Silly Seattle

Reality Distortion through Media Censure

2011-11-14T12:35:00.000-08:00

Most days, I think the gender political nonsense of Seattle is mostly a result of ignorance.

But, sometimes, it is hard not to think of it as an orchestrated conspiracy, with the local media in on the act.

Notice that today there are two articles in the Seattle Times about women. One woman was definitely involved in a crime. The other is acting very suspiciously like she was involved in a horrible crime. The Seattle Times allows readers to comment on most articles, but not on these two.

The first case involves Holly Crahay, who got into a close quarters gun battle with police. Her excuse? She was mentally ill. That's the usual excuse the local media resorts to when a woman is so outwardly violent.

Even more egregious is the case of Julia Biryukova. She says she left her young son in the car to go get gasoline because she ran out of gas, even though police found that her car had plenty of gas in it. Her son went missing about the same time.

Look deeper and you find that this case explodes every gender politically inspired stereotype of men, fathers, and mothers. It exposes the fraud of family courts and the misuse of domestic violence allegations. The father is now left in the dark during a divorce proceeding, charged with domestic violence and with a no-contact order slapped on him. Even now that the mother is a suspect, local authorities decided to put the remaining daughter of the estranged couple into foster care instead of into the care of her father. No one is allow to ask why this is. Or to point out that if the father had not been pushed out of the life of his son, his son might well be safe right now (let's hope he is still alive!).

Reverse the roles, and the Seattle Times would have no problem with the hundreds of comments that would result, with people calling for the man's head. In this case, the Seattle Times does not want to allow anyone to comment and thus publicize the degree to which people are sick and tired of local authorities treating violent women, especially mothers, with kid gloves.

Tom Ball

2011-06-18T12:48:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I have posted. The days in a productive person's life sometimes leave little room for other activities.

But I am compelled to post in honor of Tom Bell. He fought the good fight. His actions were in the end extreme but he harmed no one. His analysis of the system that destroyed him is accurate. He has left behind a testament to the beast created within our legal institutions.

To read of his actions, go here: http://www.thedailyholden.com/Articles-c-2011-06-17-78443.113122-Holden-man-sets-himself-ablaze-in-front-of-New-Hampshire-Courthouse.html

To read his testament, go here: http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html#

I look forward to the day when we no longer need people like Tom Ball on on the front lines of this fight.

Why do We Call Seattle Silly?

2009-04-30T17:17:00.000-07:00

Here is a great example!

A lucky entrepreneur that lives outside Seattle has benefited from another of Mayor Nickels' follies, getting Seattle's $5 million dollar automatic toilets for $12,500 after they proved to be havens for drug dealers and prostitutes.

Best to Treat Seattle Women Like Children?

2009-04-01T11:20:00.000-07:00

"Disappointment, defined as the gap between expectation and reality, is an immutable part of life. True adults — those who are mentally and emotionally mature — accept, manage, and move past disappointments, and they don't expect others to prevent them.

Children, on the other hand, whether 5 or 35, do not and cannot deal with disappointment. Despite all the talk about feminism and equality, Americans, via outmoded chivalry and unconstitutional reproduction, child-custody, rape, and domestic-violence laws, keep women in perpetual childhood. Yes, American women have grown accustomed to being spared risk, pain, and disappointment."

Read more of this excellent piece by Marc H. Rudov.

Another Example of Silly Seattle Government

2008-12-23T23:35:00.000-08:00

Just another post in the on-going chronicle of how silly Seattle and especially its city government truly are. I can't really do this article justice in the Seattle Times about how Mayor Nickels decided NOT to clear the roads during this week of snow and freeze-down. So, just read it.

Thousands of people were put at risk. The city shut down during the week before Christmas. Retail shops were empty. Offices were empty. A charter bus full of kids almost slid down a hill and fell over 50 feet onto I-5.

For what? Because supposedly salt on the roads might hurt the fish. But the fish live in the Puget Sound, which is salt water. Meanwhile, "environmentalists" debate whether sand or salt are worse for the environment.

The really fun thing about all of this is that, apparently, as soon as Nickels became aware that the Seattle Time would have an article about the this lunacy, he had the roads cleared. Last night, all of the roads in Seattle were a snowy, icy mess. This morning, the Seattle Times article came out about Nickels decision to not clear the streets. Today by mid-afternoon, downtown streets were almost completely clear of snow and ice. No, it did not warm up. Think it was just a coincidence that the city swung into action?

Just more of the illogical religion of environmentalism.

The Coming Obama Hyper-Inflation

2008-12-22T23:06:00.000-08:00

Yes, it is true that we are currently in the Obama Bear Market and in the middle of a recession, so it might be hard to believe the title of this post. But hyper-inflation is coming. Be prepared.

First, let's talk about the Obama Bear Market. The usual story (from the media, from the Obamiacs, the various leftists) is that Bush caused the market melt-down. You know - deregulation, free markets, and so on, are to blame. Well, the story of how we got into this mess has been told many times, but the media mavens that have the ability to hammer falsehoods into the reticular activators of the mostly mindless public refuse to repeat the actual history enough times so that a large number of people have heard it the required six times to absorb it. The media is just too busy with the work of drumming the wonders of the messiah into our heads.

But, anyone who reads this blog is smart enough to have heard the story... and remembered it. This mess is the result of the real estate bubble. The real estate bubble was caused by artificially low interest rates and a massive number of sub-prime mortgage loans funded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (quasi-government agencies, though supposedly private) which were pushed along by Barney Frank, Pelosi, and the other Democrats who in turn received massive campaign contributions. Bush and other Republicans tried to put some constraints on Freddie and Fannie, proposing reform in 2005, but were shot down by the Democrats. If Busch and Co. had succeeded, it might have pricked the real estate bubble allowing a soft landing. But it was not to be, the bubble went out of control, and the toxic assets that resulted (packages of sub-prime mortgages packaged as securities) spread throughout the financial world. Those are the facts.

Where are we now? Well, we need to let the chips fall. The pain will be great, but its better to get it over with now rather than delay it. There is no free lunch. Even a trillion dollar "stimulus plan" will not solve the problem. Eventually the piper needs to be paid.

Financial markets anticipate. They should be looking forward to what would normally be an economy that adjusts and begins to grow again. But Obama and wack-jobs like Pelosi create too much uncertainty. We don't know what they are going to do. Are they going to increase capital gains taxes (the most direct effect on the value of the stock market)? Income taxes? Corporate taxes? Even scarier, how much politics are they going to infuse into the decision making of all of these companies that are now for the most part nationalized (banks, Detroit, AIG, and probably more to come)? And the trillion dollar "fiscal stimulus" that is nothing more than an opportunistic ocean of pork Obama, Pelosi, et al, want to use to make more of the country beholden to them?

All of these things create uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. That sounds like an oxymoron, because markets are inherently uncertain. But the reality is that the degree of uncertainty affect people's perception of risk. Increased uncertainty increases the risk premium, thus raising the discount factor applied to future earnings, which of course reduces the present day valuation of stocks. Conversely, remove some of the uncertainty listed in the previous paragraph, risk perception would go down, and the discount factor applied to future earning would be reduced, thus raising the present value of stocks.

OK, enough of that part of the economic lesson. Let's get to hyper-inflation. The uncertainty in the economy - much of it there because of the unknowns about Obama and crew and what they might do - has also caused companies to cut back investment. They are not just cutting back capital investment, but they are drastically cutting existing production capacity. Note that car manufacturers are shutting factories and idling others. Airlines are cutting back their routes. The same is happening in several industries.

Well, a certain extent of that would be normal in a recession. It's a healthy process of cleaning out the bad investments in production made during the latter stages of an expansion, which also come with efforts to improve efficiency and get back in touch with what consumers want. But the current cut backs are far beyond normal. And they are not just happening in the US, but globally and on to an unprecedented degree. Again, extreme uncertainty.

This process is combining with another fact. The Federal Reserve is printing money. In fact, it is flooding the system with new money. The ultimate result is easy to guess. Production capacity has been cut back just at a time when there is a flood of dollars. In short, there will be fewer goods available to spend this cash on. So, in essence, another bubble is created. Too much money chasing to few goods. The result: inflation. But not just a bout of higher than normal inflation. The unprecedented decline in production capacity combined with the unprecedented flood of money will cause unprecedented inflation. This will be exacerbated by the planned trillion dollar boondoggle with the misnomer "fiscal stimulus," which will distort markets and demand.

So, 2009 will be a sideways year in the stock market. 2010 might be more of the same. But come 2011, or thereabouts, the factors described about will combine to create an explosion in inflation.

Unless Obama surprises us, and I sincerely hope he does, we are in for a rough 4 years. Obama and crew will be able to get away with blaming it on Bush for 2 years. But Obama will have to own the hyper-inflation. Sarah Palin might have a future after all. In 2012.

Obama in Wonderland

2008-12-08T16:46:00.000-08:00

Obama in Wonderland. That is the only thing I can think of as I watch the CEOs of Detroit’s automakers beg for money from Congress. I am dumbfounded by how truly bizarre this spectacle is and what it portends for the future.

What if a year ago someone had told you that Nancy Pelosi would be in the business of reviewing the business plans of companies and deciding whether or not they would receive funding? I mean, Nancy Pelosi demanding a business plan? Harry Reid and Barney Frank as well? This is truly nuts!

It makes one wonder if perhaps the financial crisis were actually engineered to force the world of finance to go through federal gatekeepers. Such a strange world would allow the political class to make American business into an extension of political correctness. Want money? Well, first you have to have a labor union. Then you need to show us (Congress) how “green” you are. Your executives can’t make more than we (members of Congress) do. What has your business done about “social justice” lately? Prove to us that you do not have a gender pay gap. And on and on. Looks like the Soviet Politburo.

I mean, this kind of vetting of business for political motives can be the only purpose, because the idea that the political illuminati know how to evaluate a business plan is preposterous. Look at the demands, after all. While the price of oil has dropped to near $40 per barrel, Detroit is being told that they must produce more “green” cars. With the price of gasoline headed back down to $1.50 or less, does anyone seriously think that Americans will change their appetite for large and safe SUVs? If anything, Detroit should stick even closer to producing the type of cars in which they have a competitive advantage: trucks and SUVs. In a sane business environment, Detroit would be abandoning the sedan market altogether. And this is not to say that I think electric cars are a bad idea – I LOVE THE IDEA.

What about those green cars? Electric or otherwise? Well, who ever thought Detroit had a competitive advantage in producing these cars? The only way for Detroit to enjoy a market for such cars would be for Washington to protect the Big Three from competition – both domestic and foreign - in this arena. Not something unthinkable as Democrats would like to protect the UAW above all else.

In a sane business environment nobody would be looking to Detroit to produce disruptive technology. There are other companies, entrepreneurs, and boy geniuses that are better suited to usher in these exciting new products. Detroit’s competency is in producing gasoline powered large vehicles. It is also in lobbying for market restrictions that limit not only imports, but creating artificial barriers for even new domestic entrants (ever looked into what is required to get a car certified to be driven on public roads?).

I know this is hopeless, but in a sane world, our political illuminati would know something about disruptive technologies. They would have read Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovators Dilemma.” Christensen shows clearly in his landmark book that new technology that disrupts and replaces old technology, almost always at a lower cost, with increased efficiency, and greater capability, hardly ever comes from the powers-that-be in any particular industry. And trying to guess just where it will come from is a fool’s game; unless you are in venture capital, in which case you have a say in who will produce these new technologies. Of one thing you can be sure, it will not come from the oversized beasts that ruled the last era of technology.

Automobiles that are not reliant on the internal combustion engine, if the free market were allowed to prevail, would not come from Detroit and its massive bureaucracy. It would come from people and companies that understand these new technologies. Or that can dream up entirely new technologies. Did IBM invent the personal computer? Did AT&T create the Internet? Even though the answer to both of these questions is no, did true innovators that did create these incredible things cause a massive loss of unemployment in the computer and telecom sectors? No, quite the opposite. Thanks to these innovators, I am holding an iPhone in my hand that surfs the Internet wirelessly, makes incredibly cheap phones calls, takes photos, holds my entire collection of music, does all sorts of neat things that help me organize my life, and even provides a source of entertainment (in addition to music) when I’m stuck on a long, miserable flight (provided by another lousy government subsidized and unionized industry).

Unfortunately, it appears to me that the spectacle of the past few days is poised to increase, perhaps to the extreme that comparison to the Soviet Politburo is more than just rhetoric. I hope he proves me wrong, but I fear that this is the world that Obama feels he has a mandate to create. Congress and Bush appear to be doing the groundwork for him.

Obama Bear Market Continues

2008-11-19T13:35:00.001-08:00

The precipitous decline in the stock market since Obama was elected continues. The Dow has closed below 8000. Is 6000 the next stop?

Let's see, what might be some reasons for the decline?

Obama's promise to increase taxes, particularly taxes on dividends and capital gains.

A government under the control of Democrats in both the Executive and Legislative branches.

The Democrat's impending bail out of the UAW, which will divert resources from productive areas of the economy to one of the least productive industries in the US.

The push for unionization of large swaths of the American economy, which will raise costs, lower productivity, and lower profits.

So-called "universal health care," which will be enormously expensive while reducing incentives for people to be gainfully employed.

The upside: We don't have to worry so much about Obama "spreading the wealth around." A large part of the country's wealth is in the stock market. The Obama Bear Market is ensuring that there is very little wealth left in that pot to spread around.

So, Seattle, you got what you wanted. A "feel good" election. What's next?

The Obama Bear Market

2008-11-06T10:38:00.000-08:00

We are approaching a 1,000 point decline in the DOW since Obama became President-elect. It is starting to look like the modest increase in the market on Nov. 4th was probably just some market participants taking a long shot bet that McCain might somehow pull off a victory. McCain was rather convincing in those last few days when he declared that he had the "big Mo."

At what point do we need to start facing the reality that the decline in the stock market is due to Obama's vision for our economic future? When one looks closely at his plan to increase corporate taxes, increase taxes on capital gains, and increase taxes on dividends, a decline in the stock market of roughly 40% from the point where it became clear Obama had a chance to win is about the logical amount of decline one would expect. And that's what we got.

We are past the point where the prolonged and continuing decline in the equities market can be attributed to the financial crisis. That was a crisis of the "system." While the cost of bailing out banks that took on too much risk is controversial, I doubt that there is much controversy as to whether it has worked. The Federal Reserve has dramatically increased the money supply while the Treasury took steps to ensure the solvency of the balance sheets of the country's banks. Yes, there are some uncertainties still out there, such as just who has Credit Default Swap obligations hidden on or off their balance sheet, but overall, I think the market believes that the credit crisis is over. It was "historic," like Obama's election, and it is now history.

So, what is pulling the market down now? The coming "depression" that Obama so elusively alludes to? Business cycles come and go. This one may be made worse by the temporary freeze-up in the credit markets, but there is no logical reason that it should be of "depression" dimensions. If anything, given the Federal Reserve's massive increase in the money supply, we should be bouncing out into some new bubble. (Let's see, first we had tech, then real estate, what could be the next bubble? ... Perhaps industries focused on Federal contracts?).

No, the market is digesting the reality of Nov. 4 and the policy positions that Obama has clearly articulated. Higher taxes generally. Higher labor costs due to Federally backed labor unions. Increases on all of the taxes that affect risk taking. Protectionism. Carbon taxes. The intent to bankrupt the coal industry. Government involvement in a host of issues, even to the point of setting private industry's pay levels to achieve that red herring of gender pay equity.

While the 40% decline mentioned earlier reflects increased taxes on corporate profits, dividends, and capital gains, the continued long, slow decline we started November 5 reflects those things listed in the paragraph above.

Either Obama needs to appoint a few people to positions quickly that inspire confidence in the market (Treasury Secretary, for example), publicly change his tune on these issues, or both. Otherwise the DOW will likely settle below 7000 by the end of this year or early next year. And stay there for years to come.

Barack Hugo Obama?

2008-10-30T00:22:00.000-07:00

Were you struck that the massive and inescapable infomercial aired by Obama tonight on every network in the country was reminiscent of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or perhaps Big Brother, taking over the airwaves and forcing viewers to watch and listen to what MUST be heard?

I found it very creepy.

Is this the new Fairness Doctrine? Will future infomercial become state mandated airtime for Obama's big speeches?

10 Days? Why not make it 100?

2008-10-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

In a blatant display of political hysteria designed to make us believe that King County does not have enough money, Sims declares he will close the county down for all but "essential services."

This has to be in part an effort to get King County voters to swallow the incredibly increases in property assessments made during a year when housing values are going down, credit has dried up, and many homeowners are underwater. The fact is, Sims and his cronies have more than enough money. The problem is they spend too much.

The only good idea I've seen come out of Sims is the plan to shut down the county for 10 days. Great! Life will be better for those 10 days. Let's add a few of the so called "essential services" to the list and shut the county down for 100 days. Then, the county will run a surplus while getting out of our way. Business will boom and the tax surplus can be returned to us as a tax rebate. That tax rebate can be used to save money, pay off debt, and support local business - the real "essential" enterprises in the country.

Euro Trash

2008-10-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

All the more reason to like Sarah Palin. European snobs don't like her.

Matriarchal Control and Oppression

2008-10-14T15:33:00.000-07:00

When will the DV divas take up the issue of women that abuse children?

Probably never. But this case in Carnation is so extreme, and there have been so many others like it, that one wonders how authorities can so willingly fail to see a pattern. The pattern is that CPS has an agenda that makes it blind to abuse by women. As a subsidiary of DSHS, it's primary focus is on earning federal matching grants through enforcing child support on fathers. This, of course, necessitates removing fathers from the lives of children.

Unfortunately, this Carnation case demonstrates that even having a father around doesn't ensure the safety of a child that becomes the focal point of a woman's wrath. Clearly, the father of this girl is not without fault. But isn't it interesting that, so far, he seems to be receiving the same charges as the perpetrator of the brutal and sadistic torture of this child?

Nationalizing Our Banking Industry

2008-10-14T02:29:00.000-07:00

The Great 08 Bail Out has morphed into something horrific. Now the government plans to take large equity stakes in the largest banks in the country as well as investing in a thousand smaller banks. The nationalization of the country's banking industry is now underway.

Equity stakes, for course, come with Board seats. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi love the idea. Why? Because they hope Obama will win the election and socialists will have unprecedented central planning authority over the economy. There is not better way to do this that through the banking system.

Think of it: Pet issues, such as gender pay equity (which is a phony issue), can be injected directly into companies at the highest levels. Does your company want a loan? Prove that your company has gender pay equity. And that's just one of thousands of potential strings that will likely become attached to getting credit. For example, what a way to push a "green agenda." Your interest rate may be tied to your "carbon footprint."

Paulson and Bernanke may mean well. But they are kidding themselves if they think the government will pull out of these positions any time soon. This is not the same as the loan provided by the federal government to Chrysler years ago. In fact, I predict that the government may never divest, at least not in our lifetimes. It is more likely that these equity positions will grow.

It was not so long ago that we were encouraging other countries to privatize their banking industries. Our country will never be the same.

Backlash Against the "Post Racial" Preaching

2008-10-12T19:46:00.001-07:00

Is anyone else getting tired of the full court press by the mainstream media to shame any non-black person into voting for Barack Obama?

This is how it works: Write an article, like Danny Westnut of the Seattle Time did recently, that raises the issue of race and November's Presidential election. In the article (or cable news program) include the crudist and most raw form of racism that can be found.

What's the objective? To plant the idea in your head that if you are one of the unfortunates who does not plan to vote for Obama, you are the same as the aforementioned racists. Some like Westnut does not come out say such a thing, but counts on us to make a subconscious connection.

Obama initially lost my vote when he selected the pathological liar and feminist pandering Joe Biden as his running mate. As I watch the extent to which most of the media is without hesitation or shame promoting Obama's campaign, I am increasingly comfortable with that decision. I find that when large groups of influential people tell me I should turn left, it's usually better for me - and most average Americans - to turn right.

Like, Um, Brilliant

2008-09-01T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Democratic national convention began with sadness as I saw the hope I had invested in the blank slate of Obama evaporate after his choice of Joe Biden. Not even that well crafted documentary prior to Obama’s speech by the creator of An Inconvenient Truth who almost sold me on Al Gore as something more than he is (though not on global warming) could bring me back.

Of course, most guys who began that week still drawing pictures in erasable ink on the whiteboard of Obama probably continue to do so. There are not many who have bothered to research the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), of which Biden was the chief architect, and understand that it is essentially now a political crime to have a Y chromosome. But Biden is a non-starter for anyone that has.

Then, last week began with confusion. There was “wrinkly white-haired guy” with Pay-who?

I thought this guy McCain, who normally puts me to sleep, had finally made one of those crazy, unpredictable moves the press keeps claiming he is prone to. You know, Sen. “Maverick” and so on. I thought he’d done something stupid. I thought he was out of and Obama was sure to win. I was pretty sure the small number of guys like me that actually dig deep into policy issues, constitutional law, and know something about gender feminism would suffer 4 years of Biden that would only be slightly less palatable than a President Hillary Rodham.

But, as the week progressed, it started to dawn on me that the guy that normally makes me drowsy after beginning a speech with “my friends” might actually be on to something. The media that is hell bent on getting Obama elected had actually allowed some video time of Governor Palin to slip through. I don’t think they’ll make that mistake often for the next 60 or so days. Or, maybe I only saw her when surfing through Fox News, which already has hottie news anchors that don’t feel upstaged easily.

In any case, McCain seemed cleverer to me as the week progressed. The larger picture began to come into view. And I began to realize that maybe even Washington State could be in play in this presidential election.

For a Washingtonian, a female on the ticket is no big deal. It seems mandatory here to have righteous gender feminist female politicians running things. And the few men in positions of power, like Mayor Nipples, pander to the gender feminist establishment.

But, Sarah Palin is hot. Even after birthing five kids. Now, that is something unusual. And she doesn’t hate men. That is even more unusual for any guy in the state of Washington beaten down by the triumvirate of Gregoire, Cantwell, and Murray.

I mean, think about it. Gregoire is the ugly witch from the West, complete with a mole on the nose and a smile which, when she forces it through her scowl, makes you think she is imaging a brutal torture she has planned for her mangina husband later that evening. Cantwell is the ice lady. She occasionally shows up at Mariners games with good-looking guys half her age, and the women of Seattle celebrate that Cantwell is “dating” younger men in a reversal of the image that makes them so angry – the older guy with younger woman. Never mind that the guy with Cantwell is just some gay political aid that she arranged to have tag along just to create the image. I don’t know if Cantwell is a lesbian, but I’m pretty sure she’s not much into men. Then there is Patty Murray. She reminds you of the unfortunate girl in high school who always seemed angry at the boys and you always knew it was because she was just ugly and it was obvious to all that, at best, her future had a short, frumpy, bald accountant in it. She apparently does have a husband, but either she hides him in the closet, or he chooses to hide himself there whenever she comes back from inside the Beltway.

Then there is Sarah Palin. She was runner up for “Miss Alaska.” When you’re thinking of politicians and sex, it’s usually either the image of Bill Clinton pushing himself on a young woman caught up in the stardom, or some cranky old gay bashing Republican hitting on guys in a stinky public toilet.

