Even key politicians in Olympia, namely the Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, who controls the agenda and financing to a major degree and the Governor, have thoughtlessly taken the expedient and easy political road calling for rebuilding some form of elevated viaduct. These are tough foes to overcome if Seattle is to do the right thing and stop the viaduct from being simply replaced with another piece of shit, environmental, aesthetic, and architectural disaster of an elevated roadway in any form.

So I offer the compromise. The Tunnel. This would require a Yes (tunnel) and No (elevated road) vote on the advisory ballot.

The main reason I offer this position is I believe that most voters, especially those who live or have business in West Seattle an South Seattle, cannot imagine not having a major highway available to them for their daily commute or commerce. Those of us who lived through the Nisqually earthquake of 2001 and had to work around not having a viaduct or having to rely on surface streets or I-5 remember what it was like. It was unadulterated gridlock hell getting anywhere. Having to commute without the viaduct must be a paramount memory to many who suffered through it. To offer them nothing but new imporved surface streets and transit is not enough. I'm afraid it just won't fly.

I will also argue we need for homeland security and reasons of commerce a major highway corridor to handle, for the next fifty years, the personal, business, metro bus and government vehicle traffic.

The surface transit option, although high minded, will not answer these real concerns. It is a noble goal to get everyone riding mass transit, biking or walking to work someday but unrealistic given the history of accomplishments here so far in that area. Mostly the idea of intercity intellectuals.

It also is a major sacrifice for vehicle commuters, who would be forced onto surface streets by construction for a number of years, to be willing to support a tunnel if they had no hope that a shinny new highway would be worth all the suffering in the end.

So no one in his or her right mind should be for an elevated viaduct type structure. The surface transit option is noble but not practical.

I have also argued in a previous post that funding for the project can and should be worked out no matter how much it ends up being based on what option we end up with be it tunnel on surface transit. This is due to the historical, colossal and the once in a life time decision nature of the undertaking.

It’s also time to say no to meddling by politicians who lack leadership or understanding in Olympia.

This is a once in a lifetime civic project that we must get right at any cost. Therefore, the tunnel, in some form, is the proper compromise.

I urge Seattle's citizens to vote Yes and No on their ballots.

Obama Presidential Announcement Preview Video

Iraq Veterans Offer Their Position on Bush's War

Washington Post article points out veteran's point of view. VoteVets.org members visit congress to press their position opposing Iraq escalation.

Presidential wannabe John McCain still doesn't get it.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and likely presidential candidate who supports the addition of troops, dismissed VoteVets.org as a "handful of veterans" not representative of the military.

VoteVets.org has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, said spokesman Eric Schmeltzer. The PAC is part of a coalition of left-leaning groups organized by Americans United for Change that includes labor unions and liberal groups such as MoveOn.org.

When Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of "aiding the enemy," the Democratic senators gathered around him yesterday did not wince. Nor did Democrats object when Soltz, the chairman of a group called VoteVets.org, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."

Cheap Waterfront Tunnel Opponents Lack Vision Moxie

In Today's Stranger SLOG Josh Feit had a short ditty about old people being the main supporters of rebuilding the viaduct rather then building a new waterfront tunnel in Seattle. The theory being that they were there when the present structure went up and would have a hard time processing the change.

Hey Josh, I'm sixty and I strongly support a tunnel.

Hello out there Seattle, wake up we're a freaking seaport! Were suppose to have a waterfront.

The citizens of Seattle will never support a tunnel because their too damm cheap and too damm narrow minded. Not to mention their apparent total lack of vision. They demonstrate it over and over again. i.e. no light rail system operational to date in this backward behind times uptight town. It's that Northwest Cubby and Tubby syndrome. Buy the cheapest product possible no matter if it's a massive highway system that's suppose to last 50 years or a pair of sneakers.

By the way fuck the Sonics too. Who needs a major league professional sports team anyway. That be too much like a real world class city. Our goal is to remain stagnant and drink lots of coffee reading the NYT while talking about what we think we know about art and gardening. Nor should you have a Olympic Games here ever because it be to noisy for two weeks in summer. Even though it would mean that the Federal Government would probably pump in billions of dollars in a sort of windfall to rebuild the infrastructure of the area like they ended up doing when the winter games were held in Salt Lake. Can I hear you all say drone like, Thank You Mr. Licata for being a total twerp and making us all look like twerps too. When will someone free us of this meddlesome twit and a few members of the rest of his moxie-less and cult of personality crowd.

