Moving to Canada?

That's what people were talking about back when Bush was elected. And I hear it now, on the chance that McCain gets elected (okay, so it's not likely based on all the polls). I don't hang around and talk with McCain supporters, so who knows if they're saying the same thing if Obama gets elected? People just need to calm down. It's not like we're changing to a dictatorship with Saddam Hussein back from the dead if Obama gets elected, although people may think that (they do share the same name...) And if McCain gets elected, is it really all that bad? He is a moderate Republican (well, I guess you have to ignore the fact that Palin is his VP).

When it comes to politics, similar to religion, people get all worked up about it, because only their view is right, they can only see their side, and they have such big blinders on. Isn't there a possibility that you could be wrong? That the opposing side may have a valid viewpoint? That's why I don't like to seriously watch MSNBC or FOX News because of their inherent biases. It's fun to watch and see what one channel is talking about that the other channel isn't even discussing, but you can't watch it seriously. It's just so funny to hear pundits talk until they're blue in the face about some point that any sane, reasonable, objective person would think is ridiculous. You hear them going on and on, using the same talking points, defending some ridiculous point. Both sides do it, liberals and conservatives.

People get worked up over politics and elections. I get it. I know sometimes I do when I'm watching the news channels about that day's "breaking news." Maybe to ease up on the blood pressure, we just all need to admit that we could be wrong. Tell yourself, maybe Palin could actually speak in a coherent way, and even if she doesn't, it has no reflection on how she would lead.

It has been nerve racking at times waiting for the elections on Nov. 4th. Maybe the best way to cope is read the Seattle Times guest article that talks about this whole idea that I've been thinking about for awhile: the fact that you could be wrong and it wouldn't be that bad if the other side won. And in the meantime, before you move to Canada, appreciate the fact that you're actually voting between Obama and McCain, and not between Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

I-985 - Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

It's sponsored by Tim Eyman. Need I say more?

Vote No if you want to reduce traffic congestion, make roads safer, and want the 520 bridge rebuilt before it collapses. Vote Yes if you think Eyman is really cool.

If you're still reading, then read this from the Times:

Members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, including professionals who worked on many highway projects in Washington, issued a report saying Eyman's proposals would "increase congestion and possibly impact safety."

Anyone who wants to see a new Highway 520 floating bridge should oppose I-985, says King County Executive Ron Sims. The measure would limit the use of toll revenue to the route on which the toll is collected, with any excess going to the traffic-congestion fund.

"If you only limit tolls to 520, you cannot rebuild 520," said Sims, who favors tolling both the 520 and I-90 bridges. Sims predicts no one would buy bonds necessary to build a new 520 bridge if motorists could avoid tolls simply by using I-90, substantially cutting the revenue 520 tolls could generate.

Some additional info on I-985 from the Washington State DOT and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Thanks to Tony Woody, P.E. and Aimee Woody for providing the info on the links above. See Tony’s credentials in the Proposition 1 section below.

A recent Seattle Times article indicated that a letter from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration indicated that I-985 could cost the state millions of dollars in federal funds, stall highway projects, aggravate traffic congestion, increase air pollution and force the closure of some freeway-access ramps.

I-1000 - Vote YES

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Believes editorials should not take a stance on issues as personal as lethal injections for the terminally ill. That being said, the PI believes that you should not reject this if you feel that the safeguards are inadequate, since the Oregon experience belies that argument. Instead, a rejection or approval should come from your own personal moral beliefs.

This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

This one is easy to decide, based on your personal beliefs: Vote Yes if you believe in assisted suicide and vote No if you don’t.

This law mirrors the Death with Dignity law in Oregon that has been in place for over 10 years. From the Voter’s Pamphlet:

This choice belongs exclusively to the terminally ill individual. Government, politicians, religious groups and others should not dictate these personal decisions.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

I-1000 aims to protect the patient by making him or her ask for the lethal dose several times, once with witnesses and in writing. It requires two doctors to certify that the patient has an untreatable disease likely to be fatal within six months.

I-1029 – Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This measure would require long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides based on an examination, with exceptions; increase training and criminal background check requirements; and establish disciplinary standards and procedures.