Now, come on, admit it! How refreshing is it to look at Palin and think, “Damn, I’d like to do her.” Then you stop yourself and realize that is a bit of a ridiculous thought. Then you think, “Well, at least her husband, the guy that does do her, looks like a cool guy to hang out with. I mean, he has hot-rod snowmobiles and stuff!” She’s hot. She’s smart. Her husband seems like a cool dude. And she doesn’t hate men. And she’s in politics?!

Now a thought emerges that maybe McCain is smarter than he looks. Maybe the “dumb, out-of-touch old white guy” the media has managed to massage into our collective reticular activator (watched many commercials lately?) does not apply to McCain.

Fast forward to the Vice Presidential debates. What a pickle Biden is in. The wannabe “tough” guy, the cowardly “protector of women.” The architect of VAWA. Up against an opponent that is a woman, is hot, is anything but a “victim,” and thinks his policies are stupid. Palin is no gender feminist. What on earth is Biden going to do? What a lovely picture that makes ….

One starts to realize that the Obama crazed media has it entirely wrong. Palin was not chosen to get a slice of the supposedly disenchanted women who voted for Hillary Rodham in the primaries. The women that voted for Hillary are a thin slice of American women, all from the Democratic party. These women are the activist types, the types that see misogyny in their morning coffee, the type that despise well adjusted women like Sarah Palin, who are hot, successful, adore their man, and don’t know the meaning of the word “victim.” Hillary's sisterhood were never going to vote for a Republican no matter what, much less Palin.

No. What McCain is after are working class men and women. They don’t fall into one of the special interest groups – least not those that get the attention - which make up the Democratic party. The men will see Palin as refreshing, not just because she is hot, but because she doesn’t hate them. This is an unusual thing for these men. She will not be telling them they should feel guilty just because they are guys. The women in this group, well they have kids. And they tend to like their men. They may not be hot now, but they remember a day when they could turn heads.

Dino should be begging Palin to come campaign for him.

Goodbye Obama. It was fun for a while. Hello Palin.

"The Woman" Now has a Name

2008-08-22T22:22:00.000-07:00

We now have the name of "The woman" who murdered Tomasz Matczak, the father of a her child. The police and media would not provide her name. But we will.

Her name is: Yelizaveta Buraya

And there is more. Tomasz filed an order for protection in
Kent and was granted that order on 07-03-2008 in King Co. Superior Ct., case number 08-2-18418-8.

Yelizaveta is a victim? She is out on bail?

Well, maybe Joe Biden and Obama are happy with this. But every other man in the country needs to be very, very careful. Murder is now effectively legal for women.

Obama Just Lost My Vote

2008-08-22T22:00:00.000-07:00

If the MSM has it right and Obama will indeed choose Biden as his Vice President running mate, every man and father in the country should take note.

Biden is the nemesis of all men and fathers, most of whom are too ignorant to realize why. The small number of us that do know why realize that Biden was the driving force behind VAWA. As if the damage done by VAWA has not been enough, Biden has pushed for the federal government to pay for attorneys specializing in using false allegations of domestic violence to separate fathers from their children and assets. He even wants to take it global.

Biden supposedly has international credentials. I've not seen him do more than bloviate on television about various international issues. I am not aware that he has accomplished anything in this area. But, for sure, together with radical gender feminists he has managed to ruin the lives of men and fathers across the country.

I was strongly considering voting for Obama. In fact, he could only loose my vote. Biden or Hillary for VP were my only non-starters.

Well, now McCain might have my vote. Obama has clearly shown that he has zero concern for the issues that matter most to me. I don't care who McCain chooses as his Vice Presidential running mate at this point. It can't be as bad as Biden.

Sad, really. Obama could have been different. Transcending. He's not.

"The Woman"

2008-08-05T22:48:00.000-07:00

Here is another, all too typical, example of how allegations of abuse can literally help a woman get away with murder. And, the Seattle Times, as usual, plays along with it.

"The Woman" murdered Tomasz Matczak, the father of her child. The media has no problem giving his name, now that he is dead and is unable to defend himself. But, the woman is only known as "The Woman" because the Seattle Times has a policy of not giving out the names of female "victims," particularly after they have played the trump card to get of jail free - claiming abuse.

Women, if you want to murder that inconvenient guy in your life, here is all you have to say to the police:

The woman told police she and Matczak had an on-and-off, four-year relationship and a 2-year-old daughter, that Matczak could be controlling and jealous, and that he had a drinking problem, according to court records.

Just keep repeating the "controlling and jealous" part. It will bring hoards of gender warriors to your aid and to harass the prosecutor (assuming it's not a gender feminist warrior already) until they let you go.

The police in this case do seem to know what's up, as they apparently objected to "the woman" receiving bail of $250,000. My guess is that they are familiar with this woman. They know the game, even though they have to play it. If this guy were so dangerous, why would "the women" seek a no contact order against him but then still live with him. The judge in that court must have received his full dose of gender training though.

The Seattle Times would be doing the public a service by giving us her name, since she is best avoided. It takes a hard soul to plunge a knife deep into another human being. But disclosing the name of this violent woman would be a service to men, who especially should avoid this woman. Not much interest in doing that.

We've been seeing a lot of females wielding knives lately, including the woman who recently cut a fetus out of stomach of another woman. Even that was blamed on her husband, who wanted a child. Doubt he wanted one that badly or in that manner.

In Spring 2008, Hillary Began Her 2012 Campaign

2008-07-10T17:27:00.000-07:00

Are there others out there that find the melodramatic saga of the Democrats to be beyond bizarre?

Obviously, with the professional victim and extreme narcissist in the form of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the picture, you know that histrionics and every other possible tactic to gain media attention are going to be part of the silly game. But why in the hell is anyone, especially Obama, responding to it?

First, RHC stayed in the race for an excessive time, well beyond the expiration date of her campaign, for the sole purpose of ruining Obama’s chances in the general election. The Clintons are crooks, but they are also great strategists. Most intelligent observers (such as Dick Morris, who often appears on Fox) realize that Mrs. “the-world-revolves-around-me” wanted to push Obama to the far left for as long as she could in order to reduce the amount of time he had to move to the center. Everyone knows that the larger American public prefers moderation in their presidential candidates. Republicans tacking from right to center and Democrats tacking from left to center is nothing new. It’s essential if a candidate from either party hopes to win in November. They just need enough time to do it and have some credibility.

Surprise, surprise. Obama is quickly moving to the center. And people you'd think would want a Democrat in the Whitehouse are complaining about it? They say he is moving too fast to the center. Or moving to “awkwardly” to the center. Or, simply that he should never move to the center. These people are unwittingly (well, most of them, but not the Hillary sisterhood) are participating in killing Obama’s chances. And they are playing right into the Clinton strategy of getting McCain elected so that the woman that most of us just can’t stand but who just never seems to go away can run again in 2012.

Of course, it is to be expected that Hillary’s gender feminist supporters, who are never happy unless they are in the process of stringing a man up by his balls, would be claiming sexism is what cost her the nomination. No matter how ridiculous such a claim is - given the way the Clintons blatantly tried to paint Obama as “the black candidate” akin to Jesse Jackson’s run in the 1980s or the way Hillary literally sited how white voters needed her while campaigning in working class states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania – such behavior is to be expected of these fowl mannered women of malcontent.

All the while, I do not think I once heard Obama complain of racism. Not once. So why do these women get air time? Why does anyone pay attention? Gender feminist victimhood is such a part of our culture now that the media may as well report that the sun rose this morning and expected to set tonight as report on the angst of a minority of unattractive middle-aged and disaffected white women from the sisterhood.

And, then, to top it all off, Hillary is blackmailing Obama into paying for her campaign debt? The very campaign she waged with the sole purpose of ruining his chances in the Fall, Obama now has to pay for?! And no one in the Democratic establishment, or the media even, is calling bull shit on this?

Well, as I read about the so called negotiations between Obama’s people and Hillary’s dream-killers regarding the amount of media time she gets to hog at the Democratic national convention, I am starting to think that perhaps I should vote for Obama simply out of sympathy for the guy. There is no doubt that he will win Washington due to the overwhelming support he will get in King County (and if he doesn't get it, Ron Sims will make sure some extra ballots are found).

I like to make predictions here and I swear even I am surprised at how often I call them right. Well, maybe I should say depressed instead of surprised, because I wish many of my predictions would not come true. Anyway, here it is:

Obama is going to loose big time in November. McCain, as dull as he is, is going to sweep the electorate.

This will not occur because the unfortunate white women sited above will vote for McCain out of anger. That very same sort of white woman also loves to brag about her black friend and her very special relationship with the kids of that wonderful gay couple. So, she will want to walk out of the voting booth feeling righteous.

No, it will be much simpler than that. It will happen because Hillary was allowed to kill a dream. Too many independent white voters who are suspicious of a black candidate, but would vote for him given the time to get acquainted with a more moderate form of the man, just aren’t going warm up in time. They will vote for McCain because he just seems more comforting and less risky. The media will make up all sorts of shit to explain Obama’s loss, but at the end of the day, history will record this as the reason for McCain’s win in 2008. Well, the non-ideological historians will write this.

But will history remember that Hillary’s campaign for president in 2012 began in the Spring of 2008?

A Miracle

2008-06-05T22:48:00.000-07:00

But why did she not get the death penalty?

Hillary: Obama Must Die

2008-05-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

Is there any question now as to the nature of Hillary Clinton? It is so important - in her mind - that she become President that she is holding out for Obama to be assassinated.

Of course, she is not really hoping for an assassination of Obama. She is just working to destroy his chances of winning this year's general election so that she has a chance to run against a 76 year old McCain in 2012.

But, what this does show is what everyone already knows. She will do and say anything, adopt any position, pit any "identity group" against any other, claim any form of victimhood available, to get what she wants. Narcissistic Personality Disorder in full view for the entire nation.

She is also willing to exploit the basic victim oriented tenets of contemporary Gender Feminism to the point that she undermines women. Peggy Noonan says it best. After describing truly great women, such as Golda Meir of Israel, Indira Gandhi of India, and Margaret Thatcher of the UK, she draws the contrast with Hillary Rodham.

So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:

It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

Hillary's Real Strategy II

2008-05-13T18:02:00.000-07:00

We said it here on April 14 (Previous post): Hillary is only in the race at this point to demolish Obama's chances in the 2008 general election. She wants McCain to win. She can't run again if Obama wins. 2012 gets her in before she is too old and before other more appealing women coming up the ranks take the limelight.

Looks like the MSM (See Dick Morris on Fox) and the rest of the blogo-sphere is finally catching up.

Hillary's Real Stategy

2008-04-14T18:20:00.000-07:00

Ariana Huffington frets over Hillary's tactics after allowing someone to post off-the-cuff remarks made by Barack Obama. Ariana seems to think that Hillary is still in this to win and worries that she might do so, but only after burning down the Democratic Party.

I am not surprised that few in the MSM are seeing the real end game. But I am a little surprised that, after browsing several blogs, including Huffington's site, that seem to be ardent Barack supporters, nobody seems to see the double whammy Billary have cooked up.

You see, Hillary may still be in the race with at least a small amount of hope that she will ultimately win. Plenty of politicians have blown their leads by making big, stupid mistakes. As savvy as Obama is, he can easily step in it too. The way Hillary has pounced on the rather innocuous statements Obama made about jobless small town people being bitter clearly demonstrates that she has been hoping for this moment. Huffington, at least, has that part right.

But, Billary are not short term thinkers. They are masters at strategy. While I do believe that Hillary is struggling with the denial that always deeply impacts a narcissist when she has been rejected, I think she's also thinking further down the road.

The calculation is pretty clear. It is very hard for either a Democrat or a Republican to win the Presidency without quickly tacking to the middle after locking up their party's nomination. George W. did it in 2000. He was able to stay more to the right in 2004 only because (1) Kerry was such a lousy candidate and (2) an exceptional circumstance resulted from 9/11 being fresh on the nation's mind. That's an unusual situation, however.

So, what's Hillary up to? She may still be hoping for a hail mary pass for 2008, but she's also focused on 2012. The longer she stays in the race, the longer she keeps Obama from tacking to more moderate positions. She is holding Obama to the left by staying in it. If she can keep this up through June, Obama will not have enough time for people to forget his positions during the primary season thus allowing him to start talking in more moderate tones. If he tries making that adjustment in, say, August, he will not have credibility. In the meantime, McCain has had ample time to quiet the right-wingers and is already staking out his natural position, which is that of a moderate Republican.

Hillary knows that if she has to wait until 2016, she will be too old. There are many other women politicians in the wings now, who will have many positive attributes that Hillary simply lacks. They will run on things other than the typical “I am woman, I am victim” platform. But, she might be able to just squeeze in before this new generation of women in 2012.

In short, she is trying to help McCain win. Both McCain and Clinton admit that they are friendly. McCain will probably be dumb enough to give her a leading voice among Democrats during his tenure. And, since McCain is not an inspiring guy, while also being, in his own words, "old as dirt," Hillary is calculating that she's got an even better shot in 2012. First, though, Obama needs to loose in the 2008 general election. She's doing everything she can to make it so.

Not a lot of people read this blog. But I hope someone out there picks up on this idea, gets it out in the mainstream, and confronts the Clinton demolition team before it's too late. Otherwise, there will be a lot of disappointed Democrats in November.

I do not typically support Democrats, but I believe that for the good of the country, Hillary needs to be kept out of the White House at all costs. So, if that means Obama's gotta win, I'm all for it. Plus, I find him refreshing and think he might actually do a lot of good in terms of healing old racial wounds in our country. Conversely, if Hillary gets in there, she will not be a healer. She will play the gender political game just as she used Bill in South Carolina to play the race game and, ultimately, divide the country even further.

So, someone out there, please pick up on this 2012 strategy! The Clintons don't back down from a strategy until it is exposed. Sometimes not even then. But people will see it for what it is once they start hearing about it. If the MSM or a large number of bloggers pick up on the double pronged strategy of the Clintons quickly enough, she’ll be out of the race by mid-May and, thus, cease to do more damage.

More Signs of Global Warming

2008-04-10T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times raises the flag about "mammoth snowpacks."

Somehow, this will be weaved into global warming mythology. Snow in Seattle in late March. Two very cold winters in a row. All part of the great fudge factor created by the GW industry: anything unpredictable equals global warming. Colder than average? GW. More snow than normal? GW.

But the big question I have is: WHEN THE FUCK WILL OUR WATER RATES BE REDUCED?

They were permanently raised for city largess under the guise of impending shortages. They are raised to even more ridiculous levels during the summer. But, look folks, that big snow pack is free of charge. The plumbing is already in place. So how about lowering water rates for a change?

What's that you say? Can't because Mayor Nipples is using massive water profits to fund his latest eco-fascist project ...

Poor, Poor White Women

2008-04-10T14:59:00.000-07:00

Isn’t it amazing how white middle aged women can find victimhood in an embarrassment of riches? Well, Joni Balter of the Seattle Times can.

You see, Joni and her poor white women friends need to go around whispering that, instead of towing the sisterhood’s line and going rabid for Hillary, they are Obama supporters. This is particularly funny, because white middle aged women in Seattle have a pecking order of political correctness for "identity groups" and, clearly, Obama the African American is not far from the top. Maybe a gay man who is part of a “committed” gay relationship, that also has adopted kids, would rank above Obama as a statement of righteousness. Ditto for a lesbian under similar circumstances. But not much else.

There is this hilarious blog called Stuff White People Like that seems to be the basis for most of Joni’s opinions. Another really, really fun blog is White Women Suck. In fact, these blogs describe Seattle to a tee, even though they do not directly target our silly town. You will find the spirit of Joni Balter and most of Seattle's population in these blogs.

Poor Joni. She laments:

The most conflicted group of voters this year is women of a certain age [definition: over 40, over weight, frumpy, grumpy, divorced or never married, likely no kids but have a dog they treat as a child, and in need of a good lay] and political striping who have been told it is almost treasonous to support Obama because finally, at long last, a woman has a shot at the White House.

This is the worst part of gender politics, this notion that women should support women because of the double-X bond.

Why is that? Because it feeeeels bad? Upsets you? Maybe there should be a law the prohibits black men from running against white women for political office. Really, though, are you even sure Obama vs. Hillary is such a bad thing? I mean, Joni, the old gal, has found a way to appeal to the victim impulse of the majority of gender obsessed Seattle white women.

Actually, the worst part of gender politics is not that women should feel compelled to support women. It’s the victimhood claimed by one of the most spoiled populations on the planet. It’s this, the climate and political apparatus that promotes this, and this.

In any case, check out the blogs mentioned above. You’ll swear they are based exclusively on Seattle. And, you will get a good laugh in the process.

Victimhood for Victory

2008-03-04T20:01:00.000-08:00

Even perennial feminist Maureen Dowd is getting fed up with Hillary Rodham’s strategy of victimhood for victory.

I am from the South. Yet, I have to say that the most racist people I've known were from Ohio. Billary's painting of Obama as the "black candidate" way back in South Carolina finally worked in Ohio. So, apparently, did the interviews in which Rodham unbelievably claimed that a white woman from a well-healed background with a former President as husband faces gender based hurdles that are higher than those faced by a black man with a strange name with the middle name of Hussein. As untrue as that victimhood position is, this obviously called out the sisterhood. The endless coverage of Hillary Rodham over the past couple of weeks helped as well.

Yet, as Hillary has apparently won Rhode Island and Ohio, and as I write Texas is still up in the air, while Obama won Vermont in a landslide, the difference in the character of these two people can not be more starkly visible than when watching the obligatory speeches of each candidate at the end of the evening. In keeping with the speeches after her past 11 state streak of defeats, Hillary did not congratulate Obama even for winning tiny Vermont. Or for running good a race. Her speech, as usual, was all about her narcissistic self and reeked of entitlement.

Yet, in his speech, Obama congratulated Clinton for her wins, and kept the focus not on himself but on the hopes of those voting for him. What an amazingly stark contrast of personalities. You know who I want answering the phone at 3 AM in the morning? The President that is not going to think about what his response will mean in the next round of polling numbers. That could be Obama. It might be McCain. But it surely is not Hillary Rodham.

Meanwhile, the gender feminist victimhood strategy that we have suffered through for close to two decades must finally be wearing thin, even as it blows a few last gusts of wind in the sail of Rodham's campaign. After murdering a couple and kidnapping their daughter, I wonder what Spc. Ivette Gonzalez Davil’s victimhood play will be.

Ignoring Reality

2008-02-20T14:57:00.000-08:00

Just a quick observation on Hillary Rodham’s response, or lack of response, to Obama’s massive win in Wisconsin. For the second time, she lacked the grace the acknowledge Obama's win and congratulate him. It is almost mystifying that a politician would be so openly bitter. Meanwhile, Hillary’s legions of hardcore women supporters are saying that she is losing because of “sexism.”

Huh? What happened to racism? Let’s not forget how Billary worked so hard in South Carolina to paint Obama as the “black candidate” (e.g., another Jesse Jackson) hoping for white backlash in subsequent states. No such luck.

Well, the gender feminist perspective explains exactly why and how Rodham would simply ignore Obama’s incredible streak of 10 wins. It’s a gender feminist thing to ignore reality. In fact, reality is to be avoided at all costs. For example, all scholarly studies show that women are at least as likely to perpetrate domestic violence as men. How often do you hear about that from the VAWA mob? Ignoring reality has gotten so bad that even Group Health decided to simply exclude questioning men in their survey of domestic violence. Talking about stacking the deck!

There is no sexism in the race. If men are voting for Obama, it’s because (1) they like him and (2) they know Hillary does not like them. That’s sexism? Well, it sure isn’t racism. And, yes, Hillary Rodham is losing.

Let's Add More Regulation

2008-02-14T11:59:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Times reports proof that the Seattle Silly Council’s talk of affordable housing is mostly hot air. According to UW's Economic Policy Research Center, the city’s regulations add $200,000 to the cost of the median priced home in the city.

To Seattle’s city government, the only form of politically correct and acceptable “affordable housing” is housing that is provided by the city. In other words, housing that promotes dependency and political loyalty among the dependent.

Ask this city department what they are doing to help make housing more affordable.

As a property owner in Seattle, I’d like to see even more regulation. The national decline in housing prices will catch up with Seattle. So, let’s make sure we do something to limit supply and raise the cost of new construction even more. For example, let’s put each new construction project, from a re-model to a hi-rise, on the ballot for voter approval. That should slow things down.

Unfortunately, rising housing costs also discourage employers from moving to the area and cause some to leave. That eventually reduces demand and might hammer real estate prices with the coming recession Governor Gregoire is calling for. But, hey, we can all sell out before that happens. We might have to anyway, when that job moves to a more affordable city.

Thanks Hillary!

2008-02-12T17:30:00.000-08:00

MSNBC reports that Obama won the state of Virginia in part because he enjoyed a large majority among white male voters. Meanwhile, MSNBC also reports that Hillary Rodham is not doing nearly as well among white women as her original strategy called for. For even more detail, see today's Washington Post article.

This brings to mind a couple of things. First, the recent opinion column by Leonard Pitts published in the Seattle Times. According to Pitts:

Brace yourself. I'm going to use a word that offends folks. I'm talking the "F" word.

Feminist.

This woman sent me an e-mail Monday and it got me thinking. See, in describing herself, she assured me she was not "a 'women's libber' " — the late 1960s equivalent of feminist. She also said she was retired from the U.S. Navy. There was, it seemed to me, a disconnect there: She doesn't believe in women's liberation, yet she is retired from a position that liberation made possible.

Intrigued, I asked my 17-year-old daughter if she considers herself a feminist. She responded with a mildly horrified no. This, by the way, is the daughter with the 3.75 GPA who is presently pondering possible college majors, including political science, psychology and ... women's studies. I asked her to define "feminist."
There began a halting explanation that seemed to suggest shrillness wrapped around obnoxiousness. Abruptly, she stopped. "It's hard to explain," she said.

Pitts goes on to label his daughter a feminist regardless of what her own view on the matter is. I bet she was thrilled to read that. In fact, he goes on to describe just about all women as feminists by default. But, the fact is, many, many women are recoiling from this label because it has been identified with an obsession with victimhood. They are tired of it.

Pitt goes on:

We have, I think, lost collective memory of how things were before the "F" word. Of the casual beatings. Of casual rape. Of words like "old maid" and "spinster." Of abortion by coat hanger. Of going to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing a husband's permission. Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition, aspiration, creativity, and pounding them down until they fit a space no larger than a casserole dish.

Therein is your problem, Leonard. And Hillary. Never mind that plenty of women then and today yearn to be at home with their kids despite the work opportunities available to them. False claims of “casual beatings,” as if American men have historically treated women that way (false). False claims of “casual rape,” as if rape were ever considered anything but completely abhorrent in our country. The reality is that men, if any thing, were once much more willing to defend women. I suspect men have lost respect for women and are much less likely to protect them now than before, in large part because they are sick and tired of being vilified unfairly.

Gender feminists have been riding the victim wagon for too long, and under false pretenses, and younger women just don’t identify with it. It doesn’t mean these younger women are lacking historical perspective; it simply means that they do not see themselves as victims in a country in which they can clearly see that, for example, more than half (actually more than 60%) of all college students are women. Opportunity abounds for them. They are not victims and do not owe it to today's gender feminists to act like victims in order to pay homage to the original feminists who were fighting for equality (and are not the same women carrying Women Studies taught gender feminist flag of today). These young women owe Hillary Rodham nothing.