Seattle likes to think it's hot shit but it can get anything significant done. Too dependent on "process" and fear. Mostly impressed by the last person they talk too. We're lead by a bunch of play it safe politicians who rather take the leadership-less road to no where's ville.

For years the viaduct has blocked the city from its natural opening to the sea. Oh never mind any boost a tunnel would bring to the waterfront's environment and aesthetics, to tourism, to parks, to walking streets, to downtown and countless other reasons that any forward thinking person could easily imagine.

But we want to do it on the cheap. The additional money spent on a tunnel will be insignificant and meaningless in 20 years. Just how fucking often do you actually build such a massive civic project as this one anyway? Once in a lifetime? Shouldn't you do it right?

All major civic projects have cost overruns from the time of the Brooklyn Bridge to the Tacoma Narrows project today. So you find ways to make it work financially for the long term good of the city. This is how most "real" cities deal with these things. Not here. It constantly like two old hags fighting over the back yard fence. In most major cities leaders stick their necks out and personally see these type of thing get built by leading the way often risking being reelected. Here it's put up to the vote amongst the homeless who live under the viaduct after an endless number of studies and hearings.

But, the no tunnel parochial citizenship here in Seattle would rather listen to most of the gutless politicians who oppose the tunnel. Remaining a city with it's back to the sea, apparently forever.

When the new high rise viaduct is done and you bring your out of town relatives and friends in from the airport via the new roadway if they ask where the waterfront is tell them we don't have one here anymore.

Don Imus Self-centered Jerk, Racist, Flip Flopper, Jew Hater, Meglomaniac

Don Imus demonstrates, on almost a daily basis, that he apparently thinks he is not answerable to anyone at MSNBC or any place else in the world. This self centered loud mouth will someday have to learn that the world does not totally revolve around him. The powers to be at MSNBC apparently are as brow beaten as all the yes men that Imus surrounds himself with on his show.

These so call entertainers and other hacks on Imus show, tend to agree with his outlandish over the top statements and prognostications while most of the time it should be seen for what it is crack potted self-center banal behavior.

Instead those on the show demonstrate some perverted form of boyish hero worship, hanging on Imus's every word. Hoping for approval in what appears to be some sort of "macho alpha male of the pack who can kiss Imus ass best" contest.

To me Imus personality type appears to fit into the category of some sort of UNTREATED ego centric "white knuckling" former crack and "dry drunk" booze head bully boy and wannabe drugstore cowboy.

It's like he stopped using drugs and not much more. Never really dealing with the underlying insanity. I guess you can get away with this for years if you have enough money.

I must admit here, I don't know for a fact what sort of path of recovery Imus is walking, and truthfully it not really my business. But I've seen enough of this type to offer, for the sake of discourse about this very powerful entertainment personality, a educated guess.

The untreated are the ones where the loved ones around them often wish they still were breaking the furniture once in a while in a drug crazed episode, rather then having to deal with the insanity of them "sober". Remember abstaining from drugs and alcohol alone are not really considered sober. Sober is when you abstain and you have dealt with or are dealing with the underlying emotional issues. This type of approach to recovery usually creates some form of humility or recognition of where your place is in the world. It reduces self centered behaviors that are, many would agree in the recovery community, what led to the substance abuse in the first place.

It hard to label anyone's personality problems as precisely caused by this or that I'll admit. But I don't think it such a reach with Imus. He's pretty predictable.

Imus the ever grumpy curmudgeon megalomaniac whiner, that he is, appears most of the time as the loose cannon. While most of the other time publicly threatening anyone who's not doing "what Imus wants". Other times those who he perceives have failed him are being threatened with the full fury and wrath that his wealth and present position in society can bring to bear. Mostly. it seems, revolves around some degree of lost of access to him and to his show and personal name calling.

Whether it be directed at the doorman of his swank New York apartment building or the Governor of New Mexico. To mention only recent victims of this no one says no to Imus or gets in his way delusional playhouse that he loves to occupy.