Vote No if you want the Legislature to take care of this in a more cost-effective manner, vote Yes if you want to improve the finances of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

This initiative sounds good, but similar to Tim Eyman’s proposal, you need to know all the facts before voting. It does sound funny to think government could do a more cost effective job, but I am real suspicious of the sponsors of this initiative. From the PI Editorials:

I-1029 would load up the expenses and worsen Washington's serious budget problems…The better alternative is to let the Legislature pass a smarter bill, which already is in waiting. I-1029 is, in fact, a my-way-or-the-highway substitute for good legislation that was sailing into law before the powerful Service Employees International Union intervened to strike fear of lost campaign support in cowardly lawmakers.

After leading a state task force on the issue, Democratic Rep. Dawn Morrell -- a registered nurse who knows the issues well -- wrote a bill that passed the House of Representatives 95-0. It would have provided new training in a smarter, targeted, cheaper way, which was designed to help workers advance into nursing assistant and even nursing training. A similar version went through the Senate 47-2, but the SEIU had the clout to keep lawmakers from finishing work so the union could run its initiative.

I-1029 sounds good, and the idea behind it is absolutely necessary. But manipulating the process to thwart good lawmaking is completely wrong. Reject I-1029 and let Morrell and the Legislature finish their good work on the cause.

King County Charter Amendments

These are all on the King County Charter Amendments:

Amendment No. 1 - Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would create a non-partisan elective position to oversee elections.

Vote No if you think the director of elections is a technical job and should be appointed. Vote Yes if you feel that an elected person should be in charge of elections.

From the PI Editorials:

…Supervising elections primarily requires management skills and professional knowledge. Like the League of Women Voters, we believe elective office should generally be reserved for policy-making positions, not this type of administrative job. Under the current system, the County Council confirms the executive's appointment of an elections director. The executive should be held responsible if voters are unhappy. The director of elections is a technical job and should be appointed.

Amendment No. 2 – Vote YES

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would add disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression to the prohibited grounds for discrimination in county employment and county contracting.

Vote Yes if you’re against discrimination. Vote No if you’re a bigot.

From the Times Editorials:

This is a housekeeping measure that follows what was done in state law two years ago.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 3 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: Yes

From the Times Editorials:

Amendment 3 concerns membership on the regional transit, regional water-quality and regional policy committees. These now have six council members and six from city governments. The amendment would cut it to three council members but give each member two votes. The council would therefore have the same power with half the work.

Vote No if you think the Council needs all the help it can get. Vote Yes if you think the committees would be more efficient with less people.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.” I still voted No.


Amendment No. 4 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would allow the council to establish additional qualifications for separately elected officials, such as the assessor, sheriff, and the elections director, if Amendment No. 1 is approved.

Vote No if you feel the qualifications of these officials should be left to you. Vote Yes if you feel the County should narrow the list of potential candidates for you.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Currently, the requirements are: age 18, citizen, county voter. That's all. While we agree that anyone elected should have more qualifications than that, it should be the people's business — not the council's — to say what those qualifications are.

Note that the Voter’s Pamphlet indicates the qualifications require you to be 21. Not sure which is correct, and I don’t have the time to figure out who is, since it’s really not that much different.


Amendment No. 5 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would require the establishment of a forecast council and an office of economic and financial analysis.

Vote Yes if you want to make sure the budget is done right. Vote No if you could care less.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

This is what the state has been doing for 24 years, and it has made the state's budgets more honest.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 6 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

From the Seattle Times:

Amendment 6 would move up certain budget deadlines by 20 days. Budgets are more and more complicated, and the fine-print folks need more time. Give 'em a break.

Vote Yes if you want the Council to have more time to review the budget. Vote No if you think the county budget is easy to understand.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 7 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would increase the number of signatures needed for citizens to directly propose amendments to the King County Charter.

Vote No if you want power to remain with the people. Vote Yes if you feel that the King County Charter is our county’s constitution and should not be amended easily.

The increase in the number of signatures would make it essentially impossible to get a citizen based change to the Charter. Although the Voter’s Pamphlet “Statement Against” is written in part by Tim Eyman, I still feel as if more power should remain with the people.