As for the white men in Virginia supporting Obama, I think this should lie to rest the stereotype, especially among Seattle-ites, that white Southerners are all confederate flag waiving racists. Sure, there are some bigots left in a state like Virginia, just like there are some bigots left in a state like Washington. But they are a small, small minority.

Meanwhile, men of all colors, even among Democrats, seem to know what is good for them. And Hillary Rodham clearly is not good for them. Men are waking up to the fact that the domestic violence scam has ruined the lives of a lot of guys, especially those of fathers. They know where those laws came from: Hill and Bill. And this is among male Democrats. If Hillary Rodham makes it to the general election through playing dirty against the shining star of Barack Obama, the dearth of male voters would be even wider. The hardcore gender feminist women voting for Hilllary are all in the Democratic party already and form a small base to work from in a general election. She’s going to have a hard time selling her victim politics to independent women. And the male backlash vote will be even larger than what she is experiencing in her own party.

Watching the Democratic primaries is fun because it is clarifying so many things for Americans, while erasing some other false myths. Yes, men know that Hillary Rodham believes in male punitive laws, and is happy to make end runs around the Constitution. These men woke up. Simply put, they know she hates them. Women are not the monolithic victim cult NOW would like all of us to believe. And white men, even Southerners, will vote for a black man who has a larger agenda than simply running on his race.

I once dreaded Hillary’s candidacy. But, as predicted on this blog here, Hillary Rodham played the gender card too soon. She also used the false tears too soon. Now I feel I should write her a personal letter of thanks for accidentally providing the catalyst that might well completely change the stale old identity politics of the past. We may just be seeing the beginning of the end of gender feminist influence on public policy and the beginning of something more balanced.

And, for those of us in the State of Washington, Hillary's slide has to raise the question: Just why are Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray – both so-called “super-delegates” to the Democratic convention – sticking to their commitment to cast their vote for Hillary Rodham even though the Democrats of the State of Washington roundly rejected her?

Democrats who want their Senators to represent them should be asking that question.

We Are Woman?

2008-01-04T14:23:00.000-08:00

So much for the “monolithic women vote.” Hillary Rodham counted on it. And, since it does not exist, it did not come through for her in Iowa.

In fact, it appears that both John Edwards and Barrack Obama outpolled the nation’s leading gender feminist among Democratic women in Iowa. And these were DEMOCRATS. Translate that result to an entire country that includes a majority of independents and Republicans, and the outlook for the “we are women” strategy of Hillary Rodham is looking rather bleak. That won't stop Hillary's pals in the media, though, as they try to soil Obama any way they can.

A change in strategy is surely in the works. But maybe the pungent smell of victim oriented gender feminism will stick to Hillary no matter how hard she tries to morph into something she is not. Certainly, enough grown men realize that she is poison for men and fathers. And my guess is that there are plenty of mothers of sons out there who are appalled by the messages their little boys are getting in their public schools. They know where this misandrist philosophy comes from and who supports it.

So, the self-anointed heir apparent to the Democratic nomination – probably the White House in her own mind – must be loosing something of her sense of entitlement. Don’t count on it just yet though. The true nature of a candidate can often be seen in how they accept loss. Hillary’s speeches after getting trounced in Iowa not only did not concede defeat but sounded as if she had won. But I think New Hampshire will have a different view on the matter.

Truly, I am astounded. Over the years, I have found politics to be increasingly dismal. Particularly the entire election process for President. A long, drawn out 2 years of non-stop pundits and spin from the candidates in the rigged two party system, leading to an absurd “primary” season that keeps most of the country out of the process of choosing the ONLY two candidates, and finally the Presidential election with its virtually scripted debates. All that hot air when we may as well just auction off the White House since money raised is the best predictor of success.

My cynical view, indeed the view of anyone that has watched this process for at least a couple of decades, would be that Hillary Rodham pretty much had the entire thing wrapped up. Obviously not because she is the best person for the job, but because of the massive money supporting her, a husband who is arguably the best natural politician of the unfortunate (for us) baby boom generation, and just her sheer will to conform to the political winds and say pretty much anything in order to win at any cost. (Of course, what she says and what she would do in office are two completely different concepts). I pretty much expected Democrats to be brainwashed into mumbling “Hillary, Hillary” by now and robotically voting for her. Not so.

The corollary, of course, has Romney and his enormous chest of money winning as well. Huckabee – an honest guy with a positive outlook and a winning personality – proved that wrong. Meanwhile, while McCain is a big yawn, there is always Ron Paul to keep things interesting, especially in New Hampshire. Obama is well funded, but the money does not appear to be winning in, surprisingly, the party of money, the Republicans.

Could it be that people are actually thinking again? Could it be that someone as vile and full of hate as Hillary Rodham is not able to hide her true ugly nature despite the heroic status the mainstream media gives her?

Could be. In the meantime, it’s time to think about what to do in the Washington Primaries. Since the two party duopoly has rigged the system so that you must select a party in the primary vote (which leaves alternatives out of the picture), we should turn their system on its head and vote in a way that has the most impact. That means, of course, that you should vote within the party that you do not support and against the most vile, in your own view, of their candidates. Of course, what this means is that I will be voting among the Democrats and voting against Hillary Rodham and for Obama (who I kind of like anyway).

If you are a Republican and feel remiss about not voting for your candidate, think of it this way: your candidate will not win the Presidential election popular vote in the State of Washingon in November. Voting for a Republican in this state is a waste of time and a waste of your vote. My suggestion to all Republicans in the state is to vote in the primary election as a democrat and vote against Mrs. Entitlement. That will get the gender feminist dominated Democrats of this state all worked up and, hey, that is always a fun thing to do!

Misandrist Suffers Misogyny

2007-11-29T21:20:00.000-08:00

Here we go with the Hillary campaign pulling out the ultimate gender card: claiming that she is the victim of misogyny.

She tried the tactic of accusing her Democratic rivals of attacking her because she is a woman. That didn't work and she finally had to save face by stating accurately that she is being confronted on policy issues as well as her own inability to state a clear position simply because she in the lead.

But with Obama making a strong stand, and the Republicans appearing to be relishing the opportunity to run against her, the ultimate form of the gender card is now showing itself. Anyone that disagrees with her or, in essence, any man that will not vote for her, is a misogynist.

Of course, the story is built around these clubs that have formed on Facebook that should be viewed by any rational person as just some people having fun at the expense of a politician. This is a great tradition in American politics. Does anyone remember when the Democrats favorite saying was that the first Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth or that he reminded women of their ex-husband?

Of course, some of this stuff is nasty. And the nastiness knows no gender boundries. But, Hillary Rodham has no humor, nor does her staff of gender feminists. Most importantly, they will play the role that gender feminists have used to attack men with things like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): claim victimhood. The hope, of course, is that men everywhere, especially Obama and then the Republican man that will likely be running against her, will shrink at the thought of being called misogynist.

The irony of this is that if there ever was a misandrist, Hillary is one. And, yet, her crew will use the misogynist label with abandon.

But, my guess is that, as with the gender card used before, the Hillary campaign is making this claim too early. It might have been effective if used in October 08, before Americans could have time to see through the it. But, having started so soon, most of the American public will have the time to see through the victim role she is playing.

People, and men in particular, dislike Hillary Rodham, not because they are misogynists, but be cause they know that deep down, she just doesn't like them.

McIver, Taste Your Medicine

2007-11-29T21:06:00.000-08:00

Seattle Silly Council member Richard McIver is learning first hand the insanity he and hes political brethren have created through the gender politics behind domestic violence laws in Washington State.

A 911 dispatcher returned the call, left a message and then Kiner-McIver called 911 back seeking to cancel the call.

She said the fight had not been physical, charging documents say.

The dispatcher chastised Kiner-McIver for hanging up the first time and told her that domestic violence calls can't be undone. Kiner-McIver has said that she does not want to assist in the prosecution of her husband.

"My client's position has been, and remains, that she will not cooperate in the prosecution of her husband," her attorney, Vonda Sargent, said Wednesday.

Prosecutors said Kiner-McIver has been served with a subpoena to testify and they are prepared to take McIver to trial.

So, McIver, are you getting the idea now of what it is like to be up against a system that forces you to prove innocence instead of the state having to prove your guilt? Are you happy now about your fanatical support of these gender feminist misandrist laws?

And, by the way, shame on you for hitting your wife. In your case, unlike the vast majority, you probably do deserve to be punished.

Sorry, but this is fun to watch.

Perugia

2007-11-20T09:34:00.000-08:00

This is about as ugly as it gets. A young woman killed in a violent sex crime.

What are the visions that automatically come to mind? A big, mean, misogynistic man, raping and then killing. But, back up for a minute. At the center of this case is a female Seattle college student studying abroad in Italy. And, no, she is not the victim. She is the perpetrator.

The description of what happened is horrid and I’ll leave that to Newsweek. What is not covered, not in Seattle’s ideologically oppressed newspapers, nor in the national press, is the fact that domestic and sexual violence are not the sole purview of men. This is not what the gender feminist ideologists would have you believe.

Take Nicole Brodeur, the simple minded, gender feminist “columnist” the Seattle Times gives newspaper space and a paycheck to preach her ideology. She says “No Easy Answers in Perugia.” [Perugia is the Italian town where Amanda Knox raped and murdered a British exchange student]. One would think with a title like that, Brodeur may have stepped back and questioned some of her misandrist ideology. Instead, the best she can come up with is blaming the University of Washington for not overseeing their exchange students. Even after noting:

Indeed, such crimes occur stateside. Last month in Boston, a Wellesley student allegedly broke into her ex-boyfriend's dorm room at MIT and stabbed him seven times.

The usual tactic. A smoke screen put up to distract from the acts of a violent and sexually perverse woman. Always find a way to make her a victim. Even when she is a sadistic murderer.

The Mother of All Stupid Propositions

2007-11-05T18:14:00.000-08:00

When you look closely at Proposition 1 – the “Roads and Transit” package on the ballot – and then read the emotive claims of politicians and planners about how carefully they choose the projects, you have to wonder what metropolitan region they are actually living in. What planet they are on, for that matter.

The Seattle Times, which recommends a “no” vote on Proposition 1, does a very good job at breaking down the taxes, the funds, the projects, and the time-lines here. The first and most obvious thing you see is what you don’t see. What have been the major transportation issues in our region in the past few years? The Alaskan Way Viaduct. The 520 floating bridge. And, most notably, just generally miserable traffic congestion.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is not even mentioned. Thanks Mayor Nipples for making the Viaduct an untouchable subject. Only partial funding is provided for the 520 floating bridge and there is no definition of where the additional funds will come from. And, what about general traffic congestion relief? Well, apparently that will be solved by forcing everyone onto light rail, the lines for which will be completed a generation from now. In fact, such a large majority of the money to be raised is allocated to light rail that it’s a joke to include the word “roads” in the title of Proposition 1.

I have to admit that even I, as cynical as I am about Seattle and King County, found myself surprised after finally looking closely at this ghastly expensive Proposition. Why is it so difficult for this area’s politicians and planners to do first things first?

I can’t answer that question except to say that this is the product of single party rule for all of these long years. These people have gotten themselves so twisted up in their ideology and own dogma that they can’t see straight.

In any case, for once, the Seattle Times gets it right. This Proposition is lunacy. And while the populace of the Seattle Metropolitan area generally seems to enjoy and vote for lunacy, they back up pretty damned quick when it hits them in the pocketbook. Especially with regard to property taxes.

So, Proposition 1 will thankfully fail. One would hope that out of the ashes would come some focus on the most pressing projects, but that’s not likely, as we seem to go from the absurd to the more absurd to the just plain dumb. I’d expect the next round, in about 5 years, to include even less for roads and a plan for extending light rail to Spokane.

But, not to worry. The Seattle Silly Council is busy working on a plan to put us all on bicycles. In the rain. And, as if to accentuate the nature of all of this nonsense, Mayor Nickels and the Silly Council have declared today to be JP Patches Day. He was a clown.

Ummm ... Wake up

2007-09-06T23:28:00.000-07:00

What I find interesting about the King County Councilmember Jane Hague incident is that nobody seems to make the connection between this woman's behavior towards police and what her behavior is likely like within her own family.

As the Seattle Times quoted:

The arresting officers "did not deserve the rude and abusive behavior. I was very angry that night," said Hague. "I was angry at myself, I was angry at the situation and I took it out on them. There is no excuse for that."

Patriarchal control and oppression? It makes one wonder how at least half of domestic violence incidents get started. The language used by Hague was psychologically abussive and demeaning. Even the Eastside Domestic Violence Divas classify psychological abuse as domestic violence.

I doubt the connection will ever be made, but it would be nice if people would wake up and get this topic out of the gender polical realm.

Gender Politics Do Not Help Children

2007-08-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

Another glaring example of DSHS’s horribly misguided approach to protecting children has woken me from my summer slumber. The Seattle Times describes how CPS repeatedly returned a young boy to the home of his step-grandmother and grandfather. He was relegated to living in a trailer behind the house. And CPS signed off on it. Twice!

Worse, the boy was continually and severally beaten, choked, and burned by his step-grandmother.

Detectives now believe the suspected abuse — mostly by Loni Venegas — included beatings with a bamboo stick, choking and scalding.

Pierce county deputies had already removed the boy from his “home” in June suspecting that his step-grandmother was abusing him. CPS promptly returned him to his “home.” The Pierce County sheriff’s department finally took action again, removed the boy from his torture chamber, and indicted this horrible woman on seven counts of assault. The Pierce County Sheriff must have finally decided that with CPS around the only way to protect the child was to make sure Loni Venegas is in jail. Evident from the quotes in the article, the Pierce County sheriff’s department is extremely frustrated with CPS. All of us should be.

The Times barely mentions the fact that the boy's “grandparents” won custody in a bitter custody dispute after his mother was tragically killed in car accident in 2001. But there is no mention of just who was on the other side of the custody dispute. Was it his father? Or perhaps the parents of his father? Wouldn’t a balanced article have sought comment from them? How, in fact, did this boy end up in the hands of his violent step-grandmother instead of in the home of his father? Since fathers are considered unimportant or even innately dangerous, the Times reporter did not investigate the larger picture.

The Secretary of DSHS, Robin Arnold-Williams, has taken a stand. She has proclaimed that everyone is going to work together to fix this problem. Yeah, right. The problem IS Arnold-Williams and her bureaucracy of gender feminist ideologues that run DSHS. They are blind to the reality that women commit the vast majority of child abuse. In the mind of gender feminists like Arnold-Williams, when women are violent, it is the fault of another, usually a man. And of course due to the "patriarchal control and oppression" that supposedly characterizes our society. Just like family courts in the State of Washington, CPS is obsessive about putting children into the “care” of a woman, regardless of the actual circumstances.

This is just the latest in a string of CPS failures involving violent, alcoholic, or drug addicted women abusing children. This problem cannot be fixed until people like Robin Arnold-Williams, who have a gender political axe to grind, are removed from DSHS. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, DSHS needs to be refocused from a revenue generating machine for the state (through federal matching of child support collections) to an apolitical organization with the sole purpose and objective of helping people, families, and children.

Provenge Revenge

2007-05-25T08:43:00.000-07:00

The FDA recently smacked men everywhere in the face, especially those suffering from metastasized prostate cancer. This came in the form of an obscure “request for more data” issued to a Seattle based company called Dendreon, which has developed a treatment for advanced Prostate cancer called Provenge.

To make a long story short, Dendreon has carried Provenge through Phase 2 clinical trials. In a double blind study, these trials showed men treated with Provenge lived on average 4.5 months longer than men treated with placebo. An advisory panel to the FDA voted 17-0 that Provenge was safe. Moreover, the panel recommended 13-4 that the FDA approve Provenge for treatment of prostate cancer. Of the 4 dissenters, the most vociferous was a female doctor who was primarily concerned with "procedure."

There currently are no options available to men with metastasized prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is first identified, the typical treatment is to remove the prostrate, at the risk of the patient loosing not only the ability to have an erection but also bladder control. After that all that is left to do is to pray that no cancer cells leaked into the lymphatic system and have spread. From that point forward, the typical treatment is to put these men on a regimen of estrogen treatment.

Dendreon’s Provenge promised an alternative; one that has been clearly shown to increase the lifespan of men with prostate cancer. While 4.5 months of life extension may not seem like much, it is worth life itself to men with metastasized prostrate cancer. And, remember, the men that made it into the study groups were those in the most advanced stages of the cancer. Provenge works by harnessing the body’s own immune system to attack the cancer. If men were given this treatment earlier in the cancer’s development, and prior to the cancer spreading to the extent of those men in the studies, their immune systems may have more time to fight the disease and curtail it’s spread while it is still manageable. For information on how the treatment works, consult Dendreon’s web site.

In typical oblique fashion, the FDA did not make public its reasoning for delaying availability of the drug. But, have no doubt, if a drug as promising as Provenge had reached this stage for the treatment of breast cancer the outcry from NOW and every other feminist organization would be deafening. In fact, with the NIH spending the vast majority of its cancer research funding on breast cancer (prostrate cancer is hardly on the budget), I doubt the FDA would have delayed the introduction of a treatment for breast cancer that showed the results of Provenge.

Now, instead of gearing up to provide Provenge to millions of men in need, Dendreon has been forced to lay people off in order to conserve cash. And pray that the FDA provides approval before they run out of cash and the treatment is lost to the world.

Once again, we see that men have no advocates in government. Isn't it interesting that while Dendreon is a Seattle based company, and the state's governor has proclaimed that the State of Washington will be a center of bio-medical research and development, our two women Senators - Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray - have uttered not a peep. Because the NIH pays little attention to any cancer other than breast cancer, men must rely on the private market to respond to our need for effective prostrate treatment. Instead of helping, the FDA has become a roadblock. Companies like Dendreon cannot sustain losses in perpetuity while trying to meet all of the FDA’s sometimes ridiculous and often inconsistent requirements.

The FDA should have followed it’s own expert panel's recommendations. In the meantime, millions of men who could be receiving the treatment are left taking estrogen while watching their cancer advance and counting down the days to their death. And, with prostate cancer, which spreads to the bones, death is extremely painful.

The FDA should hear your complaints about their insensitivity. They should hear the stories of your friends with prostrate cancer, or your own story if you have the disease. They should hear that it is not acceptable to delay Provenge just so they can have procedural perfection when the treatment has clearly shown efficacy after Phase 2 testing.

Go here to file your complaint with the FDA.

And, while you are at it, go the the US Senate web site and complain to Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray for their silence on this matter. Remind them that they are supposed to be representing both "genders" of the State of Washington while in the city of Washington as well as Washington State based companies, such as Dendreon.

Time to Throw in the Towel

2007-04-13T17:37:00.000-07:00

Are we really a nation of such sensitive people? So thin skinned and frail that we need to eliminate humor?

Based on the quotes in the most recent Seattle Times article (which is loving this public lashing of anyone that defies PC hegemony) on Don Imus’ apparently criminal comment, I’d say the answer to both questions is yes. Some of the quotes in this article are unbelievable.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," Stringer said. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

Oh, kumbaya and shit. Racists are running around everywhere. Sexism is rampant. Let’s all go to sensitivity training to erase that oppressive paternalism from our minds. Why stop there. Let’s erase our minds altogether. Lobotomies for all.

More scary are the PC-whipped quotes coming out of CBS.

"He has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people," CBS Corp. chief executive Leslie Moonves said in a memo to his staff.

Stick a fork in him. He’s been cooked in the PC oven. I think he’s done.

And, the Rutgers women’s basketball coach was so spiritually shaken that she had to have her pastor present during Imus’ stupid apology just to hold things together.

The team members respected Imus' willingness to apologize, but they also wanted him to understand how they were hurt, said the Rev. DeForest Soaries, Stringer's pastor, who joined the meeting. Imus tried to explain what he meant, "but there was really no explanation that they could understand," Soaries said on NBC's "Today" show.

Here’s an explanation: It was a joke. Lame ass humor. The reason I never much cared for Imus anyway. His humor sucks. Nevertheless, tune into just about any black comedian on HBO or the Comedy channel. “Nappy headed ‘ho’s” is pretty far down on the list of insults to black women and women generally. In fact, it’s pretty far down on the list relative to insults hurled at white’s, Asians …. You name the group. They get insulted.

Meanwhile, Al Shartpon is the arbiter of decency? That really is a joke.

Here we have a group of women with everything going for them. With full scholarships to one of the most prestigious universities on the globe. And, they are being encouraged to be so easily offended? They’d be better served to be told to ignore it, take pride in their achievements, and that no comment by a radio host or anyone else can hurt them. Because, in reality, that is the case. Somehow, I suspect that behind the scenes, they are giggling about the silliness.

In fact, these women are actually part of the elite of our society. They are some of the most privileged people on the planet. Ivy League education. Full scholarships. The opportunity to focus on and fully develop their athletic talent. Doesn't this country have a tradition of poking fun at our elite? Isn't there just something "democratic" about that?

And their "nappy headed" bro's? They dropped out of high schools that are hostile to their learning requirements. And that has nothing to do with "institutional rascism" as we hear so often in Seattle. It has to do with institutionalized sexism in the form of curriculum that has been feminized. And, of course, the the cancer of low expectations.

Black males are the group that is really suffering. Listen to the gansta rap and that's what you hear. Suffering. The black kids that can't be all-star athletes and therefor have no hope. A lost generation, striking out at their sisters with lyrics in which "'ho" is about the mildest thing you'll hear. Their sisters have an entire curriculum designed for their "special" needs. Girl power and what not. Ever wonder why more than 60% of college students are now women?

Thank God Seattle has hired, by default if not by accident, a black woman with a hyphenated last name as School Superintendent. Yes, she will be running the same school system that even Danny Westneat and his kids are running from. The same school system with an entire department devoted to making ridiculous claims, such as the declaration that summer break is racist and an example of white oppression. Oh, and that any form of “future time orientation” is a form of racism. The same school system in which black administrators openly tell white parents that they are uncomfortable having them around. While their paychecks are coming from taxpayers of all stripes in Seattle.

You know …. what the fuck. This isn’t even worth writing about. The professional victim society of America is in control and there’s not much that can be done about it now. Just go ahead and hand them the keys.

But, I do have one prediction. Imus will be back and bigger than ever. Probably on satellite radio. And his humor will still suck.

The Big Loser

2007-03-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

Things have been slow around this blog in recent months, but the silliness in Seattle has not. If anything, it is intensifying.

Poor Mayor Nickles. He championed the monorail debacle and lost. Now, his own bright idea – the Tunnel of Love – has about as much support as a sunbathing party on rainy February day. Just as we predicted.

In today’s vote-for-the-sake-of-a-vote, the Nickel’s tunnel lost pitifully. Finally, people in Seattle are waking up to the fiscally irresponsible notions of most of our city’s government. Not even the tunnel “lite” option, which reduced the tunnel to a width insufficient to allow the Mayor’s ever increasing girth to pass without a ramming rod pushing him through, is unacceptable.