A few days ago he went on a long degrading rant about Governor Bill Richards of New Mexico when the governor, instead of calling Imus himself, apparently had a his chief of staff call him about a permit Imus was seeking in New Mexico. Imus does not like to talk to just someone's chief of staff. God dammit I'm Don Imus the bully and king maker.

But are the executives at MSNBC being codependent and/or enabling for not speaking out when Imus goes overboard and makes wild and outlandishly hurtful and dangerous statements on his cable program. Maybe it time for a intervention at MSNBC?

Unfortunately those around him and over him seldom reign him in at all. Apparently the bully has become too rich and powerful to control. So he says whatever he wants no matter how idiotic, dishonest, crude, rude, stupid, dangerous or hurtful it maybe to others. Not to mention that his viewer ratings are some of the best on the network.

So we're not surprised network types are more then willing to turn a blind eye to the lack of fair play or a semblance of any journalistic integrity on the show when the almighty profits and ratings are involved. They pass it off as comedy or just the presently acceptable reality crap that we get nowadays when we switch on the radio or TV.

Also the rich and famous bow before him hoping for a crack at his large audience of unwashed knuckle-heads made up of the NASCAR crowd and the rest of us. "Imus in the Morning" listeners are apparently very amuses with his shtick most mornings. It must be the Paris Hilton Howard Stern syndrome of being beyond embarrassment of any kind while lacking real talent or intelligence so appealing to today's audiences.

Everyone has seen enough but we keep getting more crammed down our throat anyway. It also adds to the uncivilized nature of public discourse we find so popular today and that I must admit I have been guilty of nourishing at times in my blog and probably in this post.

If you wish to have a best selling book for instance, then you must crawl at the feet of Imus and be ready for some bullying and begging for airtime. To most authors nothing is apparently too degrading if it means getting on the show. Such is the reputation of Imus in the Morning when it comes to the making a best seller.

Don't get me wrong, most times I tolerate Imus outlandish ranting as entertaining, but lately he has begun to wear thin.

Especially when he suggest that we drop nuclear weapons on Tehran, Mecca, and Riyadh as some sort of end game solution to dealing with "the terrorists" as he did on his program this morning. It was in the context of not wanting his brat progeny to have to "fight the terrorist too, when he grows up".

Imus Producer Bernard McGuirk, who is the tough red neck New York Irish guy character on the show, recently also flippantly insinuates that Barack Obama middle name "Hussein" gave him some kind of "Jew hating name", which makes Obama a "Creep" and a "flip flopping weasel". The often racist remark making McGuirk should be made to at least offer a public explanation when he makes such remarks.

This type of behavior is more suited for a comedy network insult comic special, not MSNBC. Someday it may catch up with Imus in the Morning and the tide shall then turn against him. Then he will be relegated to the scrap heap of loud mouth shock jocks commentators who most people become wise to eventually and then begin to just change the channel.

John Edwards Calls for Action By Democrats at Winter Gathering

Jim Webb Should of Given the President A Knuckle Sandwich

There was a famous Seattle labor union lawyer named George Vandeveer, who was known as the "Counsel of the Damned”. He made his name during the ruff and tumble times of the Northwest labor movement of the 1930’s. Once he had a client come to him seeking his services over a business partner who had swindled him out of a small sum of money.

Vandeveer ask the man what he like him to do about it. “If I had my way, the man said. I really like to punch him in the nose”! Vandeveer reportedly put on his coat, drove to the guilty man’s office and proceeded to smack the man in the nose. This story was told to me years later to make a point that Vanderveer was a man among men who was revered as a man of few words and direct action on behalf of the downtrodden masses.

The story reminded me of the recent row between George Bush and Senator Elect Jim Webb of Virginia that reportedly took place at a private reception for newly elected members of congress. Apparently Webb did everything he could to avoid Bush until Bush final approached him and ask him “how his son was doing”? The president was apparently referring to the fact that Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq.

Webb a long time opponent of the war and a decorated former Marine officer himself replied, “that he really wanted to see his son brought back home”. Bush reportedly retorted, “I didn’t ask you that, I asked you how he’s doing”. Webb then said, “that it was between him and his son how he was doing”! Webb would later confessed that he was so angered by the exchange he was tempted to slug Bush in the kisser. But somehow restrained himself.