The elevated highway has received less than 50% of the vote as well. But, at 40% plus, if the ballot had been designed as it should have been, with a choice of either a tunnel OR an elevated highway, the elevated viaduct would have won easily. Instead, the cynical designers of the ballot left the option open for the perpetually disaffected and loopy voters of Seattle to defiantly vote no to everything.

Of course, now idiots like Danny Westneat are saying that we need to go with all surface option. That’s a pretty stupid idea and will leave downtown Seattle in a permanent state of decline – condo construction boom or not. A downtown area that cannot be accessed will die. It already struggles under extremely poor road engineering that makes entering and leaving the city a nightmare.

Meanwhile, the idea that people will hop on buses in large numbers is pure fantasy. And, why should they? Hybrid cars are all the rage and they solve much of the problem of CO2 emissions in the city (where slow traffic keeps them in electric mode at most times). Why loose time taking buses and light rail when you can buy yourself a hybrid, feel green (and look it, which is of primary importance in PC-whipped Seattle), and get around without being herded into cattle cars?

A truly enlightened city and state would count on higher oil prices, and our technological response to them, to reduce CO2 emissions and other auto pollution. Hybrid gas electric. Pure electric. And eventually hydrogen fuel cell power plants. Planners would be building roads to make the flow of traffic smoother and faster and designing roads that are optimized for these new vehicles. Instead, their only plan is for congestion and the hope that traffic-jams-by-design will force people to hop on buses. Buses and other mass transit run by city, regional, and state governmental bureaucracies, after all, give the NW breed of politician what they most want – control over as much of your life as possible.

In the meantime, we are in the no-man’s land of a silly vote that was designed to fail. That was designed to illicit “no.” But, with any luck, the elevated highway will now go ahead as planned and we will inadvertently take an optimistic path that prepares for a future with internal combustion engines playing an ever declining role in our “autonomous” (oh, I know how Nickels and his pals hate the idea of people being autonomous) automobiles.

Or, we could just forget about Seattle and put the viaduct money where it will be appreciated – into the 520 bridge or other projects on the Eastside that will keep those electric motors humming along, sensible people moving around, and enterprise flourishing.

In the meantime, sorry Mr. Mayor, but your vision has lost big time. Perhaps it’s time you got back to Seattle, stopped wasting our tax dollars on your Kyoto nonsense, and got down to solving some problems. Or get out of the way and let someone take over that will.

Diamonds Are Forever .... Cheap

2007-01-13T00:24:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal reports this weekend that man-made diamonds are now being produced that are as good or better than diamonds dug from the earth.

The $143 billion jewelry business -- and the would-be fiancés, Valentines and lovers of bling that it caters to -- are facing a shakeup. Lab-produced diamonds, once suitable only for industrial use, are being produced with color and clarity that match -- or exceed -- the quality of diamonds dug out of the earth. These lab-made diamonds have begun trickling into retailers at prices below those for natural diamonds of similar size and sparkle.

And, I will add, a whole lot less bloody. I have always been amazed at the attraction to diamonds given the circumstance under which they are mined and distributed. DeBeers is a monopoly that charges artificially high prices for stones that are actually quite abandunt. Meanwhile, as depicted in the movie "Blood Diamond," the diamond trade fuels bloody conflict in Africa. How is it that the same people that claim to be so concerned about the human condition lust after diamonds and show them off as symbols of wealth and status?

DeBeers is in a panic, stepping up marketing of the dubious merits of mined diamonds relative to those that are manmade. Tiffany and Co. in typical snotty fashion says they will only sell "natural" diamonds.

But, the writing is on the wall. Man-made diamonds are actually more clear and brilliant than those coming from dirty mines. And even while produced in relatively low quantities now, they are being sold for 15% less than De Beers' bloody diamonds. Production always rises to meet demand, so there is little doubt that man-made diamonds will soon be produced in massive quantities. That means the price of all diamonds - from mines or from manufacturing plants - will decline precipitiously.

Here's a little advice. If you own some big fat diamonds, pawn them now while they still have value. Take the proceeds and invest in the some of the companies manufacturing diamonds. In five or ten years, you can take your fat profits from the appreciation in your stocks in these companies and buy enough diamonds to fill your house. But, of course, once the masses can afford them as if they were rhinestones, they will loose their appeal.

Some of the companies producing these high quality man-made diamonds include:

Apollo Diamonds
Gemesis
Chatham Created Diamonds

Diamonds may be forever, but are they going to remain a girl's best friend?

Look South for Trouble

2006-08-06T21:50:00.000-07:00

While most Americans focus their limited attention span for international events half-way around the globe, a disputed election much closer to home may have more relevance. Mexico continues to struggle with finalizing the results of last month’s presidential elections, with loser Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (referred to simply as “AMLO” in the Mexican press) all but calling for insurrection. Large scale unrest in Mexico, which has been brewing for years, would have more impact on the US than most people seem to appreciate.

AMLO has demanded a vote-by-vote recount since losing the election. Mexico's Federal Election Tribunal wisely decided Saturday that a partial recount of approximately 9% of the total vote would be a better way to go. AMLO is not happy about the partial recount and said that he will soon announce to his followers what their next step will be. With protests of up to 1 million people last week shutting down large parts of Mexico City, its anybody’s guess how far AMLO might take his protest.

If Washington State is any indication, a full recount is exactly what should not be done. Yes, a clean recount might help take fuel from the fire of AMLO and his followers. But, a full recount also invites corruption. That is something people in Washington State can appreciate. Washington State’s multiple recounts resulted in King County election officials essentially throwing the election for governor to their favored candidate, Christine Gregoire, by magically finding ballots stuffed in drawers. AMLO, the former Mayor of Mexico City, is still in control of the government apparatus of the city, and knows that he could do the same thing. The quantity of votes he needs to “find” are now known (roughly 200,000) and in a city the size of Mexico’s capital (with well over 20 million people), it would be easy for AMLO’s supporters to throw in just enough extra ballots to throw the election. This is exactly what happened in Washington State, allowing Democratic Party gangsters in the largest metropolitan area of the state to decide the state-wide election.

As King County proved, total recounts are easy to manipulate and result in more controversy, not less. Mexican election officials know this. So does the winner, Enrique Calderon. In fact, so does AMLO. The special tribunal made such trickery much harder by deciding on a recount based on random samples of the ballots. AMLO could conceivably already have his own agents among the recount process, but since samples will be taken at random from known ballot boxes all over the country, there will not be many votes found in dark corners. AMLO’s supporters simply will not know which ballot box to stuff and Mexico City’s samples cannot provide enough to overcome the difference.

All level heads, including international observers, agree that this election was clean, perhaps the cleanest in Mexico’s history. Calderon will win the recount but re-affirming his victory may not be enough to douse the flames. AMLO has shown his true colors and they hark back to old-school Mexico. Corruption. Autocracy. Psuedo and token socialism. More power in the hands of the few. The benefits of capitalism thrown out in favor of backroom deals between politicians and mega wealthy monopoly owners.

The composition of AMLO’s support reads like a who’s who of failed policies. Labor bosses. Government bureaucrats. Professional students. All manipulating the poor. As Denise Dresser says in her recent column in Mexico City’s Reforma newspaper, the 2 million odd diehard followers of AMLO are calling for:

Jailing Luis Carlose Ugalde and the officials of the Federal Election Institute. Exiling from the country members of the Business Counsel. Nationalizing Televisa and Reforma. Closing all of the Sabritas factories of the country. Closing the Mexican stock exchange and leaving Mexican companies to find other forms of capital. Demanding that Walmart end their operations in Mexico.

The end result could not be good. Mexico’s long history is one of getting close, but never quite making it, to a smoothly functioning democracy and economy. One step forward, two steps back. The greed of the powerful elite, which AMLO uses to inspire his radicalized followers but with whom he would in the end do deals, always seems to send the country back.

So, why should we care? Mexico is our second largest trading partner. US companies and mutual funds have billions of dollars in investments in Mexican enterprises. More importantly, the US imports more oil from Mexico than it does even from Saudi Arabia. Labor unions, particularly government employee union bosses, are AMLO's major backers. That means Pemex, the state owned enterprise that controls every last drop of oil coming out of Mexico. In the near term, AMLO receives no benefit from oil production and sales. He could only benefit from a disruption in supply. Nary a mention of that very real possibility in the media, but the slightest blip in Mexican oil production would send oil prices through the roof.

Perhaps most importantly, we should care because AMLO provides none of the answers Mexico needs. His power base is composed of the very people that work against Mexico’s progress and inadvertently perpetuate poverty. Mexico is not poor because of capitalism, as the left would assert. Nor is it poor because of the US and evil American companies. Mexico is poor precisely because it does not have enough capitalism. It has half-way capitalism, the sort that involves two steps back for every step forward. The sort that gives unrestricted monopoly power to selected companies owned by powerful families. Telmex. Televisa. Cemex. One is found in practically every industry. They keep prices high to Mexican consumers, while lowering employment, wages, innovation and investment. Mexico transitioned from feudalism, to feudalist socialism, to feudalist capitalism. It’s long overdue for Mexico to loose the feudalism it inherited from its conquistador past.

Calderon will win the recount. He will assume the presidency and, with any luck at all (not something in long supply in Mexico), AMLO’s regressive movement will fizzle out. But, if Calderon is smart and cares about his country, he will take quick action to fundamentally change Mexico’s economy. Mexico needs a leader that looks more like Teddy Roosevelt at the height of his anti-trust crusade than Che Guevera.

The history of concentrated power is the history of Mexico. Neither that past, nor AMLO, should be it's future.

Ban This

2006-07-27T22:15:00.000-07:00

"Ban." It's all in the choice of words. As in, "The ban on gay marriage."

There is no "ban" on gay marriage. There is a definition of "marriage" provided by the legislature. This is hard for the media, such as the Seattle Times, to accept. So, they call a definition a ban.

The manipulation of language by the media is nothing new and not what's most disturbing about the gay marriage nonsense, but instead the extent to which government has lost its head. Proving the present breakdown and dysfunction of our overly meddlesome government, Washington State's Supreme Court had a hard time upholding the plain definition provided by the Legislature. Our tri-partite form of government, with roles for each of the three parts clearly defined, requires the Court to defer to the law-making power of the Legislature. The Court's role is to interpret these laws, not to make them, and not even to render an opinion as to whether a specific law is a good thing or a bad thing (in their opinions). Meanwhile, the Legislature is free to define anything it wants, as long as it does not tread on a Constitutional right.

Washington's banana court performed its defined function, just barely, while blowing a gasket. The plethora of blowhard opinions from the various idiots on the Court shows just how difficult it was to stay in line. On top of that, even in the ruling statement, the Court found multiple ways to express their view that they don't like the definition of marriage provided by the Legislature.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington."

Oh, OK, so sometimes they do like the initiative process. And, we know what the self-rightous folks on the Court would like as a result from such a process:

"... a judge's understanding of the law is separate and distinct from his or her personal views aboud sound policy."

I thought we already knew that one. The Court is just realizing this? At any rate, redefining marriage is clearly what they would like to see. Moreoever, they'd love to be the self assigned authority doing the defining, but in this case had a hard time making that final step to anarchy with something so much in the public's eye. Don't think they are above it, though, because they have not only redefined some things but even created laws having wide impact over the citizens of the state, such as "meretricious relationship."

All of this provides a reason why government should indeed dramatically redefine marriage, but not along the lines of what our robed masters would like to see. In fact, government should redefine itself out of the entire topic of marriage. From the standpoint of citizens, government, and the Courts specifically, marriage is nothing more than a squishy, ill-defined contract. It is different things at different times and especially in different courts. As in the case of the judicial invention of meretricious relationship, sometimes people who aren't married find that one branch of government magically says they are married. All in all, government has shown itself to be an incompetent and irresponsible arbiter of the institution of marriage.

Two individuals wishing to join in a union could do a better job than any of the branches of Washington State government. People should be free to define their own marriage contracts. Moreover, they should be free to call the contract whatever the hell they want. Could be "marriage," could be "helliage." If they don't want to go to the trouble of writing their own contract, they could use one provided by their institution of choice. For some, that would be their church. For others, a standard contract downloaded from the Internet. The Seattle Borg, who hate to think for themselves, could always just use one defined for them by government, which could provide it's own recommended contract. And, if a couple does nothing, they have no contract.

A man can contract a with another man. A Woman can contract with a woman. There would be no limitations except what is imposed by existing contract law, such as the fact that both parties have to be of sound mind in order to enter into the contract. Unfortunately for some of the more perverse residents of the state, that would exclude animals. Fortunately for the rest of us, that would also exclude children.

Then, maybe our state government could get on with doing the things government is good at doing, or at least those things that are best left to government. Definitions and redefinitions of marriage sure aint one of them.

So, yeah, let's use the initiative process. Let's use it to ban all three branches of government from ever uttering the word "marriage" again.

Mysogony Is Hard to Find, But Brodeur Is Up to the Task

2006-07-14T22:54:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times vagina warrior columnist Nicole Brodeur has got herself worked up into a feminist frenzy again. This time, she’s wrangling with angst over the fact that Seattle Center will host Summer Errotica.

Why is she upset? Well, she uses the usual feminist tactic of trying to fool you with concern for children and families. She worries there might be some around during the Summer Errotica activities. Oh the horror.

That gave me the suspicion that her gender feminist perspective was the true source of her summer of discontent. You see, in her world, it’s bad for women if they are seen dancing sensually for the viewing pleasure of men. (Now, women dancing erotically for the viewing please of other women is another matter entirely). Somehow, this shows patriarchal control and oppression. Strangely, the power these women have over men, who will pay to see them, doesn’t get factored into the equation.

Of course I found I was right as I read on:

But Seattle Center is not the place for all-but-bare-naked ladies with names like Vivacious (if you have any doubt, see www.summererotica.com), private rooms and champagne. Or misogyny.

“Or misogyny.” ? Now, I haven’t seen anything about Summer Erotica that spews hatred for women. Of course, Nicole only hints that mysogony will be present to spoil Seattle Center for all of the city's angry feminists; she doesn't explain exactly what she is referring to. To me, if anything, it looks like Summer Erotica is full of a great appreciation for women. But, these sorts of things leave Nicole, not quite the looker herself, upset. What she wont say, but implies, is that Summer Erotica will be misogynistic because men will be looking at beautiful women. They aren’t looking at her. She should call it misoNICOLyny.

You see, there is very little that occurs in the world for a true believing gender feminist like Nicole Brodeur that does not involve misogyny. She dreams about it. She finds it in her morning coffee. She sees it in men admiring the shapely curves a half naked dancer. And, equaly in those men that are turned off by her own negative attitude. And, when she can’t find something misogynistic to be miserable about, she turns to ruminating about the injustice of made-up statistics, like the non-existent wage gap between men and women.

I've got a suggestion for you Nicole. Head out to Summer Errotica and just enjoy yourself. Maybe you’ll even find a guy there that even wants to look at you.

Global Warming Getting Less Credible

2006-07-14T14:46:00.000-07:00

Global Warming Silliness

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today that debunks the mutual admiration society and hysteria-based psuedo-science behind global warming evangalism.

They make two points. First, in the graphic above, they show that until recently scientists agreed on the historical temperature chart at top, which showed a warm period, a mini-ice age, and then the current warm period. But, this chart was a problem for global warming fanatics, so paleoclimatologist Michael Manna eliminated the warm and cold periods through a statistical averaging technique in a 1999 paper. He came up with the bottom chart. Obviously, the bottom chart is much more alarming and allows for the claim of a "hockey stick" rise in temperatures. But to believe in it, you have believe that there really was no mini-ice age in the middle ages, while there is significant documended evidence of this cold span from the people who lived in Europe at the time.

The problem is that Mann is not a statistician. Actual statisticians have looked at his analysis and found it deeply flawed. From the WSJ:

The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

So, basically, Mann is either stupid, or he choose a statistical method that allowed him to get the result he wanted - a scary hockey stick. Does this mean that global warming does not exist? No, it does not. It simply means that Mr. Mann provided absolutely no evidence that it does. This is the problem with this entire topic. There is no scientific proof, just a set of theories that have not been appropriately challenged through peer review. It's as if Chicken Little declared the sky was falling, and then just because the media picked up on his hysteria, everyone believes it. Those rational sorts questioning the status of the sky are left desperately trying to show reasons why it's not falling.

Then, of course, you have scientists declaring that "global warming" is causing a shifting in Atlantic ocean currents that will cause a mini-ice age in Europe, just like the one it experienced in the middle ages!

Researchers at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, England, found that the flow of warm ocean currents toward northwest Europe has declined by 30 percent since the 1950s.

But, wait, you say, the obvious problem here is that the global warming club declared that the mini-ice age in middle ages did not really occur. But, since we know it did, what caused it? Surely there wasn't human activity induced global warming at that time that shifted the ocean currents.

If it reminds you of some of the social sciences that end up with obviously untrue statements of fact, such as "1 in 3 women experience domestic violence," it should. It's all part of the same attitude towards science and especially statistics. For this crowd, the most important thing is to believe something, usually something scary. Then, to get the rest of us onboard or to get government funding, they mold numbers and statistical analysis to support their belief, as opposed to test it.

What regular references to Mann's analysis does prove is that you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. The global warming consensus is much like a fashion trend among high school students. Interestingly, the WSJ also points out that social networking experts looked at the group of global warming alarmist scientists and found them to be a strangely interconnected tribe. As the the WSJ editorial says, they appear to be a "mutual adminiration society." The social network also seems to have Mann at its center. This hardly works in science, where peer review is essential.

So, I'm still looking for evidence that I should be worried about global warming. The fact that Mayor Gregg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims say that global warming is real does not help me believe. In fact, quite the opposite. The special global warming departments they set up at our expense do nothing more than beat the drums of hysteria to get us all to follow their cause. Those two, plus Al Gore, and most of the rest of the hysterics on this cause leave me believing less and less in global warming. And, when the Seattle newspapers declare it to be so, I become convinced that it aint.

Thus far, global warming seems more like an assertion in which non-believers are forced to prove a negative. If I say, "Martians visited earth 2 billion years ago." And you say, "I don't believe that." Following the global wariming method, I simply respond with, "Prove they didn't." How ya gonna prove that?! This is the current state of discourse on global warming. It's a fun and profitable target for the media, a cause for politicians, and has been asserted so much that it has become conventional wisdom. So, if you don't believe it, you're stuck proving a negative.

Problem is, that doesn't make it true. Unless you believe me when I say Martians visited the earth 2 billion years ago. Which is something that I really actually believe. They came in the form of bright orange iguanas who seeded the earth with life and their own DNA. But, something went wrong in the process and humans popped out in charge 2 billion years later. Which is really too bad, because if Martian iguanas had succeeded as the master race, I highly doubt they'd be going hysterical over global warming right now. They'd wonder why it is so cold and then go find a warm rock in the sun to lay on.

The Status Quo in Old Mejico

2006-07-13T17:45:00.000-07:00

For those Americans that are really interested in the source of the illegal immigration problem from Mexico, Denise Dresser continues to provide the best insight into a country with dysfunctional political and economic systems. You can find Dresser's English articles in the LA Times. If you can read Spanish, her best articles are in Mexico City's Reforma newspaper.

Just prior to the disputed July 2 presidential election, Dresser had the following to say about the leftist contender Lopez Obrador. (The opinion column from June 26 seems to have disappeared from the LA Times web site).

Lopez Obrador’s popularity is a symptom of Mexico’s failed efforts to modernize through halfhearted, neoliberal reform over the past 20 years. Mexico followed the free-market path mapped out by the “Washington consensus.” But it did it badly, with botched privatizations that transferred public monopolies into private hands and with economic reforms that benefited a handful of businessmen but not enough consumers.

The result: an economy that doesn’t grow enough, a business elite that doesn’t compete enough, an economic model that concentrates wealth and doesn’t redistribute enough of it and 50 million Mexicans living on less than $4 a day. For too many, the continuity offered by the National Action Party’s Felipe Calderon would mean simply more of the same.

Since Dresser said this in her LA Times column, the July 2 election has come and gone. The PAN’s Felipe Calderon won the election by a narrow margin, which Obrador disputes. In fact, there were some irregularities in the vote count, but nothing so far that indicates fraud.

The ruling class of Mexico, which has aligned itself with Calderon now that he seems to have won the election, is resisting a recount. Dresser rightly says that the only way to put the potential civil unrest Obrador can stir up to bed is to go forward with the recount.

Mexico needs to review the votes in order to move beyond the paranoid style of its current politics — especially now that Lopez Obrador seems intent on destroying the country with the hope of governing it someday. Instead of keeping a cool head, he is butting it against everything he can: President Vicente Fox, the Federal Electoral Institute, the media, international observers and all those who believe that although irregularities might have occurred, massive fraud did not.

Once again he has resorted to the "all or nothing" approach that has become his trademark. He is confronting his opponents, encouraging conflict; he wants the presidency or else he vows to unleash civil unrest.

Paradoxically, the only way to rein him in would be precisely through the recount he has been pushing for.

This might help avert the civil unrest and protests that hotheaded Obrador is already pushing. Sadly, neither candidate is likely to reform Mexico’s economy. Obrador is a false prophet who would redistribute wealth, but through government programs as opposed to instituting competition in the economy and taking down the manifold protections that keep economic power in a small number of hands. His brand of “reform” would be backwards moving and leave the economy in even worse shape. If President Fox (also from the PAN) is any indication, Calderon will not take on the challenge of giving anti-trust law in Mexico some teeth. His only source of power after a disputed election will come from the ruling elite. He may yet surprise us, as his ascendancy within the PAN and then victory in the election were indeed surprises.

Either way, the tide of illegal immigrants is likely to continue. One might think that Obrador’s government programs would entice more to stay in Mexico, but those that leave are actually looking for opportunity and upward mobility, not government hand-outs.

The US is left where it was prior to the election. Mexico needs to be pushed in order to reform its economy. Businessmen like Carlos Slim, who own vast monopolies that constrain the economy, will not volunteer to give up the special protections the government and twisted Mexican law provide. But, nobody in Congress seems to be talking about this, when pressure from the US is about the only force that can (and has) push Mexican politicians to change. Our representatives are either bloviating about building a wall and deploying the military on the border, or they are far off on the left, talking about human rights as if they have any sort of relevance to illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Expect more of the status quo.

Mass Transit is Good?

2006-07-11T14:35:00.000-07:00

Wait, tell me again why Seattle wants a mass transit rail system?

Since they put a large number of people into one easily accessible location open to the public, these transit systems seem more and more like aggregators of people for the convenience of terrorists.

If Seattle really wanted to be innovative, it would stop fighting our love of cars, and think in terms of getting traffic on our roads and highways to move faster. The goal should be to reduce average trip time (the time it takes you to go from Point A to Point B in your car) by half, thus reducing car exhaust by half. That means fixing the capacity problems on I-5, especially through downtown. It also means more logical exit and entrance ramps into downtown Seattle from I-5.

On top of that, the city could give credits to employees working for businesses in the city that drive fuel efficient cars to work, instead of taxing businesses for having employees. (My God, how stupid is that?!)

These ideas don't fly in Seattle and King County because Mayor Nickels and KC Executive Ron Sims want to control more money, build bureaucracies, and make people dependent on them. They hate the idea of the freedom of movement and independence automobiles provide.

King County Thugs

2006-07-11T13:37:00.000-07:00

More police state inflicted violence in everything-is-oh-so-precious Seattle. Read it here in the Stranger.