I believe that many veterans despise Bush for the hypocrisy concerning his own military service and the decisions that have led us into this terrible and un-winnable war in Iraq. One that also has put this countries soldiers in the middle of a civil war and in situations where they cannot really defend themselves. As a former soldier himself, I think Jim Webb feels anger and frustration with the phony straw man president Bush really represents. Then Bush tries to patronize him at the reception using Webb’s son as a ploy for small talk.

Now most presidential yes men, lefty liberal types and new age namby-pambies would take umbrage with the thought that the President of the United States could have his ass kicked by a pissed off former combat Marine who’s marine son had been sent by the same president to fight in war where he’s treated like so much cannon fodder. Not me.

I think it would have been a classic statement from the likes of Jim Webb to smack the President. Webb apparently represents some vestiges of what is means to be a man’s man in this world. More like the George Vanderveer’s types of times gone by.

Forgive me, perhaps it the Irish Catholic in me, but maybe a black eye would wake this president up to the fact that you can’t be a malingering SOB when it your time to serve your nation and then think you have the moral authority to sent young men and women off to die to protect the oil companies or whatever else interest your rich friends because you eventually happen to become president. Or conduct a preemptive war without out a plan to win the peace, based on some twisted and sick ideological poppy cock that won’t ever be able to stand up to the lessons of history when they are finally written about these times.

Webb represents “old school”democrat politicians to me. The one’s my father used to tell me about when I sat at his knee. They weren’t so much the posturing overly image conscious types we see today. Webb and the new senator elect Jon Tester of Montana, the so-called “blue dog” democrats, are more of a throwback to the populist and maverick types of a former democrat party. There is a sort of a honesty to them that says what you see is what you get. Not afraid to be closer to libertarians on social issues and mind their own business on the wedge issues that the Republicans use to divide and conquer us. Men comfortable in their own skins.

No matter what you say, I kind of would of like for Webb to have invited George out back to the rose garden for an after dinner knuckle sandwich, like in a John Wayne movie. Perhaps, it knocks some sense into him. Mounting casualties, loss of the congress, civil war in Iraq, failed diplomacy, neo-cons jumping ship, must I go on. Nothing else has seems to get this president to see the truth.

Webb would become an instant folk hero to many I'm sure of it.

Continuing Rhetoric About Victory in Iraq from Lieberman and McCain

CNN recently asked it's viewers to send in their emails indicating what they thought would constituted or defined “Victory in Iraq”. One viewer responded that victory would be achieved when there was a Starbucks on every corner in Baghdad. As silly as this statement may seem it is more definitive than the rhetoric that we’ve been getting from the likes of McCain and Lieberman even as recently as yesterday.

In the face of the recent national elections results that overwhelmingly repudiated the Iraq war and these types of knuckleheads. We continue to hear this rhetoric about our need to leave Iraq only when “victory” is achieved. Yesterday on Meet the Press John McCain and Joe “I’m really a republican now” Lieberman repeatedly called for some sort of “victory” in Iraq before the US should get out. More or less swapping an old rhetoric smoke and mirrors trick from the Vietnam War era, then called the “domino theory”, for the new “heaven for terrorists” rhetoric of the supporters of this current American imperialistic super power blunder. I thought of Ex-Senator Conrad Burns, the defeated republican incumbent from Montana, offering the discredited National Strategy for Victory in Iraq pamphlet as his plan for victory in Iraq when put on the spot in a pre-election debate. The American people deserve some answers! Not this tried rehtoric from Lieberman McCain or the likes of Burns.

Lieberman, somewhat full of himself, has now creating his own reality based world by getting elected as a independent from Connecticut after being defeated running as a democrat in the primary. The primary defeat, of course, was due to his rightwing stand on the war and blind support of Bush’s incompetent policies. He can credit being elected as an independent directly to 70% of the republicans in Connecticut who decided to ignore their own republican candidate and instead voting for him backed up by the fully implied support of Cheney and Bush. Without republican voters and politicians who recognized he was really on their side he’d probably of been toast. Two out of three democrats voted against Lieberman in the election.