This is another story that unveils the dark side of a city that pretends to be all about non-violence and every other politically correct thing under the sun, but is super-stressed about controlling every little aspect of your life they can get their hands on.

A member of Critical Mass, a group of cyclists that heads out in mass to take-over Seattle streets, was attacked by a plain-clothed police officer as the cyclist held up traffic at an intersection so the large group of cyclists could pass through without smacking into a car. Bad behavior on the cyclist’s part in terms of sharing the roads, but hardly unexpected given the whacky behavior official Seattle seems to encourage, particularly from anything smacking of “environment friendly.”

The whole incident got started when Jace Brien, 18, rounded a corner at the intersection of Western Avenue and Vine Street after biking up a long hill with several hundred other Critical Mass bikers. Seattle Critical Mass is a loosely organized ride across the city that takes place every month as a "share the road" demonstration by cyclists. They're usually a ragtag group of bike messengers, students, anarchists, and families riding to remind drivers, via peaceful civil disobedience, to respect bike riders' rights on the road. Friday's ride was the largest in months, with over 200 bicyclists filling the streets.

Riding up the hill on the approach to the intersection, however, the bikers got spread out. Roughly half of the cyclists had already passed through the intersection, blocking traffic as they rode through a red light. Critical Mass riders often encounter impatient motorists who try to drive through the demonstration and have a method called "corking" to keep drivers at bay as a herd of bikers rides through the light. So, Brien rode a little ahead of a clump of bikers and took up position in the Western and Vine intersection. He halted in the middle of the crosswalk, waving his arms at the cars and telling them to stop as bikers started whizzing through the intersection behind him.

The Critical Mass witnesses say:

"He looked like a Seahawks fan with a long, baggy shirt, baggy shorts, and sunglasses. A big beefy guy," says witness and Critical Mass rider Graylan Vincent who submitted a sworn testimony to Speikers. Brien, more on the string-bean side, claims he was afraid the guy was going to beat him up, so he immediately jumped on his bike and rode away. Another guy—equally bulky and baggy with a shaved head—got out of the van, chased after Brien and tackled him to the ground.

Vincent remembers the guy didn't say anything, there were no gestures or verbal warnings. "That was scary. The driver made a beeline toward [Brien] and grabbed him and threw him to the ground. He had this look in his eye like his blood was boiling." Several Critical Mass riders say they saw the man hitting Brien's head into the pavement and kneeing him in the back. A crowd of bikers formed, yelling at the beefy guy and snapping pictures with cell phones.

Treisman rode into the intersection and saw his friend on the ground with the "Seahawks fan" on top of him. Treisman dropped his bike and leapt onto the attacker, grabbing his neck in a chokehold.

The cops say:

Sheriff's department spokesman Rodney Chinnick says that contrary to the witness reports, the officers repeatedly identified themselves. First, the officers sounded an air horn and siren noise while the first pack of bikers rode through the intersection. When Brien arrived a few minutes later and blocked their van, the officers say they sounded the air horn and siren twice.

After Brien dropped his bike and "challenged" them, Chinnick says, an officer stepped out, held up a badge and said, "You're under arrest." Brien fled and the second officer jumped out of the car and flashed a badge before tackling him. The officers also say they heard someone in the crowd of bikers yell, "What's the charge?" so someone, they argue, knew they were police.

Someone knew? Big fucking deal! It was hardly obvious that these two were cops, even if you believe the King County Sheriff story. Check out the photos of these two in The Stranger.

So, you are supposed to assume that anyone that attacks you wearing gang-banger clothes and big flashy necklaces is a police officer? Look, even if two thug-looking guys like these two jump out their car and yell that they are police officers, and then attack you, it would be hard to assume they were really cops. How can any sane person not react in fear, run, or fight for their life? In fact, the rational thing to do, and certainly the natural and instinctive self-preservation response, would be to fight back or run if you can. And, if it’s your friend getting hammered on the ground by these thugs, the natural and honorable thing to do would be to try to help your friend. Go kick some ass, or at least try.

This is the sort of shit that happens in the twisted police state we have here in Seattle and King County. The police are forced by state and local laws to do too much. Their focus should be much narrower and on major crime, the sort of crime that breaks down society if left unchecked. As things are now, if you are even slightly aware of your surroundings, you know you need to live in a state of low-grade paranoia.

Law enforcement officers deserve our respect and society requires that we obey them when they are doing their job. First we have to know that they are officers and not thugs. In the heat of the moment, not many people are going to be analyzing the situation or seeking constructive communication when they think two thugs are after them.

Police should be clearly identifiable. If a police officer is going to chase down and slam a biker into the street right in front of a crowd, there should be no question in anybody’s mind that he is a police officer. He should be hopping out of a squad car with lights flashing, in full uniform, and have a big shiny badge sparkling in the sun.

Yes, there are some investigations that require police officers to be in plain clothes. But, when those officers are in plain clothes, they should be required to behave as regular citizens while passing through the city, except under extreme circumstances. When this bike group passed through the intersection, all the rest of us regular citizens would have to sit and wait, regardless of the fact the bikers were obnoxiously going through a red light and clogging up traffic. We can't just act on our rage that we are getting slowed down by a bunch of self-righteous bikers. The gang-banger disguised (or was it a disguise?) cops ought to do the same. Once the cyclists made their way through the intersection, those King County under-cover thugs could have gone about their business.

Imagine these two guys stomping into your home because your ex-wife is making false allegations against you as part of a divorce proceeding. No wonder you read about so many confused men caught in these situations fighting back. They’ve done nothing wrong, their life is in turmoil, and then the next thing they know they’ve got two of these King Count Sheriff thugs with guns knocking their door down. It's hardly surprising to periodically read in the papers about one of these men fighting back to protect their home and eventually getting shot and usually killed by an officer. If you keep your eye out for it, you'll see it happens more than a few times per year in Seattle. It's the dark secret that you wont hear officials from SPD and the Sheriff discuss.

I actually think the cops get too much grief from people. They have tough jobs and can’t be perfect. These two were acting like thugs, however, so I don’t pity them. But, I generally blame the over-reaching and over-reaction of police on the law-makers telling them what to do, not the law officers themselves.

King County and Seattle would be much better off if they stopped expecting police departments to enforce a politically correct vision of utopia and allowed them to focus on policing the basic things that are needed to keep a society from falling apart. And, while they are at it, chill out on the traffic enforcement. Go catch someone out their selling crack to teenagers instead. Until that happens, we’ll read about another case similar to this one before the year is out, probably a few more men shot to death in their homes by police who provoke them through over-response on supposed domestic violence calls, and more next year and beyond.

933 Is Not the Source of Controversy

2006-07-06T12:56:00.000-07:00

Property rights Initiate 933 is not controversial, as suggested by the Seattle Times. The overbearing regulation of government in Washington State, and especially King County with its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), are the source of controversy. 933 simply says that Washington State and King County governments have not and cannot overthrow the long-held regime of property rights we have enjoyed in this country.

Reticular Activator and Knee-Jerk Seattle

2006-06-29T14:21:00.000-07:00

For a politician, the trick to managing the Borg of Seattle is to train and then leverage the reticular activators of people.

The reticular activator is the part of your brain that starts noticing things once you are aware of them (whether it is real or not).

Looking to buy a Porsche? Hmmm… everyone seems to be driving Porsches.

Concerned about global warming? Hmmm... the weather sure seems warm lately.

Believe that women are often victims of domestic violence? Hmmm ... seems like there are a lot of stories in the news about women getting hurt by men.

This part of your brain is on the lookout 24/7--even when you're asleep--for things that fall into any of these three categories: 1) things that are familiar or connected to you in some way; 2) things that are unusual, abnormal, shocking or strange; and 3) things that are dangerous, threatening or problematic.

Whenever your brain detects things that are familiar, unusual or problematic, it sends a message to the conscious side of the brain and says, "Hey, wake up! There's something you need to pay attention to here." We call those familiar, unusual or problematic things "activators." Your brain acts like radar on a subconscious level, constantly looking for activators. It's searching for things that are familiar, unusual, or problematic--things that require a conscious response. Whenever it finds one, it snaps your brain out of alpha sleep and into beta alert.

This is the part of your mind that marketers leverage. Same with politicians and same with "advocates" hoping to get funding for their cause. Run enough advertisements, say something enough, or claim a crisis enough, and people start to see it or notice it through the noise of everyday life. Information or evidence that contradicts the message or belief planted in their heads is not noticed. It takes a conscious, deliberate, and often painful effort to see reality once that old reticular activator has been trained.

This is why it took Norm Maleng so long to arrest Verma Ogden-Whitehead. And, this is why people in Seattle buy so easily into "global warming" without having much evidence to support it.

Mayor Takes Action on Longer Days

2006-06-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

In a stunning revelation, Seattle’s Mayor Nickels announced that global warming is evidenced by the sun coming up earlier and setting later.

“Per my orders, Seattle City government’s Office of Sustainability and Environment has been tracking the time of sunrise and sunset. Ever since some time in January, the sun has been coming up earlier and it has been setting later. The increased sunlight is adding to global warming. This is a major crisis!”

The Mayor said that the cause of the longer days the area has been experiencing has not been determined, but he is pretty sure it has something to do with human activity. He dismissed claims by third grade students that longer days happen every summer. He blamed increased use of cars.

Nickels announced a four part plan to combat increased sunlight:

1) By executive order, shades will be installed on all windows in city office buildings and drawn down during regular business hours;
2) A “sunlight surcharge" of 40% will be assessed on all parking fees in the City;
3) In order to reduce enjoyment of sunny days, a moratorium on sunbathing city parks will be in affect until further notice;
4) He will request the City Council for special funds to study the cost and feasibility of putting all city streets in tunnels.

"We now see what we are reluctant to see"

2006-06-28T22:50:00.000-07:00

A quote in the Seattle Times from prosecutor Norm Maleng as he struggles with his reticular activator to "see" the reality of a woman murdering her husband for money:

"We now see what we are reluctant to see," Maleng said during a news conference Tuesday morning to announce the charges. "A man who was set up and murdered by his own family for financial reasons."

The "reluctant" comment by Maleng is gross understatement. It's as if he is trying to find an excuse for arresting and charging a female murderer. Government agencies, courts, police forces, and even the public have been indoctrinated not to see the abussive and violent behavoir of some women. Where are the DV divas and screem queens now? Why aren't there quotes in the newspaper from the Eastside Domestic Violence Shelter aristocracy about the danger all men live under? For that matter, where is the usual domestic violence hysteria column from Nicole Brodeur? She could write this one about the damage done in our state by women with hyphenated last names.

Even Maleng must have been pretty dang "reluctant," because it took him 15 months to press charges even though the 911 call that alerted police to the slaying came from Ogden-Whitehead's own cell phone while she was supposedly at home and in bed at the time of the brutal murder.

Velma got her son and one of his friends to do the dirty deed of murdering her husband. She did it for the money from life insurance and the sale of investments Jon had accumulated prior to his ill-fated marriage to Velma. She netted more than $1 million by selling Jon Ogden's assets and collecting on his life insurance; quite an increase from the lifestyle she had before getting maried.

So-called domestic violence experts concede that over 300 men are killed by the women in their lives each year, but they are also quick to point out that roughly 1,000 women per year are killed by husbands and boyfrieds. The Ogden-Whitehead murder case demonstrates why 300 is under-estimated. Women who kill their husbands and boyfrieds often get another man to do their dirty work. Those murders do not show up in the statistics of women killing men.

Notice that the column in the Seattle Times was quick to find anecdotal and hearsay evidence that, of course, Jon Ogden was abusing Ogden-Whitehead in some way, such as not allowing her to run up credit cards. These totally ubsubstantiated rumors (which never should have been reported by the Seattle Times, by the way) were based on Ogden-Whitehead's supposed statements to freinds. Yes, complaints by the same woman that was doing dramatic appearances with press coverage at the scene of HER crime, which the press was lapping up, asking the murderer (which was actually HER) to turn himself in. How much credibility does she have?

So, it's time to ask all of the politicians who have used domestic violence hysteria for political gain: What of Ogden-Whitehead?

Check out Unity '08

2006-06-28T14:04:00.000-07:00

alt="Declare Your Independence - Unity08.com" width="125" height="125" />

Time for a third party, or at least a viable way of telling Democrats and Republicans that we are tired of their extreme ideologies and the impact it has on our lives and our basic freedoms.

The two parties have duopoly power over politics in this country. This bi-modal arrangement naturally causes the 2 parties to go out the far left and right extremes. That leaves the majority of Americans unrepresented in politics. Worse, when they do agree on something, such as VAWA, it usually screws average Americans.

Check out Unity 08. While the name is corny and sounds like just more political PR crap, Unity 08 has an interesting mission. Joining Unity 08 is a way to make yourself heard and perhaps help affect change. Click on Unity 08 button above and check them out!

Misandrist Medicine

2006-06-26T10:30:00.000-07:00

Confessions of misandrist medicine in the New York Times, postured to further the social reconstructionist cause by protraying men as weak as opposed to simply just not the same as women. Even while admitting the harm done, a medical researcher cannot resist taking a slap at her mis-placed idea of male ego by titling her piece "The Weaker Sex":

In 2004, the National Institutes of Health spent twice as much on studies done only on women as only on men.

(If you are not already registered for the New York Times, you will need to register to access this article. Doesn't take long.)

Whitehead Murdered by Wife Whitehead-Ogden

2006-06-26T10:19:00.000-07:00

"He loved his wife. He was always talking about Velma," Delaney said. "It's unbelievable."

Believe it.

Just ask Katherine Knight of Australia, who sliced and diced her husband, Mr. Price, into little bitty pieces, hung his skin to dry, had his head boiling in a pot, and was about to serve up his roasted buttocks together with vegetables to his children, when police stopped the macabre scene complete with name cards on the dinner table for each of Mr. Price's kids.

Katherine Knight, likes to wear feminine Laura Ashley clothes and is known in jail for her demure behaviour. She is appealing her life sentence on the grounds that, well, she is a woman.

Where is Maria Cantwell?

2006-06-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

As the US Senate debates a bill that would allow last mile broadband access providers (such as Qwest and Comcast in the Seattle area) to charge content providers for “preferential treatment,” the Seattle times quotes Art Brodksy, communications director of Public Knowledge, asking a striking question:

"Where is Maria Cantwell?"

This horrible bill, with the falsely innocuous name of Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 and sponsored by Washington’s nemesis from Alaska, Republican Senator Ted Stevens, would ruin the Internet as we know it. It would be horrible for Seattle area power-houses, such as Microsoft and Amazon. Worse, it would require web start-ups, an important entrepreneurial economic driver in the Seattle area, to work their way through a confusing maze of broadband access providers and pay them scarce resources just so their web site will be accessible to end-users.

Even blogs like Sound Politics should be mightily pissed off at the idea of this horrible bill. If this bill is passed in its current form, Sound Politics would need to make extortion payments to the likes of Qwest and Comcast if they want their blog to load faster than dial-up speed over the broadband connections of its readers.

So, where is Maria Cantwell when something so devastating to Washington State and especially the Seattle area is about to happen in the US Senate? Isn’t she supposed to be in there fighting for us?

Well, she’s too busy trying to get attention on things that do nothing for employment, business, transportation, or any of the other bottom-line issues that affect us.

Cantwell wants the rest of the country to raise its minimum wage to Washington State’s levels. As if that helps Washington.

Cantwell wants to raise the national average gas mileage of cars. A lot of good that's gonna do for Washington.

Cantwell is busy saving the oceans.

She's saving the whales.

Cantwell worries about oil drilling in the Arctic refuge. But, then, of course, complains about high gas prices.

Cantwell claims to be Seattle's technology representative in Congress. But, no mention by Cantwell of a Senate bill that is poised to demolish a primary economic driver of the region of the state from which she gains her primary political support. I would say that the list of political distractions above reminds one of the old saying about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, except that Cantwell's political weight is more like a dingy than large ship. So, let’s just say she is busy whale watching from her dingy while the Titanic is about to steam over not just her and her dingy, but a large portion of her constituents.

Mike McGavick should be all over this. Cantwell has been loosing credibility with Washington voters with every non-issue she invests in, and now she is in a statistical tie with McGavick. Standing up for the technology and internet interests of Washington State could put McGavick solidly in the lead.

"People Helping People"?

2006-06-21T15:51:00.000-07:00

A column in the Seattle Times about Karla Nelson’s struggle to get help from DSHS to deal with the severe psychiatric problems of her 13 year old son highlights yet again the confused and corrupted mission of DSHS.

Nelson got her son into inpatient treatment several years ago, after he spent about nine months on a waiting list. He spent about a year in the facility before being released. Last summer, his [Nelson’s son] illness grew so severe and his outbursts were escalating — in addition to the speaker wire [which he ate], he had eaten coins and erasers, and he had tried to strangle and hang himself — that she began trying to get him admitted again. In addition, he weighed more than his mother, so there was no way she could stop him.

In October, he went after Nelson, scratching and pinching her. Although the assault was minor, it was enough to get him arrested.

After the boy was released, and Nelson pleaded with a judge not to send him home, the judge ordered DSHS to take custody of him and provide treatment. But, DSHS fought the judge’s decision, saying that DSHS only provides care for "abused or neglected" children. An appeals court agreed with DSHS.

Isn't it funny that DSHS uses the slogan "People Helping People" on its web site?

If only DSHS and Washington State courts were as diligent about returning children to fathers who want them, especially after a mother has been proven unfit, as they were in Nelson’s case. Washington State family courts are notorious for removing fathers from the lives of children based on flimsy allegations used as a tactic in divorce proceedings.

DSHS and similar state agencies across the country are not even inclined to return children to their father even when the mother has been proven unfit to parent. Too often, these agencies prefer to keep children in the foster care system in order to continue collecting child support from the real father. In his most recent newsletter, Glenn Sacks highlighted a case in Massachusetts:

After the Boston Globe published Giving fathers a chance (6/8/06) I received an interesting letter from a father who said he is "living the nightmare described in the column."

I can't give out many details, but basically he got divorced, mom got custody of his daughter, the mother was abusive and the state (properly) took the girl away from the mother. After that, however, the state has refused to let this man's daughter come home to him. The girl adores her dad and there's been no finding of unfitness against the dad. However, the girl's caseworker keeps coming up with vague reasons why it's somehow not in the best interests of this child to be reunited with her father. These include gems like "she isn't ready for overnight visits yet." And dad has fought a long, hard battle to convince the state that's it's in his daughter's best interests to come live with him. Meanwhile his little girl's childhood is slipping away.

The story is incredibly infuriating. As I listened to the father refute the various reasons the caseworker threw up to prevent his daughter from coming home, I kept thinking who cares what this social worker thinks? Unless there's been a finding of unfitness, this girl belongs with her father.

It's amazing the way these petty demi-gods in social services think they have the right to dictate terms to fit parents as to what's best for their kids. The fate of this girl and her father is in the hands of an inexperienced, 20-something crusader to whom the system gives way too much power. What an outrage.

CPS, a division of DSHS, often provides admirable help for children in horrible circumstances. But, a more important and profitable objective of DSHS is to earn federal matching funds for the collection of child support. In fact, this appears to be their primary mission. This mission is ideologically charged instead of inspired by the welfare of children.

To give you an idea of their mission, DSHS and the feminist ideologists that run it are also active in campaigning against new shared parenting legislation in Washington State. Shared parenting legislation, sponsored by Senator Jim Kastama, simply requires a presumption by family courts of joint custody of children. The wording of the bill is innocuous and in reading it, one has a hard time believing shared parenting is not already a presumption in family courts.

From the digest of SB 5350 on the Washington State legislature’s web site:

Declares that there shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the beset interests of minor children unless: (1) The parents have agreed to an award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent; or (2) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children.

So, why would anyone, especially a state agency like DSHS and a state Senator like Kohler-Wells, who boldly assert that they are protectors of children, have a problem with Kastama’s bill? They prefer the current hidden standard, which for all intents and purposes assumes that a father is unfit to parent.

Here-in lays the confused mission of DSHS. The anti-father ideology, egged on by people like Kohler-Wells and the current Secretary of DSHS, Robin Arnold-Williams, is a large part of the problem. But, DSHS also advocates against shared parenting because it threatens the flow of federal money. They fear that shared parenting plans would result in a reduction in court mandated child support payments, which would in turn reduce the federal take by DSHS.

As we can see in the successful fight that DSHS put up against helping an obviously mentally ill child and his mother, DSHS is clear on the nature of its ideologically and financially inspired mission. It’s time everyone else in Washington State connected the dots and realized the true nature of that corrupted mission.

Gregoire's Plan to Raise Property Taxes

2006-06-20T16:42:00.000-07:00

Gregoire declared that she will work with the Legislature to provide “some sort” of tax relief if the all-too-predictable anti-taxpayer ruling of a King County judge nullifying I-747 is allowed to stand on appeal.

Tax relief is more than overdue for Washington State taxpayers, even with I-747 intact. Washington State residents suffer from the fourth highest per capita tax burden of all the 50 states.

But, here is the catch, according to the Seattle Times:

Gregoire, a Democrat, said Monday that if the appeal falls short, she would work with the Legislature to come up with some type of tax relief, especially for elderly and low-income homeowners.

In other words, the Democrat gangsters that run the state (and steal elections), will pick and choose who pays reasonable taxes vs. those that pay among the highest taxes in the nation. The goal is to protect their voter base, not the tax base. Middle class taxpayers, as always in Washington State, will get screwed if Gregoire and her ganstar pals in the Legislature are allowed to decide.

In reality, Gregoire is attempting to steal the thunder of Rob McKenna, who is in charge of appealing the wacky “ruling” of Judge King County Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts. If McKenna fails, the D-gangsta plan is to fight the inevitable initiative by Tim Eyman by pealing off voting segments with special tax relief.

Of course, none of this much matters if North Korea hits Washington State with a nuclear tipped missile. Not to worry, though, since Gregoire has a plan for that too: Cut and run from Iraq in order to show the North Korean dictator that we really mean business.

Celebrating Diversity?

2006-06-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

Larry King and CNN celebrate pedophilia tonight with Mary K. Letourneau and her husband-victim Vili Fualaau.

In other news, Vili is sentenced for drunk driving.

Old Rule Never Fails: Follow the Money

2006-06-15T16:30:00.000-07:00

As a follow up to the bogus so-called "study" by Group Health that only surveyed women, and then found rampant domestic abuse against them, check out this article in the Washington Times about an actual scientific study.

.... the study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, may also reopen a long-festering ideological argument about whether men or women are the most violent in the home.

The study found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a knife or gun.

However, men were more likely than women to commit "severe" acts of violence, such as beating, choking, burning, forcing sex or actually using a knife or gun on their partners.

When minor and major acts of violence were tallied, female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence and 7.5 percent of severe violence. Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.

The study, which is based on an interviews with 1,615 married or cohabiting couples and extrapolated nationally using census data, found that 21 percent of couples reported domestic violence.

When woman's shelter director Sandra Horley was asked why nobody in the domestic violence industry wants to talk about these findings, she responded, “If we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding."

A rare moment of honesty.

Perhaps it's time politicians listened to someone like the Dean of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania instead of scream-queen victimhood ideologs:

Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, said male-to-female violence is far more common at the most severe levels of violence, he said. Intimate-partner homicide data, for instance, show that in 2004, there were 1,200 females killed by their male partners, compared with 388 males killed by their female partner.

But domestic violence is not a "gender crime" against women, he said.

"The science is just overwhelming" that, in most kinds of violence, female-to-male rates of violence are equal to or exceed male-to-female violence, Mr. Gelles said.

Instead, he categorizes it as a "family violence" crime, in which both men and women can be culpable, he said. "I am hoping to see people stand up and say, 'Enough of the ideology. Enough of the advocacy.' "

Or, perhaps they will listen to another trained scientist from Canada, Don Dutton, Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia:

Indeed, it is fair to say that no other area of established social welfare, criminal justice or public health depends on such weak and biased evidence in support of mandated practice as does IPV. The model of "treatment" for IPV [intimate partner violence] that flows from this false understanding is not the kind of therapy that could benefit both male and female perpetrators. Instead, our system prefers "intervention" -- against men, never women --and a "psychoeducational" model of behaviour modification that essentially amounts to inculcating the radical feminist political viewpoint.

Where does the gender bias come from? Ideology. Radical feminism insists that men -- all men -- by their nature pursue power and control for its own sake. As a result, we become complicit in the myths of gender politics. So when a crazed individual male with a bizarre personal back story shoots women, we hold candlelight vigils. But when a vengeful woman cuts off a man's penis, he becomes fodder for standup comedians, while she is hailed as a symbol of female empowerment.

More from Wendy McElroy here.

At Least Find Something Real to Complain About

2006-06-15T12:02:00.000-07:00

The crap that gets into newspapers never ceases to astound. One would think that there would be a basic screening of opinion articles from paid columnists for accuracy. There apparently is not.

E.J. Dionne is in the Seattle Times saying:

The decline of good auto-industry jobs is a particularly dramatic example of a larger problem. In the June 10 issue of National Journal, staff correspondent Bruce Stokes argues that "the global economy's job machine may be breaking down, again."

Citing data from the Economic Policy Institute, Stokes notes that employment growth in the current recovery is much slower than in earlier upturns — "the slowest in any recovery since the Kennedy administration," he writes.

Not much evidence of an understanding of basic economics or the power of innovation on display here.

First, the American auto industry is dying not because of macroeconomic policy, but because foriegn auto-makers simply make better cars and innovate faster. Period. Detriot is hampered by the double whammy of bad management that is exacerbated by labor contracts that limit flexibility to respond to the market or to innovate.

There is a third factor as well. What the American auto industry needs is to open up to what Clayton M. Christensen of the Harvard Business School calls "The Innovator's Dilemma." The heart of what Christensen discovered is a continuing cycle of technological innovations taken from one industry and applied in another. These innovations are initially less than perfect but less expensive than traditional technology used in an industry. They improve, however, and eventually (sometimes quickly) overtake the traditional technology driving an industry. The old firms die as new firms apply these technologies and take over markets.

From some reason, politicians and misguided labor unions believe that GM and Ford should never die. They trade away future innovations in the American auto industry so that they can buy a few more years for these companies. (Note: the auto industry is not the same thing as companies in the auto industry). Much of this is done through regulations, under the rubric of "safety," that are tailored so that only the old-line auto makers can meet them.

Countries such as Japan do much of their innovation within existing companies. That's just the way things work there. In America, our best innovation comes from entreprenuerial activity. That's just the way things work here.

For the sake of the American automobile industry (e.g., not the current auto companies), GM should be allowed to die. Perhaps Ford too. The vacated space will be filled with innovators producing cars powered in innovative ways and nobody can predict where these innovators will come from. But, some will come from American soil as long as artificial barriers are not constructed and maintained. And, they will drive employment.

So, the remorse expressed by Dionne is actually just an example of ignorance. Further ignorance is shown by suggesting that employment growth in the current recovery is slow. The fact is, we endured the last recession with unusually low unemployment. All previous recessions have seen much larger spikes in unemployment. When employment hardly declined in the first place, and we start a recovery with relatively high levels of employment, it's ridiculous to complain about slow employment growth.

It just comes across as whinning. Yet another false problem from the professional whinners, naysayers, and defeatests that seem to be the only voices of the Democratic Party. It's a shame that the only other viable option is to vote for Republicans.

Go to Botswana, Stay

2006-06-15T04:50:00.000-07:00

Kathleen Paynter of the Seattle Times appears to be going on a safari to Botswana. She has self-righteously left a list of to-dos for Seattle. Not many people read Paynter’s emotionally baiting and loose-with-the-facts columns these days. But, this one is worth it, if only as a concise summary of the key social re-constructionist themes coming out of Seattle chattering class. These are all things worth working on, almost a rallying cry, except when Paynter says “go left” on these issues, most of us are better served by turning hard to the right.

Here is a sampling.

Paynter wants us to stop supporting Tim Eyman. His efforts to cut taxes get in the way of the insatiable appetite of politicians. One of Eyman’s best initiatives limited property tax increases to 1% per year. This one got shot down this week by an activist King County judge under false pretenses. They’ll do anything to knock down obstacles to grabbing more of your hard earned money, it seems.

With a mayor like Greg Nickels, who states that he likes every tax and spend proposal on this year’s ballot, we can expect massive property tax increases pushed through as quickly as possible. Eyman is the energizer bunny of initiatives, however, so he’ll be back with a new one protecting middle-class families from further property tax rape. Task number one is to support him.

Regarding the Viaduct, Paynter wants us to pretend that Seattle politicians have the credibility, even the sanity, to make sound decisions. And, then let them act on those decisions. On the Viaduct, however, I say “do nothing” is the best option. Credibility and sanity are in short supply in Seattle politics these days. Let’s leave the problem for another generation. Hopefully, they will vote more sensible and responsible people into government. In the meantime, if you are afraid the Viaduct will fall during an earthquake, don’t drive on or below it. It's that simple.

If you live outside Seattle, you should love the do nothing option. Really, there’s not much reason to go into Seattle these days anyway. You are only extremely unlucky if your job is in Seattle, since most businesses realize that offices in Seattle are more trouble and expense and inconvenience than they are worth. Nickels per-employee tax on employers aint gonna help. Meanwhile, the atmosphere is turning toward the geriatric, with the only housing going up in the form of condos designed and over-priced for retired baby boomers.

Paynter doesn’t want you to support changing the Constitution while she risks her broad backside becoming crocodile bait. She prefers changing the Constitution – such as eliminating equal protection and due process – without actually telling anyone or bringing it to a vote. This is what has happened with all of the punitive anti-male and anti-father laws spearheaded by Hillary Rodham while she was bitch-slapping Bill around the Whitehouse, and supported by gender feminists such as Sen. Patty Murray.

I agree, let’s not open the Constitution to the whims of today’s pitiful political class. Instead, let’s enforce what we already have. The writers of the Constitution were a miracle and a better Constitution will never be had. VAWA III would go, as would rape shield laws, and Sims' CAO would be tossed, along with government sponsored bigotry, like SPS's Office of Racism and Equity.

Finally, let’s NOT emulate Canada’s absurd attempts to pretend that it’s somehow surprising that all of the members of a recently uncovered terrorist plot were Muslim. Let's go after these fascists, blow them up at every opportunity, and be open about their hateful, violent, and radical interpretation Islam. Doing otherwise is just fooling ourselves.

Oh, and lastly, let’s remember not to read Paynter’s silly column upon her return. She will pretend to have gained earth moving insight from Botswana. She’ll miss the important stuff about dysfunctional and perpetually aid dependent Africa.

Seattle Journalist Turns to Blogs for Ideas

2006-06-13T23:54:00.000-07:00

Is Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times stealing the ideas of Silly Seattle?

Looks that way when comparing Westneat's recent column to one on this blog. I was the first to compare the case of Watada refusing orders based on his conscience to pharmacists refusing to fill perspriptions for the morning after pill.

Oh well, that's OK Danny. You can steal my ideas from time to time, since I know there is not much original thinking over at the Times.

DSHS Systematically Inclined to Make Bad Choices

2006-06-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Jim Miller of Sound Politics questions why CPS would place children in the home of a foster parent with a criminal history. It seems pretty obvious that CPS failed and it is hard to believe, given the history of the foster parent discussed. Look at the DSHS system that CPS exists within (DSHS is the disfunctional "parent" of CPS), and you start to see some answers.

DSHS is primarily focused on getting federal matching funds for collecting child support. DSHS actually has a financial incentive to see divorces, broken families, and children living in homes without biological fathers. Without divorce and subsequent child support, DSHS would not receive millions of dollars of federal matching funds, which is basically just profit and helps pay the paychecks of the bureaucracy.

It's very easy for them to justify this as being all about the kids. But, look at the ideology driving people such as the head of DSHS, who has a hyphonated last name, and you start to see that the larger policy objective is social re-constructionism. It has little to do with helping children. Evident is an underlying ambigious attitude, bordering on outright hostility, about the benefit of fathers in the lives of their children.

When an agency makes the removal of biological fathers from the lives of their children a policy objective and only sees those fathers as paychecks (for the mother and for the DSHS bureaucracy), it leads to a confused mission.

Check out this article by Glen Sacks, that just came out today. Around the entire country, these agencies are so ideologically confused and anti-father that they seek to place kids with biological fathers in only 8% of cases when they are removed from their mother's home for neglect or abuse. Yes, some of these fathers are as screwed up as the mothers. But, a lot of them are not - a lot more than 8% are not. Amazingly, for DSHS and many other similar agencies in states across the country, placement with the father of a child removed from the mother's home is not even considered as a first option.

Now, who wants to argue with this statement: Since DSHS receives profit from federal matching funds for every dollar of child support they receive, they have an incentive to place children with foster parents (like the scum-bag Miller is talking about) instead of with their real fathers. After all, placement with the real father would result in child support payments ending, and a reduction in child support payments results in a reduction in federal matching funds. In other words, it's more profitable for DSHS to place kids with foster parents than with biological fathers.

My guess is that most people working in CPS are dedicated and trying their best. Some are bad, of course. But, they operate within an anti-father organization and climate. They are systematically inclined to make bad choices as a result.

Watada, Pharmacists, and Civilian Rule over the Military

2006-06-08T00:14:00.000-07:00

Lt. Ehren Watada says he will not go to Iraq because in his own assessment the war is illegal. In his view, it just wouldn’t be right to follow orders.

Curiously, many of those that support Watada also believe that Washington State pharmacists should be forced to fill prescriptions for the “morning after pill” even if they morally object.

Predictably, Governor Gregoire came out against the state’s Pharmacy Board ruling allowing pharmacists to deny filling morning-after pill prescriptions. She pledged to “help them get the right answer.”

Watada, it seems, is using the same sort of argument as pharmacists for refusing to fulfill the duty he signed up for. Will Gregoire also pledge to help Watada get to the “right answer”?

Probably not. But, hopefully, people less ideologically constrained will be able to see Watada’s decision to disobey orders in a larger context. He, of course, signed an oath when he joined the Army which includes obeying the commands of a civilian leader, the President of the United States, without question or hesitation.

Now, some small minded people with limited perspective on the world argue that Watada should be able to simply walk away from his responsibilities to the military. They seem to be saying that he can disobey his commander in chief whenever he disagrees with him.

But, let’s look at the flip side of this and we will be able see why it is so important that Watada be held accountable for breaking his contract and oath with the US military.

The United States military was one of the first to be completely under civilian command. This arrangement is all too rare. In many other countries, the military uses its might to actually take over and run the country. The military and a country’s government are often the same thing.

Inviting Watada and other army officers to disobey their civilian leaders when they reject to a war invites them to disobey when they object to civilian leadership on any matter. It would mean that civilian leadership no longer commands the military. In fact, it would invite the military to disregard its civilian command altogether and simply take over the government.

These seemingly small matters usually have much larger and potentially much more frightening consequences. As much as anti-war activists hate the war in Iraq, and generally have a disdain for the military, how would they feel about our democracy being usurped and the US military taking over command of the country? The simple doctrine that puts our military under the clear and unambiguous absolute command of our civilian leadership is the only thing standing between our democracy and marshal law. As evidenced in countries around the world and throughout history, civilian command over the military is a precarious and fragile arrangement indeed.

It’s rare for our media to point out the larger implications of an act by someone like Watada. They focus on the emotional aspect of his defiance and make him out to be a brave hero for taking a stand. Someone should take this to its logical conclusion, because civilian rule over the military really is at stake.

For this reason, for the sake of our democracy, Watada must be punished with the full weight of military law. Doing so would not be about protecting the military from disobedience, or protecting the government's Iraq policy, but about protecting all of us from a military that could one day answer only to itself.

This is something our state should understand, because Gregoire will surely do the same to pharmacists.

Can Mayor Nickels Save Energy By Self-Propelling?

2006-06-07T23:17:00.000-07:00

Many of my readers may think I was just joking when suggesting Mayor Nickels should run his car on his own prodigious methane output. Not so. Read this from the Bellingham Herald.

Students at Western Washington University's Vehicle Research Institute have always been on the cutting edge - making solar cars, new engines that run better and hybrids using different fuels.

Their latest innovation, if it can be duplicated in the real world, may be among the best ever.

The students, led by the institute's director, are developing a scrubber that could remove corrosive chemicals from the gases released by cow manure. If it works, the remaining gas could be used to fuel automobiles.

That's right: Some day you may be able to drive your car on gas created from cow [or mayoral] manure.

…..

The students are taking the "scrubbed" gas they are creating and pumping it into a car they have made that runs on natural gas. Students say waste produced by 15 cows in one day is enough to power their car for 250 to 300 miles.

Nickels has shoveled so much of his own crap lately that using the technology of Western Washington University students he surely can self-propel hundreds of miles per day. His new hybrid vehicle should be replaced with a simple internal combustion engine equipped to run on natural gas.

Will Ideology Trump Science?

2006-06-06T10:44:00.000-07:00

Scientific researchers (e.g., not campus activists wearing ideological blinders) from Harvard and the University of Chicago have found that 5% of humans have what researchers call "intermittent explosive disorder" (IED). People with IED are susceptible to uncontrollable anger attacks.

But new brain-imaging studies show that people with IED have abnormal brain signaling in areas that control anger responses, Coccaro said. When people with rage disorder are shown pictures of people with angry faces, their amygdala lights up far more than is seen in healthy subjects. The amygdala, deep in the center of the brain, governs emotional responses to threats.

At the same time, the front portion of their brain, which serves as an executive control over emotional urges, is less active than in normal people, Coccaro said, indicating that people with IED quickly lose control.

"People with this problem have a low threshold for exploding and that's probably genetically and biologically mediated," he said.

IED and a few other likely candidate personality disorders, usually combined with drugs and/or alcohol, are likely the cause of most domestic violence, not "patriarchal control and oppression." Domestic violence is much less prevalent than the old "1 in 3" myth propagated by graduates of Women Studies departments around the country and females are not the only victims.

While the onset of IED seems to start younger for boys than girls (13 vs. 19), there is no indication that one sex is more prone to have this problem than another. For both sexes, IED seems to fade with age.

Scientific evidence that debunks DV mythology continues to pile up. That doesn't matter much to Rebecca Cohn of the California General Assembly, who is pushing AB 2051 to ensure that ony women receive victim services for domestic violence. That goes against the language of VAWA III, which specifically states that VAWA funding must be neutral of sex.

When ideology trumps science as it does with gender feminist pork, one has to wonder what really drives global warming hysteria.

Shut Up Honky!

2006-06-02T15:37:00.000-07:00

Note from Caprice Hollins replacing the definition of racism she originally posted to the Seattle Public School system's web site:

In response to the numerous concerns voiced regarding definitions posted on the Equity & Race website, we have decided to revise our website in a way that will hopefully provide more context to readers around the work that Seattle Public Schools is doing to address institutional racism. The intended purpose of our work in the area of race and social justice is to bring communities together through open dialogue and honest reflection around what is meant by racism and the impact is has on our society and more specifically, our students. Our intention is not to put up additional barriers or develop an “us against them” mindset, nor is it to continue to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality. It is our hope that we can explore the work of leading scholars in the areas of race and social justice issues to help us understand the dynamics and realities of how racism permeate throughout our society and use their knowledge to help us create meaningful change. This difficult work is vital to the success of our students and families. Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Warm regards,

Caprice D. Hollins, Psy.D.
Director of Equity & Race Relations
Seattle Public Schools

Mossback Digs Beneath Moss To Expose Hollins

2006-06-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Knute Berger, a.k.a. Mossback of the Seattle Weekly, calls bullshit on the Seattle Public School System’s definition of racism. Old Knute is to be commended for digging deep into the ideological oppression, distraction, and utter nonsense hidden behind the fancy language of SPS’s Office of Race Relations and Equity.

A topic that started in the blog-o-sphere, finally made its way to printed media, albeit not touched by Seattle’s two large newspapers. Better late than never, Knute. (The Seattle PI was late to the story; The Seattle Times is still mum). And the positive result has been astounding. Caprice Hollins, Director of said office, has removed her bizarre definition of so-called “racism” from the SPS web site! She includes a note in its place, in large bold print, hoping to explain herself and her agenda, while doing a little sniping at her critics (more on that later).

Back to Mossback, who indeed found and thoroughly examined the source of Hollins’ ideology: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook, edited by Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin.

These definitions are presented by the district but not authored by them. The source is Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook, edited by Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin, and published by Routledge in 1997. It's described as the "first reader to cover the scope of oppression in America." It's an instructional text for teaching classes designed to stamp out all the "isms," from racism to sexism, from heterosexism to classism and ablism. All isms are equal, equally real and equally bad.

Now if you thought this was some neutral manual aimed at making room for a diversity of thought and opinion, you'd be wrong. Teaching Diversity is no measured academic study. It's the kind of re-education manual Chairman Mao would have loved. It doesn't only address the challenges of living in a pluralistic society, it promotes "a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable." It regards individualism as a "luxury" of white people. It calls for collectivism and political action. "We believe that eradicating oppression ultimately requires struggle against all its forms."

Underlying Hollins’ borrowed and bizarre definitions of racism is a simple fact of present day American culture. When we find life to be a struggle, we look around for someone to blame. Charges of racism in a bureaucracy as self-censured and “sensitive” as SPS are just a distraction from the reality that SPS as an institution is a miserable failure and a massive overhaul is needed. And, perhaps more importantly, it is a distraction from the failure of parents.

Struggles, set-backs, and obstacles are not the same thing as racism. Hollins and SPS are encouraging students, parents, and the community at large to blame life’s challenges on the abstract notion of the supposedly subtle oppression of subconscious “racism.” By all means, anyone in SPS, students included, who suggests that one race is superior, or another is not capable, should be punished and told to shut the fuck up or get out. The problem with Hollins is that she wants to do the exact opposite. She wants to apply stereotypes, under the rubric of “celebrating diversity.” And, all the while, blame poor scholastic performance on silly paranoid notions of white people conspiring through a parallel universe to get into the minds of everyone else and trick them into failure.

In trying to explain herself on the web site in place of her definition of racism, Hollins claims to just want to create a dialog. Yet, as Knute Berger points out:

The book [Teaching Diversity] details how to conduct diversity courses and encourages discussion and confession, but it also voices suspicion of real debate. "Hegemony," we are reminded, "is also maintained through 'discourse.'" So much so, apparently, that real discourse is tossed out the window. Teaching Diversity isn't really about encouraging the exploration of ideas and identities. Its purpose is to steer everyone to a single answer: an America that Noam Chomsky could love.

I suspect that behind the hiring of Caprice Hollins and her insidiously hateful agenda is the same problem that underlies the poor performance of so many students enrolled in SPS - somebody didn’t do their homework. The hiring of Caprice Hollins reflects a typical reflex of the Seattle political class. Create bureaucracies and populate them with people that toss about politically correct lingo from as far left of mainstream as possible. The problem with that is that you sometimes get what you ask for. Caprice Hollins is the real - Women Studies indoctrinated - deal.

SPS will not improve in its very simple agenda – to educate young people – until it stops blaming phantoms for its problems and simply admits, “we suck.” Parents might improve some too if the SPS sponsors of mediocrity and failure were not giving them excuses. Learning is a function of applied effort and hope for the future, despite the obstacles and difficulties of life. And, no matter what you do, it will be harder for some than others; because of circumstance, because of the innate abilities of the individual, because of environment. A black student can no more blame a white kid from across town for his struggles in school (if he is struggling - there are plenty of exceptional black students) than that same white kid can blame blacks for his lack of success in basketball (well, ok, if the kid is white, chances are he struggles on a basketball court). At least not if either really wants to improve their performance.

A future time orientation and belief in yourself and desire to improve yourself as an “individual” are indispensable. Nobody is going to get very far blaming the intangible “-isms.” The sooner all involved in SPS own up to this fact, from Mayor Nickels down to the parents of a child in kindergarten, the better.

That’s a lot to hope for, in know. But, in the meantime, there is a more immediate task. Caprice Hollins is plenty smart, but she is in the wrong job. The misguided definition she borrowed from a Women's Studies textbook may be off the SPS website (gone, but not forgotten by Google), but we now know of her real agenda and ideology. It has no place in a taxpayer supported public school system. SPS should find a graceful way to show her the door.

Oppression for a Cause

2006-05-30T23:57:00.000-07:00

This is what happens when a county (or city) permitting department is taken over by overzealous environmentalists. King County has been run so long by the same group of political gangsters that permitting has gone from bad to about the worst it can get.

When you go in for building permits from King County, you are not working with people that have any sense of customer service and certainly no accountability. You are trapped in their Byzantine system and forced to acquire from their monopoly a necessary input prior to constructing your home. The staffers in these offices are not interested in economic development and especially not interested in helping families. Their reviews of you permitting applications are based almost exclusively on the supposed “environmental impact” of your planned construction. Safety, sound planning, and all the rest have little to do with it now.

Environmental issues, within reason, should be considered as part of the permitting process. Nobody wants to see a river rerouted or every tree in sight ripped down. Nor do we want to see poisons dumped into salmon spawning areas or a complete disregard for water run-off and erosion. But, the county’s environmental concerns have gone way beyond that. These days, staffers go bird watching on a property and charge an hourly rate to do so that is well over $100.

It shows an increasing degree of government based on animosity towards citizens. Not just a disregard for property rights, but the fundamental objection to the entire concept of property rights. As with most things in King County and Seattle, politicians and bureaucrats seem to actually believe that your money is not really yours, and that they can and should use their positions of power and as gatekeepers to siphon as much wealth from you as possible. They are not likely to give you a permit, but will charge thousands of dollars in the process, and later happily tax you for the propert that you cannot use when permits are denied.

“Progressivism,” as it is expressed in the Northwest, has very little connection to it’s past. It has lost any interest in actually helping people, except those that can be made completely dependent on government. The rest, workers and people in the middle class, are viewed with disdain, seen as the source of “the problem,” an unlimited source of extorted funds, and a large group in need of behavior modification.

Some balance is desperately needed. But, the Seattle Borg continues to vote for their oppressors. The Borg remind me of convicts who have lived so long in prison that they describe themselves as fully “institutionalized” and actually seek to avoid their release. Freedom and responsibility scares them.