Meanwhile McCain waxed on about sending even more troops to Iraq. Tim Russert, the shows moderator, failed to ask McCain where these troops would be coming from or if that meant we be considering reinstituting a military draft. Nor did Russert ask either McCain or Lieberman to define exactly what victory in Iraq meant or would look like. Letting them get away with the old tired crap that we’ve heard from the proponents of this failed policy from day one. McCain even equating the current situtation in Iraq somehow to similar setbacks we experienced during WWII. This goes behond reaching.

McCain, most likely to be a republican presidential front-runner for 2008, continues to get it wrong. On Meet the Press Sunday McCain again claimed this is a “critical time” in Iraq and that “we’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.” In March of 2003 he claimed, “I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” June of 2004 “The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” December 8, 2005, McCain said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” In October 2006, “I think that, first of all, things are very serious there. And to say otherwise I don’t think would be an accurate depiction of events, and this is a very critical time.” McCain admitted he has “proven not to be correct” on past predictions. This is the same person, who also cut a commercial supporting the anti gay marriage initiative in Arizona, which the people, of that usually conservative state, surprisingly rejected last Tuesday.

McCain and Lieberman need to clearly define what “victory in Iraq” would mean. Even the Iraq Study Group has abandoned this victory rhetoric. Russert did not help matters by letting them continue the babble without challenging them on the specifics.

Gerrymandering Only Good When Your Party Is The One In Power!

Several background news stories coming on the heals of the 2006 midterms point out the significant gains in the number of seats won by democrats within different state governments across the country. The stories point to the advantage that these new gains play in future redistricting of congressional and legislative districts, within a particular state, and how it could work as an advantage for the party at the state level in future elections. The premise, of many of these reports being, that democrats would redistrict or “gerrymander” to strengthen the likelihood of a congressional or legislative district containing more voters favorable to democrat ideas and candidates and reducing the likelihood of the voters, within the new districts, voting for a republican or independent.

I believe the average voter often misunderstands or knows little about gerrymandering. That’s if they are aware of it at all when they go to cast their vote for congress or their state legislature. Redistricting is always a back-story when it comes time to vote. Even though it plays a significant role in whom the voter get to vote for, and I think, in a more roundabout way ultimately, the voter’s apathy and the general turnout of voters at the polls.

The term gerrymandering is defined as “drawing a electoral district’s lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party or particular group of citizens”. The term itself comes from Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in 1812. He and the legislature divided the state into new voting districts in such a way that it heavily favored success at the ballot box for democrat and republican candidates over the federalist party candidates. One new district’s shape was so odd that it actually resembled a salamander. A political cartoon drawing of the day, showing the shape of the district. deemed it the “Gerrymander”. Radical redistricting by state lawmakers or “gerrymandering” has taken place throughout American history. The US constitution requires that congressional districts throughout the country be evenly proportioned, based on population. There are 435 seats presently with each state being granted at least one congressional seat. The remaining 385 seats are then divided amongst the states based on population trends. Thus some state will gain seats and other lose seats when reapportionment takes place and populations change or relocate within a state or from state to state. This is done every ten years after the US census is completed. The state’s politicians then determine how the congressional district’s boundaries are drawn up within their state. This is often where the fun really begins.

The power to redistrict your state to the advantage of your political party is one of the spoils of controlling the power within the statehouse and governor’s office of a state. This power comes with relatively few legal or political restrictions. But it can be definitive in determining who gets elected, lessening the power of a certain political party, and creating apathy and powerless feelings amongst groups of disenfranchised citizens subject to radical and unfair redistricting. Did radical gerrymandering cause apathy in Texas in the recent election?. The turnout in the state of Texas on November 7th was 33% of the total registered voters. The national average was approximately 40%, which was up slightly on a national basis from 2002 midterm turnout. Could low voter turnout in Texas be due to a voter disenchanted based on a feeling that his vote doesn’t mean anything in a radically gerrymandered district in which one may find them self located? I think that it’s a least plausible argument. Does Tom Delay really care if your feeling disenfranchised? Or does he and other republicans in Texas, like Carl Rove, care about winning elections at all cost even if it limits the rights of individual voters.