Even still, I have to believe that something will eventually break the back of the Borg. I don’t know what it will be. Perhaps the multiple new tax proposals for projects such as Sims’ plan to give everyone a bus, and Nickels’ “bridging the gap” with the lie that transportation money is not available, even though it is clearly in the budget but city’s abundant tax revenues have been deliberately moved away from transportation projects. The gas tax was raised astronomically as a supposed "final fix." Now we see that politicians are calling on more money for activities that any reasonable person would think surely must be within the existing budget.

Perhaps they will finally go too far. Well, it’s something to hope for anyway.

Chilling

2006-05-24T09:18:00.000-07:00

Malvo on his senior accomplice in the Washington DC area sniper campaign:

Muhammad introduced Malvo to the Nation of Islam and spoke to him about race and socioeconomic disparities. "The white man is the devil," Malvo said, summing up Muhammad's thinking.

Those that were in the Washington DC area that summer, regardless of race, may not think they are devils, but they do remember living in hell.

Those that have read the SPS definition of racism may not see the word "devil," but they might sense a similar attitude behind the fancy wording. One has to wonder about the resulting climate in the schools.

Nickels "Bridging the Gap" With Lies

2006-05-22T21:55:00.000-07:00

Mayor Nickels just launched a program supposedly designed to fix the $500 million backlog in road maintenance:

The mayor's package will eliminate the current $500 million backlog in transportation maintenance projects. If approved, projects the city would fund include:

• Installing or replacing 80 pedestrian signals annually
• Improving or constructing sidewalks at 60 schools
• Rebuilding 400 lane miles of Seattle roadway
• Doubling the amount dedicated for road resurfacing
• Repairing or rebuilding seismically vulnerable bridges
• Completing Seattle's urban trail network
• Replacing 17,000 street name signs
• Removing graffiti from traffic signs within 48 hours
• Increasing street sweeping in neighborhood business districts

I guess Nickels got tired of the bumpy ride in his gas guzzling limos. To smooth out his ride, Nickels proposes new anti-business, anti-commuter and anti-property-owner taxes to pay for this work:

The mayor's 2006 Transportation Initiative proposes to raise $65 million in the first year through a property tax levy, a commercial parking fee, and a business transportation tax.

The levy would cost the owner of a median-valued Seattle home about $195 the first year.

The commercial parking fee would levy 10 percent fee on motorists using commercial parking lots, and generate approximately $13 million annually. The business transportation tax would levy a $25 fee for every full time equivalent employee, and generate approximately $5.5 million dollar annually.

The city has faced declining dedicated transportation funds over the past 35 years. Because of court decisions, citizen initiatives, and the state's funding formula, dedicated transportation revenue has fallen to $13.1 million this year, from $37.5 million in 1995.

Declining transportation funds? Hardly. The City has diverted transportation funds to things like the Office of Sustainability and Environment. The table below compares the City’s operating budget for 2000 to 2006. Still, even just within the operating budget, transportation expenditures have grown.

Please note that this is just the operating budget, or "sub-budget," which shows only how Seattle city government spends the tax dollars it collects. Actual revenues and expenditures are in the billions, and includes federal and state dollars contributed to projects the city conveniantly keeps off the operating budget. You wont find declining funds spent on transportation when looking at the total budget either. The City's total spending in 2000 on transportation was $121 million. In 2006, it is already budged to be $180 million, before the new taxes!

Even within the operating budget, transportation funds could have grown by more had the city not diverted revenue growth into things like supporting art, which was 13% of the budget in 2000 and is now 17% of the budget. If the 2006 budget for artsy fartsy were held at 13% of revenues, there would be an additional $26 million available for transportation projects this year.

Building and maintaining roads is a basic function of government and the reason we already pay a variety of taxes to the city. Moreover, we pay large taxes on automobiles to pay for a light rail system that will hardly make a dent in the transportation mess we have. That money could have given us first class roads and easily alleviated the congestion and confused mess we have now. Because the Mayor and the rest of city government are so addicted to ever growing revenues and their pet projects, transportation gets the short end of the stick. City government suffers from an extreme case of mission drift.

Don't fall for it, Seattle. This is a false crisis. City government should find the money needed for road work in its existing budget.

Competition: Good for Workers

2006-05-19T09:34:00.000-07:00

Google has come to town and raised the bar for the treatment and pay of Microsoft employees.

This could have been happening for Boeing workers. But, mistress Chris made sure it didn’t. When Airbus showed interest in locating facilities in Washington State, she announced that they were not welcome.

This shows what really happens in the unholy alliance between government, industry, and labor. Gregiore was working with Boeing management. Boeing management did not want Airbus in the state, balancing out their power and competing for employees.

Labor bosses, of course, went right along with it. One has to wonder if they are really so stupid as to give up the opportunity to raise the wages of the rank and file, or if they are just that corrupt. I suspect it’s a little of both.

You can look south to see what the long term effects will be on any industry in which government chooses looses and winners. This sort of triangle of corruption is exactly what keeps Mexico from employing more of its own citizens. Government, monopolies, and labor bosses, conspire to maintain their power, wealth, and control. Competition is killed, so is innovation, and fewer people are employed and at lower wages.

Cantwell and Murray opted not to support building an ineffective wall. Good for them. Understanding the formula for power from their own state, they aren't calling on Mexico to change either.

Stalin Would Be Proud

2006-05-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

While dysfunction reaches epidemic proportions in Seattle Public Schools, one small but successful program will be killed.

Thurgood Marshall Elementary has shared a challenge with schools all over Seattle and the country: Test scores were falling among African-American boys.

Six years ago, the school decided "to take charge and say we're going to do something about it," Principal Winifred Todd said.

The school's innovative response was to divide boys and girls in most of their classes. Discipline problems dropped because kids were less likely to show off, and teachers could try different strategies for each gender. Test scores shot up, said district Education Director Pauline Hill.

Too much of a threat, I guess.

Bureaucrats, idiot school board members, and Caprice “future time orientation” Hollins, ought not have anything to do with it. Let parents decide which school they want their kids to go to. The decision then becomes quite easy: close the empty schools.

If that were done, I suspect we’d find burgeoning demand for Thurgood Marshall Elementary school.

Caprice Hollins, Angry Anti-Whitey

2006-05-17T00:23:00.000-07:00

After reading the definition of racism on the web site of Seattle Public Schools (and watching Caprice Hollins' video on the Seattle Channel web site), I've had the image of Howard Stern's movie stuck in my head: "kill, kill, kill, da white people" .... An official, such as Caprice Hollins, Director of Equity and Race Relations for SPS, who invokes that image is probably not doing much that is constructive.

Caprice Hollins seems primarily interested in creating division. (Women Studies is particularly focused on the language of division and victimhood.) She is half white and half black, which on the surface would seem to allow her to unify people, bridge the divide (real or imagined), and help blacks and whites understand each other. But, it seems pretty evident that her background primarily left her angry at white people. As she describes, her white grandparents rejected her, which would leave me angry too! One can hardly blame her.

I have no problem with the actions and efforts of people in the black community to help themselves, heal wounds, and deal with hurt that results from a horrible history (slavery) and - let's face it - the racism they must still experience on occasion even today. If there is some anger and anti-white feeling is expressed among the black community, I can hardly blame them. Calling on more resources, and even set-aside spots in government contracts and hiring preferences, seem reasonable to me, given the history.

The problem, however, is that Caprice’s anger and divisiveness has no business being sponsored by government. And, her anger and hatred is palpable in the definitions of racism she provides on the Seattle Public School Districts web page. Definition after definition focuses on whites as brutish patriarchal oppressors of victims in various racial identity groups. Moreover, in her video, she describes the entire SPS as if it were some sort of conspiracy orchastrated by David Duke to create systemic racism against all these supposed victim groups. Yes, even the whites in ultra-liberal Seattle are somehow part of this grand conspiracy.

For example, she says:

The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).

Perhaps Caprice should visit the web site called iAbolish. This is the web site of an organization fighting contemporary slavery. Much of this slavery is in Africa, where black Africans enslave other black Africans. Why? Because some groups in Africa believe they are superior to other groups. I'm not sure where whitey figures into that, except that various organizations that presumably include at least some whites have helped to free some of these enslaved people.

Then, Caprice goes deeply into making racism charges against every feature of Western Culture she can identify. For example, racism can be seen in:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

She started out pretty good, identifying unfair stereotyping as racism. But, then seems to loose control. "Future time orientation"? And, the thinly veiled swipe at capitalism and individual liberty is so obviouisly unrelated to racism that it hardly needs to be addressed.

The last place these sorts of bizarre and elastic concepts of racism should be taught is in the public school system. Imagine that, telling kids that “future time orientation” is a form of racism, but then trying to convince them that they should prepare for their future by attending school and applying themselves for future gain. A special office dedicated to meeting the educational needs of black students seems like a good idea to me; however, Caprice isn’t filling that need.

On top of that, black boys are suffering the most in public schools. The anti-male ideology Caprice learned in “Women Studies” doesn’t offer those kids much hope. She's got plenty of criticism for black men, as well. If you watch her video, you will hear her criticize black men for, supposedly, prefering lighter skin women like her. Looks to me like she should look in the mirror to find a "superiority complex."

Having such absurd definitions of racism provide a clear sign of poor judgment on the part of Caprice Hollins. She's plenty smart, but not very savy and she'll keep steppin' in it. I doubt she will be around long, even in a bureaucracy as screwed up as SPS. In the meantime, I hope school administrators who are less driven by anger and strange ideology contain the amount of damage she can do.

The path to success in education involves an obsession with "future time orientation." That's just so obvious that it's hard to imagine anybody taken seriously who would suggest otherwise. Even in Seattle.

Don't Look So As Not to See

2006-05-16T14:54:00.000-07:00

Little surprise here, as yet another study proclaims an “epidemic” of domestic violence. There are so many people feeding at that trough now that one can hardly expect all of these “experts” to find anything but increasing domestic violence. Why, that would be as unimaginable as, say, Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment raising doubts about whether anything they do matters, much less whether global warming actually exists.

Bias is shown in the choice of what to study. It’s politically correct to study violence in heterosexual coupling and, of course, to find it in epidemic proportions. Against women, that is, and perpetrated by men.

It’s sort of like the old question; does a tree that falls in the woods make a sound when there is nobody there to hear it? Does an epidemic exist when there is nobody there to study it? For that matter, does an epidemic exist if there is nobody around to receive money to study it?

What is an epidemic anyway? Does this “epidemic” mean that domestic violence is worse now than it used to be? And, if so, what changed? The general feminization of culture and society, and reconstruction of the American family that has clearly occurred, has actually made “patriarchal control and oppression” worse? Does that mean women were actually better off in the 1950's?

Well, enough of asking the questions of a sentient being. (And, Jonah Goldberg, you should stop exercising such critical judgment as well!) There is nobody there to answer these questions; at least no “experts” that would risk funding and acceptance among the cultural Gestapo. Really, the choice of what is studied is not even interesting any more. It’s all too predictable.

What is interesting about this study, however, is how it was conducted. The "problem" with so many studies about domestic violence in the past is that they have too often surveyed and asked the same questions of both women and men. The usual pronouncement after all of these studies has been the headline grabbing report of out-of-control “violence against women.” That’s the one that attracts the attention and the dollars.

(The trick to finding high incidence, by the way, is to mix everyday emotional stresses that any two people living in close quarters would experience with actual physical violence and report on the combination as domestic violence. Then, ask women surveyed if they have ever in their life experienced this elastic definition of abuse. Practically all of these studies are very careful not to draw a distinction between actual physical abuse and emotional discord. And, you can get an extra nudge towards making females the majority of victims simply by avoiding the scientific approach to correcting for response bias - in other words, structure your questions according to the responses desired and, for God's sake, don't let it slip that men are less likely to admit being victims than women. You can find a bunch of well known statistical biases here that most of the DV surveyers seem to go out of there way to incorporate. You know, science and statistics are all part of the patriachal conspiracy, and so on.)

But, anyone that cared to look deeper would find that these same studies found similar rates of violence against men, perpetrated by female domestic partners. Not only that, some of the worse perpetrators are lesbians. Men’s and father’s rights groups, concerned about the institutionalized abuse of the basic civil rights of their constituents as well as the general anti-father attitude of our society, did just that. They just can't seem to keep their mouths shut about it and continue to point out the rather obvious fact that the topic was hijacked by feminists with a gender-political axe to grind. And, that's a problem for the DV establishment.

The ideologically inspired "experts" found a solution to this inconvenience, however. They simply leave men out of the survey.

Among a random sample of 3,429 adult female members of Group Health ....

That way, you find violence (remember, everything ranging from physical abuse to disagreement over what to have for dinner equals violence) and you only find it perpetrated against the people surveyed: women. The victims.

A Whole Office

2006-05-16T10:05:00.000-07:00

Gotta love this quote in the Seattle Times article:

"We're a city in which the stakes are pretty high," said Steve Nicholas, who directs Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment. He said a 50 percent reduction in North Cascades snowpack has strained the city's ability to manage drinking-water supplies.

"We have to worry about sea-level rise. We may be in store for wetter, longer winters and our stormwater-drainage system is already a challenge," he said.

The Seattle silly government has an Office of Sustainability and Environment? More tax dollars going towards promoting the lunatic fringe.

This Nicholas cat, though, is pretty good at disconnecting cause from effect. I love the practical connection he makes between global warming hysteria and storm-water drainage. And, of course, the arbitrary concern over a "50 percent reduction in North Cascades snowpack." What's that relative to, anyhow? Is snow pack 50% less than it was in the last Ice Age?

Stop Exhaling!

2006-05-16T09:40:00.000-07:00

Well, it's come down to bare knuckles. The Silly of Seattle, I mean city, is spending our tax dollars to sue for the EPA to control carbon dioxide emissions.

There was once controversy over whether someone ever inhaled. Now, the issue is all about your natural habit of exhaling carbon dioxide. I've been trying to exhale less, but I keep turning blue and passing out. I guess the good thing about that, from the perspective of Mayor Nipples and the Seattle Silly Council, is that people who are unconscious think less.

Time to cross one more thing off the short list of things the Seattle silly government says you can do. (Remember, we are converting from a list of “can’t do” to a restricted list of “can do” because the former list simply got too long).

Islamic Extremism

2006-05-15T15:36:00.001-07:00

Plans in the works

So much for freedom

Modest ambitions

Voices of reason

Nice guy

Slay, behead, butcher, demolition, extermination ....

Ugly photos

You Get What You Reward

2006-05-12T18:05:00.000-07:00

Here is definitive proof that financially rewarding divorce promotes divorce.

Think it can't happen in America? Think again.

Thanks Kim!

2006-05-09T18:59:00.000-07:00

Kim Wells, Executive Director of the Corporate Alliance to End Domestic Violence, was kind enough to comment on a previous posting about a survey her organization conducted. Moreover, she then followed up with a link to the results of her organization’s survey.

Thanks, Kim, for following up. I think the various sides of this debate are too willing to demonize each other. (You can probably find some of that on this blog, so I’m making no claims to being perfect in that regard!). It’s good to see someone active in this area willing to engage in a discussion.

I posted additional questions for Kim regarding her organization’s survey in the comments section of the original post. I’m optimistic she will respond.

Stubborn Death March

2006-05-08T21:16:00.000-07:00

Newspaper circulation continues to decline in Seattle even though the population is increasing. The newspapers themselves refuse to face the reason for their decline: bad product.

In an amazing display of marketing prowess, both the PI and the Times recently doubled their newstand price in the face of declining demand. That sort of denial of reality is also reflected in the continuing obsession with printing nothing more than conventional wisdom and a liberal echo chamber of columnists and editorials.

Sleepy Newspaper Wakes Up, Smells Coffee

2006-05-04T07:56:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times had an astonishing editorial in response to Nick Licata's (of the Seattle Silly Council) proposal to add $1 billion in new taxes and spending to promote the “arts” while also providing a few dollars to remodel Key Arena for the Sonics.

The Seattle Times asks:

Since when has it been the taxpayers' responsibility to improve the wages of workers in the art world? Never mind the reason those taxes were grudgingly accepted by restaurant owners and hotel operators was because of sunset provisions. Once in place, try to remove any tax.

Could the Times, or at least one member of its editorial staff, be waking up to the idiocy of Seattle government? Let’ hope so. Maybe they will then ask the obvious next question: Why are Seattle taxpayers spending 1% of every infrastructure project on "art"? In a city with more than its share of billionaires (historically, the best art was not sponsored - like Van Gogh - or was sponsored by the wealthy, rarely will you find art originally sponsored by government that stands the test of time), why is government subsidizing artists such as those running plays that “explore” the sexual relationship between an adult lesbian and her teenage prey?

Maybe the Times paper will even begin to question he general silliness of Seattle’s Mayor and Council. I know hell will freeze over first. But, we can still hope.

Protests Were 24 Days Early

2006-05-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

The protestors on the streets were off on the date by 24 days.

Presidente Fox of Mexico will be in Washington State on May 24. Instead of protesting against the rule of law in the United States, the protestors should have been marching in complaint against the power structure in Mexico and most other countries of Latin America. It is that power structure that stiffles Latin economies and hordes the goodies for a select few.

Presidente Fox was once a hopeful sign for Mexico. From the PAN instead of the PRI (which up to 2000 controlled Mexico for more than 70 years), he was perhaps the first democratically elected Presidente in Mexico's history. But, Fox quickly sold out to the ruling oligarchy of Mexico.

(To be fair, the story of Fox is much more complicated than I present in this posting, and actually still quite hopeful. Please read an excellent article by Enrique Krauze - the preeminent scholar of Mexican history - in Foriegn Affairs to learn more about the heroic acheivements of Fox as well as his failings).

Not only is there still a ruling monopoly in practically every industry in Mexico, but those monopolies are stronger than ever. In fact, the Mexican Congress recently passed legislation that strengthens the hold that Telmex and Televisa have over their respective industries.

Illegal immigrants in the US, who have had to leave their homes and families in order to find work north of the border, should be protesting against the ruling oligarchy back home. Moreover, they should be calling for the US to exercise more of its economic power to open up markets in Mexico and force the Mexican government to stop protecting monopolies and the small number of families that control them.

It's not too late, though.

Mayor Nipples on Guns

2006-05-02T20:46:00.000-07:00

Mayor Nipples asks:

"Why the gun lobby is so powerful in Washington, D.C. and Olympia, I don't know."

Answer:

Because of blowhards like you that are obsessed with controlling every little aspect of our lives. It reminds people of the government oppression that prompted the revolution that formed this country.

Personally, I can't stand having guns around. About the only time I've actually enjoyed a gun was during the few occasions I have tried target shooting. In fact, that's the only time I can remember ever touching a loaded gun. Target shooting feels sort of like playing pool or golf. You can leave me behind if you want to go hunting, though. Also, most people who have gun collections sort of freak me out; I don't get them. (Not that I get stamp collectors either).

But, I agree with the gun lobby on one thing. A healthy skepticism and distrust of government that seems just a little to eager to involve itself in so much of our lives is a good thing. That may seem just so quant to someone like the mayor that has spent his entire career working in government.

While the Mayor and the Chief of Seattle Police Department are trying to control your access to guns, we should be asking them what they are doing to control their own use of guns. Let's not forget that there are bad apples in police departments all across the country. They are by far the exception, but they are there. And, increasingly, police seem to enter situations with their guns blazing. In particular, they respond to ideological politics. Oddly, the Seattle Police Department seems to be avoiding examining their own use of force. The last time they examined their own use of force that I can find was in 2001.

It's a little too easy to use the public's emotions resulting from a spate of violence to call for gun control. It's a bad habit in which politicians, especially in Seattle, increasingly seem to indulge. The fact is that liberty and personal freedoms come at a price. We all must carry some risk that some portion of society will abuse those liberties. Yes, even some of us who are law abiding citizens will suffer as a result. However, we can manage that risk to a large extent by not frequenting the sorts of nightclubs where drunk hot heads might be found. Similarly, we can keep our teenagers out of all-night sessions with people we don't know.

Thankfully, even though Nipples is happy to trample over our Constitutional rights whenever he gets the chance, he doesn't have any say over what those Constitutional rights are. There are limits to what he can do. Let's keep it that way.

Mexico Legalizes Drugs

2006-04-29T20:59:00.000-07:00

As if enough people weren’t already pissed off at Mexico (or at least Mexicans in the US), Mexico is about to legalize possession of small amounts of drugs, including cocaine.

From my libertarian perspective, this is a good idea. Outlawing drugs hasn’t seemed to work so far, unless you consider violent drug trade to be a success. Where there is demand, there is supply. Better to keep that supply within a legal, regulated, taxed, and open market than drive it into the lawless underworld. And, as has been shown with cigarette smoking, social stigma is much more powerful than law enforcement when it comes to reducing demand, and a lot less expensive and prone to abuse of civil rights.

Increasingly, the US is running against the grain of logic and rationality when it comes to drugs. Big Pharma gets away with creating illnesses out of average human imperfections and then selling powerful drugs as a solution. They even sell amphetamines to children. In light of that, it’s hard to understand why the government would concern itself with consenting adults smoking a little marijuana.

Lately, even Rush Limbaugh should agree.

Ouch

2006-04-28T23:05:00.000-07:00

Ryan Blethen, part of the family that owns the Seattle Times, shows his family’s insecurity over its declining newspaper business. He’s mad at the blog-o-sphere, Google, and Yahoo. Oh, also the usual Seattle bogeyman - corporations. Not much mention of his own newspaper's failings. Meanwhile, his prescription to cure the newspaper industry’s ails is about as incoherent as most of the “opinions” expressed by his newspaper.

Word of advice, Mr. Blethen: If you really cared so much about your newspaper’s contribution to democracy, you would have been much more critical of Ron Sims and Co. for throwing the 2004 election. You would also attempt to pierce conventional wisdom on occasion. Otherwise, your “readers” see through your mixture of political, ideological, and business interests, and seek out information from sources that are more honest about where they are coming from.

Day of the Worker

2006-04-28T00:04:00.000-07:00

While I have stated here that I do not think the solution to stemming the tide of illegal immigration to the United States should involve persecuting poor people who are only looking for work, Monday's planned walk-out and street protests by this population are disconcerting.

The problem with this particular protest, in addition to the fact that it will leave many Americans who were on the fence about immigration annoyed and disturbed, is the day they have chosen. You see, Monday, May 1 is not just any day for illegal Mexican immigrants (Mexicans make up more than 50% of all illegal immigrants). Monday is actually the Day of the Worker in Mexico (it is International Day of the Worker, but as far as Mexicans are concerned, it is a national holiday and "international" does not enter the equation).

This begs the question of why groups of illegal immigrants have chosen this day. Doesn’t this smack just a little too much of solidarity with their country of origin?

Chosing this Mexican holiday is disturbing to most people aware of the significance of the day in Mexico. Among the complaints often heard about illegal immigrants, especially Mexicans, is that they do not seem to be interested in learning the language and assimilating culturally. The rap is that they seem to hang on to their connection to their homeland, even though Mexico let them down and forced them to cross the border in order to find employment.

The choice of the Day of the Worker as the day of protest in the US also suggests to me that various organizations in Mexico, including probably agencies of the Mexican government, are involved in its organization. This yet again indicates that the Mexican government has no qualms about interfering in the internal affairs of the United States. This is particularly ironic since Mexican politicians always expect visiting US presidents to proclaim their respect for Mexican sovereignty.

Well, Mexico does not deserve respect for its sovereignty any longer. They are happy to mess with our internal affairs. Meanwhile, when one looks at the destitute state of most of the Mexican population, it is clear that sovereignty is only for the benefit of the wealthy ruling class of the country. Poor people pour across the border to the north precisely because the ruling oligarchy of Mexico has a lock on the economy, which it slows and stifles for its own benefit. And, exporting unemployed workers is all too much to the liking of the Mexican oligarchy because, if these ambitious Mexicans were not able to risk life and limb to get to the US for work, they might well be on the streets protesting in Mexico.

All told, the only moral action is for the US to begin meddling in Mexican affairs. The US should make genuine efforts to force Mexico to eliminate the privileged status of its feudal lords, knocking down protections for their monopolies, and open opportunity in the Mexican economy to all citizens.

So, while you find yourself annoyed and perhaps alarmed by the illegals marching in the streets on Monday, you may want to contact your representatives in Congress and ask them why they are not doing more to force change on Mexico. They can start by putting some real teeth into their vapid calls on the Mexican government to open up industry to competition. And they can follow that up by constraining use of American capital markets by Mexican oligarchs, such as Carlos Slim.

We have done this before in South Africa, and it helped change that country. It's time to do the same thing to Mexico.

Paradise in the Making

2006-04-26T13:46:00.000-07:00

Don’t be fooled by all that green around you, or those large blue “spots” of something with boats on it, or the white stuff up on the mountains to the east and the west. Ignore the frequent stretches of gray with long periods of odd liquid droplets spraying from the sky.

Seattle is really right smack in the middle of a large desert. For this reason, we should be paying sky-high rates for water.

This, of course, adds to the litany of other high rates we should be paying. Higher sales tax, higher property taxes, higher gas prices, and the most expensive landing fees of any airport in the country by far, and so on.

Stop thinking so rationally. When roads are dilapidated, with a $500 million backlog of repairs and maintenance required, the natural response is to build an expensive tunnel. When current spending commitments are expected to drive a budget into deficit, it is only natural to make more spending commitments. Heeelllooooo! Haven’t you gotten the message?

You deserve it. Look in the mirror. Your behavior needs to be modified. You drive too much. You flush your toilet too much. You do not devote enough hours of the day to sorting your garbage. You eat too many beans.

So, shape up or ship out. Seattle has a plan to replace you. Sky-scrapers full of empty-nest (or never nested) and retired baby boomers, better able to pay inflated prices and more willing to undergo punitive behavioral modification, will replace you. More professional baseball players, football players, and basketball stars, paid by the million, wearing gold chains and conducting TV interviews with snarled lips. More government employees and a dependent class for them to serve.

And, any remaining space will be filled by the mega-rich. Working and middle class families don’t forget to turn the lights out before you leave. You already used up your electricity quota anyway.

Rome in Seattle?

2006-04-24T23:50:00.000-07:00

There is at least one thing about Seattle that is similar to ancient Rome. No, we don’t have much democracy around here like they had back those days. Ron Sims has ruined that by finding votes under desks and stuffed in drawers. We don’t have much political intrigue either. We are a pretty boring lot of Borg, afraid of debate and living in a political environment more akin to an echo chamber.

But, we are like Rome in our propensity to provide public funding for coliseums whose sports teams divert the attention of the masses. Hell, in Roman days, any real city had to have a coliseum. Plenty of money was made by those providing spectacles in those ancient coliseums. The citizens of Rome were placated with the entertainment provided. It was a useful tool of Rome's political leaders that helped to diverst the attention of citizens from the squalid conditions of Rome.

But, hell, let’s just take that one step further. Taxpayers are already in the hole to the tune of $1 billion for stadiums for both baseball and football. Never mind that the owners of these teams are gazillianaires and the players are multi-millionaires. Forget the fact that ticket prices to these stadiums are out of reach for the average member of the working class. No, let’s keep going with this formula. Let us build a third grand coliseum.

Don’t worry that taxpayer money is diverted from things like schools and building roads. Our educational requirements are minimal. We can orient schools towards getting that 1 in a 1,000,000 shot basketball player into pro basketball. He can drive to games in a limo, perhaps with Mayor Nickels in tow, over bumpy roads filled mostly with empty buses (and lots of them, after Sims gets his plan through).

Not many of the taxpayers paying for the stadiums will have the opportunity to attend games of course. $100 tickets will not fit in their budget. But, not to worry, we will attract sports tourism and just generally feel so good about our place in the world as a major city with three sports teams.

And, think of the alternative. What if Bellevue got the Sonics? Think of the fear that would evoke in Seattle's City Hall. With existig and new technology companies, the Eastside is already threatening to become the primary economic engine of the area. The Sonics playing on the Eastside would surely spell an unstoppable move of business eastward and leave Seattle in a state of decline.

The Romans would be proud of Seattle if they saw us today. But, they might also have a warning for us: A little too much spectacle kills empires.

Mayor Pootles Panics

2006-04-24T21:53:00.000-07:00

No Beans Day

Above average temperatures over the past few days prompted Mayor Nickels, referred to as Mayor “Pootles” by has staff due to his prodigious methane production, to issue a global state of emergency today while being driven in his limo.

Recently, the Mayor sought to correct lower than normal temperatures by eating large amounts of beans. He now suspects his program to have every day be average may have overshot his goal.

“Today is too warm,” he said in his emergency statement. “We have been eating too many beans.”

“I shall stop eating beans.”

“The people shall not eat beans,” he proclaimed.

The Mayor promised that this further refinement in his global warming program would return normal temperatures to Seattle as well as portions of northern Africa.

He then proceeded to scowl at people in their cars while being driven in his limo around the city.

Convicted

2006-04-21T12:21:00.000-07:00

What better than two white boys from a prestigious university that play a sport of privileged kids to serve as sacrificial lambs on the alter of political correctness and orthodox feminist hysteria.

Not all women agree with the cheapening of something as serious as rape, however. See what Kathleen Parker has to say here and Wendy McElroy here.

The Insatiable Borg

2006-04-21T09:52:00.000-07:00

The contrived “controversy” between the rival faith-based environmentalism plans of King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Greg Nickels highlights once again the Planck Rule of political debate in Seattle.

The Planck Rule of our fair city is borrowed from Max Planck, the great German physicist of the early 20th century. Max Planck helped usher in the field of quantum physics by defining the Plank Distance, which is the scale at which concepts of gravity and space-time cease to become valid. The Planck Distance, at roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton, is unimaginably puny.

Such is the case for the spectrum of political debate in Seattle. An electron can’t fit in the gap between the political perspectives of Seattle’s Borg-landia. Nickels, worshipping at the alter of extreme environmentalism, wants to tax downtown parking and add yet another layer to already high property taxes in Seattle to fund public transportation (and probably his Tunnel of Love). Meanwhile, Sims has a competing proposal to increase the sales tax yet again so that “people can hop on buses like they hop in their cars” and so that “there are so many buses, nobody needs a bus schedule.” Both of these guys scoff at you in your car while they drive around in chauffer driven limos.

The fact that the Seattle Borg politicians were not speaking with exactly the same voice had Nicole Brodeur of the Seattle Times so upset, she devoted a column to the topic. Sadly, nobody in area politics asking the questions that need to be asked. For example, why are there HOV lanes? Does limiting the capacity of highways really discourage people from driving, thus saving gas and reducing pollution? Or, do people drive anyway and actually pollute more because it takes them longer than it should to drive from point A to point B? What trick does Nickels have up his sleeve to divert tax money to doing his own wasteful Big Dig in Seattle? If we need so many more buses, why are they usually empty?

The demise of the monorail project should have sent a message that even Seattle’s sleepy voters eventually wake to dumb and expensive ideas. One can only hope that the insatiable appetite of Borg politicians for your tax dollars will ultimately go too far. Because, until it does, they will always be hungry for more.

Political House

2006-04-16T11:04:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, even the idealistic and emotionally baiting columnists of Seattle newspapers stray into relevant thoughts. The Seattle Times’ Danny Westnut did that by wondering about the high cost of real estate in Seattle. He points out that working class people can no longer afford to buy a home in Seattle. He’s right and it’s even worse than that. Purchasing real estate in Seattle is unaffordable to anyone solidly in the middle class as well.

Westnut could only muster blaming prosperity for the high prices and, of course, did not have a solution. He should have gone the extra step and asked a non-political economist why real estate prices are so high. The answer would have focused on supply and demand.

In fact, recent reports show demand for real estate in Seattle is waning, even while prices continue to rise. Supply, on the other hand, is severely restricted. Supply restrictions are due in part to the simply fact that large cities just run out of space. But, the more important reason is that Mayor Nickels and the Seattle Silly Council are interested in only two types of real estate development.

The first involves condos that are affordable only to the wealthy or to baby boomers nearing retirement or already retired. People that are 50 or older have years of equity building under their belts, started when the real price of a home was not nearly so high, and so they can afford a condo for $1 million or even more. Low income people form the second group, which will have housing subsidized by permitting fees on those luxury condos. Current development plans ensure that those pesky middle class voters, who are skeptical of new taxes and demand performance from public schools, will not grow and will likely shrink.

So, in one group, you have generally reliable voters for Democrats. In the other, you have a dependent class that also reliably votes for Democrats. Among all the proclamations of the political mafia that runs the city, there is nairy a mention of affordability for middle and working class families. In other words, the Seattle real estate market is driven by political imperatives.

Illegal Immigration Debate is All Wet

2006-04-10T12:15:00.000-07:00

As usual, the Seattle Times Danny Westnut willfully confuses legitimate concerns about an illegal immigrant using taxpayer money for things like subsidized housing with xenophobia. Westnut is a perfect example of why it’s so hard to get the political extremes of our society, which are unnaturally forced into a two party duopoly, to discuss anything rationally.

Westnut makes half of a good point, while dismissing the valid points of those upset over an illegal immigrant using scarce resources in a city that makes the pompous claim that it will end homelessness within a decade. By doing nothing more than emotional baiting, he skirts proposing solutions. The inability to have a rational discussion on the topic is bad enough, but what’s worse is the fact that nobody yet seems interested in looking at and solving the source of the problem.

I will not pipe in with anger at illegal immigrants. I can’t find it in myself to drum up hostility towards mostly Mexicans simply because they are poor and desperate for work. These are not people that are consciously part of an international conspiracy to dilute American culture and bring down our republic. They are driven by nothing more than a desire to take care of their families. A small percentage of illegal immigrants engage in criminal activities once in the US, but most work and work hard. And, believe me, these people have less in common with Islamo-fascists than the average American; they are hardly a security risk when it comes to terrorism.

Yes, the people that are upset over illegal immigrants, their employers, and our government’s pathetic inertia on the issue, make many good points. It’s true that illegal immigrants are a drain on social services. It’s also hugely frustrating to see our government enthusiastically enforce laws on American citizens, but then turn around and discuss amnesty for illegal immigrants. If an American citizen, for example, were caught forging an identity document, he or she would be punished severely. There is a threat to our culture as well, in the sense that multi-culturalists encourage both legal and illegal immigrants not to assimilate. Not learning English is the least of the problem, when these immigrants come from a culture of corruption and lawlessness - we want them to learn that these things are not acceptable in the US. So, let’s not pretend that people upset over illegal immigrants do not make good points.

The problem I have with all of this is that nobody has talked about real solutions. Just letting millions of people across the border simply because it “feels bad” to stop them, as Westnut suggests, is no solution. Even within his own circle of silly Seattle idealists, it must be recognized that a stated goal like ending homelessness within a decade can never be achieved if there is a constant supply of new people from a foreign country that are relying on government services and subsidies. At the same time, those that believe that building a wall of some sort, or putting the military on the border, can actually stop illegal immigration, are just as unrealistic. People will do amazing things when they are hungry and seeking opportunity.

Our focus should be on the source of the problem: There is little to no opportunity for 95% of the population of Mexico. This is not simply because the country is poor, but because it is held back by the ruling oligarchy of the country. People like Carlos Slim, with elected government officials in their back pockets, run a feudalistic society that is neither capitalist nor socialist. They limit competition and monopolize all major segments of Mexican industry.

Carlos Slim’s companies, for example, represent more than half of the market capitalization of the Mexican stock exchange and collectively buy more than half of all advertising in the country. Any move made to restrict his monopoly power meets with the threat of bringing down the Bolsa. Any major news media that criticizes him risks loosing 50% of their advertising. Slim is now the third wealthiest person in the world, with a net worth of more than $30 billion, mostly attained through keeping things like telecommunications services in Mexico more expensive than 90% of the world.

When oligarchs constrain economic activity for their own benefit, the overall economy of a country suffers mightily. Costs are raised for all participants. Investment is lowered. Reduced investment constrains employment. So does the fact that monopolies have undue negotiating power over all inputs, including employment.

You want to stop illegal immigration? Start telling Congress that you want the US to force change on Mexico’s oligarchy and the corrupt political system that supports it.

The Mexican government has given the US plenty of openings for involvement in Mexico’s internal affairs. Agencies of the Mexican government provide assistance to people as they illegally cross the border, while the Mexican government seeks to maintain contact with them and promote their identity with Mexico through things like allowing illegal immigrants to vote in Mexico from the US. The recent protests in the US by people carrying Mexican flags could not have happened without some major organizational help from Mexico.

The Mexican oligarchy itself lobbies our Congress while profiting from our open markets. Carlos Slim owns companies with major operations in the US, such as CompUSA, while using the Mexican government to drive Mexican companies supported by US investors into bankruptcy. Ironically, Slim sells Vonage service in the US through CompUSA, while working hard to ensure that the benefits of voice over the Internet do not reach Mexicans. Meanwhile, most of Slim's wealth derives from the fact that the companies he owns and controls trade on US stock exchanges.

Since Mexicans are meddling in our internal affairs, we should not feel hesitant about meddling in Mexico’s. They’ve lost any claim to respect of their “sovereignty.” Respecting Mexican sovereignty amounts to protecting the oligarchy at the expense the poor people it exploits. The most moral thing we can do is knock Mexico’s oligarchy from power and help the country replace feudalism with capitalism.

It’s a lot harder to push around rich and powerful people than it is to pick on the poor. But, in the case of Mexico, that’s what we ought to start doing.

Until then, none of the hysteria centered on illegal immigration from the right or the left amounts to anything. It’s all bull shit. And, it will likely help Carlos Slim move from third to first position on Forbes' list of the wealthiest people in the world.

Pro-Family?

2006-04-05T22:01:00.000-07:00

If you are Republican, and consider yourself a values-based and pro-family voter, you should read the column quoted below.

Many consciences should be burdened with the realization that taxpayer money provides financial incentives to deprive millions of children of their own fathers.

Sometimes you garner more respect if you can admit that one of your "sucesses" was actually a failure.

Banana Republic Zoning

2006-04-04T11:12:00.000-07:00

Once again, the City of Seattle signals its disdain for middle class citizens. The latest development plan will drive middle class folks out of the city, while attracting wealthy baby boomers with a liberal urban bent and more lower income people reliably dependent on government. In fact, Mayor Nickels and the Seattle Silly Counsel brag that this will be the case. Seattle is looking more each day like a Banana Republic.

The plan is quite simple. Allow developers to go as high as they want in the construction of condos, while requiring them to pay a fee to the city to subsidize the construction of low income housing. Meanwhile, the fees paid by developers to the city will help to insure that only pricey luxury condos will be built, well out of the price range of middle class families. So, the city will become even more demographically bi-modal, with extremes of low income young people and high income and older baby boomers, and little in between.

Real-estate experts say conditions are ripe for a surge in downtown high-rises, driven largely by empty-nest baby boomers who want to live near cultural amenities.

..... But Joncas warned that requirements imposed by the council would cut into profits, prompting developers to build mostly luxury housing, rather than less-lucrative apartments and condos for moderate-income residents.

In reality, this deceptive plan is self-serving of the Democrat mafia and their favorite constituency, wealthy liberals that come with no kids (and thus no built in costs for the city). First, older baby boomers will need services, such as maids and the like. Pampered their entire lives, wealthy baby boomers choosing an “urban village” lifestyle will not be happy if left to their own devices. Second, a class of low income people living in subsidized housing not only provides these bratty baby boomers these services, but also ensures the presence of a Democratic voting block.

This is what Nickles’ “urban village” fantasy is all about? Silly me. I thought it was about people living closer to where they work and thus needing to drive less. But, in the anticipated building boom, I don’t see much talk about expanding commercial office space. Just more condos designed to attract retired baby boomers who don’t work anyway, together with a built-in class of people to service them. For those that currently live out in those dreaded suburbs but work downtown, there will be precious little available in their price range. So, commuting will not be abated. If anything, it will be increased, as these condo dwellers and subsidized housing folks stream out of the city to do their shopping at the "big box" retailers the city will not allow in.

In the meantime, don’t be fooled by the Seattle Silly Counsel's plan to “study” building a public school downtown. Head fakes toward improving public schools are only part of the deception. They want you to believe that they care about average people based on their psuedo-concern about low income people. The suggestion is that somehow low income people benefit from living amongst wealthy elitists. You know, “culture” rubs of on them or something. I suppose a miracle of science will cause retired baby boomers to suddenly start procreating again and they will send the results to public schools to mingle with poor kids.

And so, we can once again see that the “sustainable living” jargon of Seattle politicians is a load of crap. Their plans do nothing for middle class workers that currently commute from the suburbs, where they find safe and affordable neighborhoods, to their jobs downtown. Downtown will become a retirement community of pampered people that were not doing much commuting to begin with. Fewer of those annoying middle class people, who care about things like the quality of public schools, decent roads, and access to shopping at reasonable prices, will be around to complain.

The Seattle PI’s Bill Virgin had it right: The productive class will stay in the suburbs and their employers will probably follow. It’s hard to say what Seattle will become, but to get to the commercial center of the Northwest twenty years from now, you’ll likely have to drive East.

Die Die Seattle PI

2006-03-31T18:26:00.000-08:00

Hopefully, the so-called “arbitration” between the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI will result in the death of the Seattle PI.

There really is no reason for the PI to exist. The Seattle Times is already left of center and redundant to the Seattle PI most of the time. From the tone of its editorials and all of its columnists, the Seattle Times would like to be even more to the left except that the Blethens are smart enough to want to remain at least slightly differentiated from the Seattle PI. Worse, when the Seattle Times makes an effort to look slightly conservative on some issues, it mistakes government control and oppression for conservatism. And, the Seattle Borg eat it up.

If the Seattle PI were out of the way, the Seattle Times could go ahead and occupy all of the space it wants on the left. There would be nothing holding it back. Actually, this would probably make it a better newspaper. People are always at their best when they are being genuine, as opposed to self-censured or attempting to be something they are not. The Seattle Times could stop resisting its liberal urges and focus more on being an interesting newspaper.

Now, this does not mean that I would necessarily be more interested in reading the Seattle Times after this transformation to its natural state. When I do happen upon one on a table in Starbucks, however, I would feel like I am reading a newspaper that represents itself more honestly.

And, I definitely would not miss the PI. Why bother reading two newspapers from the same city that have almost identical political positions? The PI’s departure will not create a void within the debate of ideas. In fact, it might free up some advertiser demand for alternative newspapers to the Seattle Times. The current crop of alternatives, which includes the Seattle Weekly and The Stranger, don't add much diversity. Well, the Stranger occasionally provides a modicum of diverse thought, but hardly often enough. We could use another weekly that stretches itself outside the current minimalist approach to political debate we currently see in Seattle.

We might even get lucky and see a newspaper with a decidedly conservative or even libertarian bent enter the market. Instead of being stuck in the mud and known as the "City of the Borg," Seattle might actually wake up and think outside the politically correct box.

Don't Let Them Do It

2006-03-27T09:13:00.000-08:00

David Broder of the Seattle Times says that a plan to circumvent the republican (not the party, but the form of government) design of our federal government is a bad idea. I could not agree more, even though my reasons are quite different from his.

Some states are considering a conspiratorial pact to hand their electoral votes over to the presidential candidate that receives the most votes nationally. (Remember, Gore won more votes nationally than Bush, but Bush won the electoral college). the Broder is primarily concerned with maintaining the two party duopoly of extremism we currently suffer. He apparently has his doubts about whether the state’s conspiracy will protect the ugly political system that oppresses us, even though many of proponents are party protectionists who want to eliminate the threat of a third party.

A third party with any chance of influencing the political landscape already has more than enough working against it. The only way one could develop would be if enough people get fed up with the extremism of the two current parties. If that sort of discontent does develop, the last thing our government should be doing is protecting political parties.

While both sides present themselves as different, in too many respects, they are hardly distinguishable. Both are happy to grow the federal government to astronomical proportions. They both, in their own way, are social re-constructionists. They share an obsession with control and have little respect for individual liberty or the Constitution.

Ironically, both are now conspiring to trick their way around the Constitution again. Letting them get away with it would be a bad idea. Our Founders were wise beyond anything that you can find in politics today. They were people that rose to the top during a time of massive struggle between old Europe feudalism and the longing of the human spirit for freedom and opportunity. These men were hardly perfect (and those imperfections seem to be about all that historians care to focus on lately), but they were heads and shoulders above the likes of anything the current political class has to offer.

The Founders created our federal government in the form of a republic for sound reasons that are as valid today, perhaps more valid, than they were at the late 18th century. Small states need a counter-balance to the influence of large states. Widely dispersed rural and small town populations need a voice that can be heard in addition to that of large cities. New Yorkers and Seattleites alike need to be reminded that even though national and regional media are centered on these large metropolitan areas, their reality is not shared by everyone.

I put my faith in the idealism of the Founders’ design. Many things have changed since we broke free from British rule and the shackles of feudalistic Europe. We did not start out perfect. But, while you read and hear about how Thomas Jefferson was an elitist white man from a Southern state that owned slaves, keep in mind that the ideals he helped instill in the design of our federal government were the basis for change. Yes, he owned slaves and shame on him. He also said that all men are created equal, which was an idea that eventually won.

Anyone promoting a system that allows a small number of states to throw the Constitutional form of electing a President is also promoting political ossification and perhaps even fascism. Powerful ideals and hard won wisdom prove their worth over long spans of time. We should not let instant gratification or disgruntled losers of elections get in their way.

Urban Density is Risky Business

2006-03-23T21:03:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Silly Council and Mayor Nickels just approved allowing buildings constructed downtown to go higher. They want more people to live in the city.

Meanwhile, they continue to block what they call “big box” retailers from locating in the city. No Walmarts or K-marts, for example.

So, where are these people going to shop? Are they all going to be willing to pay prices required to maintain small stores in high rent districts?

Probably not. So, there will be a lot of people driving out of the city to go shopping at reasonable prices. So much for all their talk of reducing the dependence of people on cars.

Aware that they may not be able to control the type of people that move downtown, they also are working on a plan to keep some of the people that reliably vote for them. They cannot be sure, after all, that some of the unreliable voters out the suburbs will be accidentally enticed into moving downtown.

So, downtown condo developers will be required to pay somewhere between $10 and $19 per square foot to the city in order to support the construction of low-income housing downtown. Next, we will hear that the Silly Council wants to ensure that this low income housing has good views of the Sound and the mountains.