“here is a potential for a huge shift of power — in either direction. Currently, of the 36 state legislatures that control Congressional redistricting, 20 have at least one chamber within 4 seats of changing hands. These 20 states control 195 Congressional districts. A flip of about 50 state legislative seats in key chambers (out of over seven thousand seats nationally) could mean a gain or a loss of up to 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting.” (statement on DLCC website prior to midterm)

Democrat gains in congress were also matched on the state level throughout the country. D’s now completely control 15 state houses, adding New Hampshire for the first time since 1874 and Colorado for the first time since 1960. Significant gains were made in the south, normally a republican bastion. Democrats now control more chambers than at any time since 1994. They gained new majorities in the: Iowa House and Senate, Indiana House, Michigan House, Minnesota House, Oregon House, and Wisconsin Senate. Republicans control 10 statehouses now, down from 12 held before the midterm election. The democrats also now control 28 governor seats up from 22. There are 24 statehouses that are divided and one (Nebraska) with is nonpartisan. Here in Washington State the democrats gained seats in both the State Senate and House and already held the governorship, which only strengthens their hold on power.

Normally states do redistricting every ten years using data compiled by the new US census. The next census is scheduled for 2010. Thus in most state legislatures, where the legislators do the redistricting themselves, the real important election, when it comes to redistricting, will actually be in 2008. Though the belief is that democrat gains now should mean that many of these newly elected state lawmakers will be incumbents who are traditionally more likely in the next go around to get reelected. But there are some drastic changes afoot brought about by Tom Delay in Texas and a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that tested Delay’s new radical gerrymandering.

This practice of redistricting every ten years was radically altered by the supreme court decision in June 2006 reviewing a Texas case where implementation of a Tom Delay led redistricting plan by republicans after they took control of the Texas statehouse in 2002. Tossing out the redistricting plan imposed by a federal court only a year earlier. This practice was challenged legally and eventually heard before the Supreme Court. In essence the court ruled that Texas and other states could redistrict at any time and were only restricted in how they did it to population numbers and a few basic rules to protect against racial discrimination when drawing up the new districts. The new Texas plan resulted in 6 new republican congressional seats in the 2004 elections. To quote the DLCC: “In terms of Congressional redistricting, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Texas redistricting further elevates the importance of state legislatures. It could lead to state legislatures trying to redraw Congressional district maps at any time”.

“Let the redistricting festivities begin, This really signals that the federal judiciary will not step in even in the most extreme cases.” (Gerald Hebert Attorney for Texas democrats who argued before the Supreme Court)

Not all states do their redistricting using their legislature. Thirty-six states do. Seven states have quasi-independent commissions and 6 have only one congressional district, one has a independent Service bureau. In Washington State the redistricting commission system was instituted by a constitution amendment and vote of the people in 1983. The commission first opportunity to redistrict the state came in 1991 after the US census. According to Washington state law, the legislature has 30-days to amend the redistricting plan submitted by the Washington State Redistricting Commission. Amendments must be approved by two-thirds of the members in each house, and cannot include more than two percent of the population of any district. The creation of the commission apparently has eliminated the colorful history of party squabbling, unfairness and court fights over redistricting and gerrymandering that once were par for the course here.

Republican's Top Election Falsehoods, Myths and Talking Points

Media Matters looks at each of the Republican talking points

The names of the dead

September 10, 2001 I had a night job "Best Boy'ing" a Noriega rap video. Talent included the midget from Howard Stern. I forgot his name. I never remember stuff like that. We shot in a supermarket in NJ and the Gaffer and I had an easy-going relationship. We were both sips of water personalities. He liked me because I was a hard worker, experienced, and self-directed. He was also rather gawky and puny for a crewman, so my energy was not a threat to his authority. I am strong and capable but not a butch. I knew how to take and give orders, and luckily, my crew always did what I asked.

The vibe was strange that night. I have done hundreds of rap videos over the last ten years. I am use to being the token "which of these things does not belong" in the midst of a hullabaloo of posse antics and hooch'ie mamas. When I was younger, I prided myself on having earned the respect of my male co-workers by blending in to the organism so that you would barely know I was there. Someone would always inevitably point out how hard I worked, but I worked just as hard as all the other men on the crew. The attention would just gravitate to me because I had not relinquished my femininity to adapt. Everyone else was working as diligently too.

I had never been on a job that was so volatile before that night. There was tension in the air. I thought it was due to the fact that Noriega was involved allegedly in a shooting in Queens or because production was disorganized so that we had to rerun 4/0 cable five times through the supermarket. They kept changing the lighting set up and shot order and we were only eight and eight. Accordingly, the electric crew attempted to make ice cream from the shit of cables and gak strewn through the freezer aisle. Lunch was four hours late, so we had worked straight through ten hours of backbreaking labor before any of us sat down. By the eighteenth hour many of my guys were tired. The bulk had been shot and I did what most "best boys" do in the eighteenth hour .. vis. time cards. Anyone who works in my field knows that the best boy does time cards before wrap so the crew can go home after a twenty plus hour day without delay.

One of my crew-members sat on the truck next to me filling out his W-2 when the AD walked up. This AD put the whole job in perspective for me when he asked me why we were filling out time cards. What an idiot! He said that my crew-member should get back to work. I stood right into his shoulder and told him in no uncertain terms to get off my truck and never tell my crewman what he should or shouldn't do. I never had to do that before. He walked away. The Gaffer also acted out of character. After yelling at me in front of the DP, I mentioned to him after the job to do me the favor of never call me again. Never eat your own crew when you are fucked, it ruins morale and when all is said and done the fault lay with him and his poor scouting abilities. By the end of the twenty-four hour job all I wanted to do was sleep. My boyfriend and I took the G&E truck back to the city with a Luna driver and went straight to sleep. It was 8:30am.

I woke up at 4pm. There were fourteen messages on my machine. No one mentioned the WTC, all they asked was if I were alive. I thought there might have been an earthquake while I slept. I turned on the TV.

When I was in school in Ohio the first WTC bombing took place. When I came back to New York in 1998, I worked as a grunt in a rental house down on Worth Street paying my dues. The storefront was under the WTC. I remember standing outside during lunch one day with Charlie from the Bronx who worked in the basement. He recounted for my benefit how they tried to knock "this tower" into "that one". I stood there in disbelief. That could never happen...I wonder what it would look like.

I knew the Trade Towers well. I even worked as a temp in an office there during one summer home from school. When they offered me a full time position, I turned them down because I wanted adventure. I bought a one-way ticket to Cambodia instead. Many of my childhood friends did not. I went to a private Jesuit school on the Upper East Side on Manhattan and most of my classmates went into finance. It was upward mobility for the young Irish catholic kids from middle class homes. If they didn't go into finance they became cops or firemen.

A couple of weeks after the attacks I was on Perry Street in the West Village, and my old speech and debate friend from the all boys' high school across from Loyola walked past me. I always wanted to go to Regis but I couldn't because I was a girl. Since Loyola didn't have an Lincoln Douglas debate primer, I went go over to Regis. I would volunteer as a female actress in their High School plays. A Regis boy took me to my senior prom. T always scared me because he reminded me of myself. T had gone to Princeton and then worked as a camera assistant for a while. His whole family was in the fire department. He was the only male who was not a fireman. He had been documenting his family's relationship with the fire department in a film leading up to September 11, only he didn't know that September 11 would happen. We had both worked in Haiti on separate jobs. When I asked him how he was. He fell apart. They were all dead, every single one of them. As I write this I get so angry, but my anger seems futile, so it subsides into numbness and sadness. Last night was the first time in five years that I have been able to think about what was lost that day with tears that went deep into my heart with relief

The owner of Luna lighting deserves an award. He owns stages in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Tony sent all of his genies down to the WTC because he knew that workers need electricity and light to look for survivors. Non-union motion picture lighting crewmen came and lit the whole areas with movie lights before nightfall and manned the genies voluntarily for weeks until the union took over and kicked the "scabs" and "rats" off the work set.

S was a close childhood friend. He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. S was my first lesson in the smartest person is not the wealthiest person or the happiest person. He was very intelligent but not a "smarty pants because I bought everything my parents told me type." He always thought I was too serious. We always argued. His dad was always nice to me. My childhood best friend, K, (who was his roommate and closest friend) said she saw his photo in the Daily News jumping out of a window. She could recognize his socks. She smiled and then looked pained and guilty for saying something so matter of fact. I want to delete this blog after writing that.

I will probably delete this blog before tomorrow is done...I understand why some do not speak the names of dead people...I wish I could just be o.k. with this but I am not...

(reposted from http://www.myspace.com/scalexa)

George Carlin's views on modern American politics...

Sad and cynical but, unfortunately, probably not that far from the truth.

Get this video and more at MySpace.com

NYT Friedman Enraged At Bush Over Iraq

Thursday August 24, 2006

The New York Times op-ed columnist, Tom Friedman is quoted from Imus in the morning show:

"What really drives me nuts, and frankly into a rage Don, is when I hear the President, or the Vice President criticizing Democrats, saying these people don't understand the stakes, they don't understand what a titanic struggle we are in with the Arab Muslim world, with this Islamic fascist fringe out there, and how important this titanic struggle is. And, my answer to that, well if it was so important, then why did you fight this war by the Rumsfeld doctrine of just enough troops to lose, and, not the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, if it was so important?

If it's so important then why won't you impose a gasoline tax, a patriot tax, something that will reduce our consumption, so that we aren't funding both sides of the war; the U.S. Military with our tax dollars and Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad and all the terrorists with our energy purchases. And by the way, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, if it's so important, if it's such a titanic struggle of our age that we're in, then why do you constantly use it as a wedge issue in our politics as if we could have fought World War II with fifty point one percent of the population? What is so breathtakingly fraudulent about these guys Don is that they always talk about the stakes, but they never talk about their actual performance. They always talk about the principle but never the practice."

MSNBC's Chris Matthew hits on Ann Coulter?

Chris Matthew's doddered over Ann Coulter like a sex starved old creep during her recent appearance on Hardball. He acts like she's god's gift to women and journalism when she is really closer to the theatrical high ground of a professional wrestler. Coulter continues to make wild accusations and spread lies at the expense of the innocent in-order to sell books and further her psycho-babbling extremely right-wing self-centered career and political agenda.

Meanwhile, Chris let's her get away with murder when she calls Al Gore a "total fag". She also implicates Bill Clinton as "probably" a homosexual and Matthew does nothing meaningful to challenge the obvious innuendo that is only intended to assassinate and rumormonger Gore and Clinton in a negative way with main stream America and sell her sleazy books. Or be used to embolden the homophobes and bigots out there.

Maybe Matthews is so shallow he's afraid he would be considered politically incorrect by challenging these wild accusations. But instead of doing anything behond a sort of gee-whiz expression he’s acting like he wants to go on a date with this anorexic bag of crap.

This woman is a political floozy of the worst kind. Why does MSNBC, which apparently fancies itself as a legitimate news organization, continue to give this woman a platform to spread her hate, lies, and ridiculous political bull shit when there are obviously more important and credible news stories and people to report about?

No wonder the MSNBC network continues to lag in the ratings. Matthew's needs to stop acting like a wide eyed Irish Catholic alter-boy who's never been laid, or wandered far from neighborhood he grew up in, and grow a pair. Typically he often seems most impressed by the last person he is talking too. It be like I came on the show and told him the moon was made of green cheese. He probably thank me for the well thought out information and invite me back to further substantiate the facts in a future show because "you seem like down to earth guy, and I like you". Even when everything I've just said seems like poppycock to anyone with a lick of common sense who is watching the show.

I am hopeful that soon the American political scene, including the television broadcasters, will grow tried of this "shock jock tabloid style" of news reporting that MSNBC and others like FOX nowadays have made acceptable fare.

Where are Edward R, Murrow and Walter Cronkite when, more then ever before, we so badly need the truth about our government. Not the scurrilous pabulum of Ann Coulter. What was really sad about this is Matthew acting like a total dip shit in the presence of this woman. Apparently unable to be honest or display the integrity necessary to challenge her wild accusations.

But, the bigger questions is why does MSNBC even grant her the airtime when their are hundreds of legitimate people out there who have a real stories that need telling. The answer is of course that this type of scandal promoting apparently sells during this era when nothing is ever considered to be personally embarrassing or to far fetched if it appears to be able to makes money and boost the TV ratings.

The MSNBC network is now in my personal shit-house along with FOX and the other banal gathering of journalistically bankrupt boobs. They shall remain there till they stop supporting this type of tripe disquised as news and people like Coulter.

Link to Robert Kennedy Jr Rolling Stone Article claiming 2004 Ohio Vote Fraud

Link to online Rolling Stone Magazine feature article where Robert Kennedy Jr makes case for wide spread vote fraud in 2004 Ohio presidential election.