Amendment No. 8 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would make the offices of King county executive, assessor and council nonpartisan, and establish the nonpartisan selection of districting committee members.

Vote Yes if you think this will make the county offices operate better since county issues are not as relevant to Democratic or Republican views. Vote No if you enjoy partisanship or feel that this simply puts less information at the hands of voters.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Voters in August had a first crack at this proposal but it is a two-step process. The favorable vote in the primary must be followed by another yes on the official charter change on the November ballot.

County government can operate more smoothly, in a less rancorous manner, if partisanship is removed. Issues of transportation, land use, density and criminal justice do not really lend themselves to the traditional divisiveness of Republican and Democratic ideology.

Getting rid of the partisanship could open the offices to more challengers. Too frequently, County Council and executive campaigns lack vigorous opponents. It's the land of incumbency. Making the offices nonpartisan ought to attract more new participants.

President and Vice President of the United States – Vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Democrats)

Seattle Times: Obama
Post Intelligencer: Obama

Obviously, I’m going to vote for Obama because my views align closely with the Democratic Party. But regardless of his policies, what I really like about him is his ability to inspire others. Did you see that picture in St. Louis where over 100,000+ came to see him speak? Of course there is the historic speech in 2004, but even his speech this year at the convention moved me. When was the last time this many people were energized over the President? I know this sounds cheesy, but hearing him speak, it inspires me to be a better citizen.

The other thing about Obama is his intelligence. I don’t get the people who think sounding professorial or graduating from Columbia and Harvard is a bad thing. This is actually a good thing. Like many people I talk to, I want someone smarter than me running our country, the more elite, the better. From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

From the PI Editorials:

If the country ever needed new direction under a fresh, steady, calm president, this is the time. Sen. Barack Obama is the country's hope, the kind of promising, intelligent leader who comes along perhaps once in a generation.

Vote for Obama if you want a “once in a generation” leader.

Vote for McCain if:
· your household income is over $250,000.
· you think Obama is a terrorist (he’s not).
· you think Palin is qualified to take over as President

I’m not going to spend time going through all the issues. You can read a quick Seattle Times Summary.

United States Representative Congressional District No. 8 – Vote for Darcy Burner (Democrat)

Seattle Times: Reichert
Post Intelligencer: Reichert

I like Dave Reichert. I heard him give a speech when the Nisei Veterans Hall re-opened, and his sincerity when he spoke moved me. There were plenty of other Democrats who spoke and I don’t remember their speeches, but I remembered Reichert’s sincerity. With his background as the King County Sheriff, I also feel safe around him. Based on their endorsements, both the Times and the PI believe he’s done a good job as a moderate Republican.

On the other hand, I don’t like Darcy Burner. There is something weird about her voice that I just can’t peg, and frankly, she sounds unintelligent (I’m sure she’s not, seeing as how she has a computer science degree from Harvard). Maybe it’s her smile, or her glasses, I don’t know, but she just downright annoys me.

But I’m not voting for Miss Congeniality. I’m not going to be working with these individuals and I won’t be interacting with them. For local races, I have no problem voting for Republicans (except for the Governor’s position, see below) as the social conservative agenda doesn’t come into play. However, for a federal election, as a Democrat, I vote to support the issues, and Burner more closely mirrors my beliefs.

Some may say to vote Republican in this race, since there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will control both Congress and the Presidency, creating unchecked Democratic control. Maybe with another President there would be something to fear. However, as an Obama believer, I believe in him to do the right thing. I want to give him all the help he can get to enact his policies if he wins. And we still don’t know who will win, the polls could be way off. Some polls have Obama leading in double digits, and others have it as a virtual tie. If you believe in Obama’s policies, why wouldn’t you also vote for Burner whose policies would closely mirror his?

Vote Yes for Burner if you believe in Obama. Vote No if you fear the possibility of both Congress and the Presidency controlled by the Democrats.

If you still can’t decide, look at the Seattle Times Q&A, and see the Seattle Times Voters Guide for a side-by-side comparison of their stances.

Governor - Vote for Christine Gregoire (Incumbent, Democrat)

Seattle Times: Rossi
Post Intelligencer: Gregoire

Are you really going to vote for someone who lists himself as “Prefers G.O.P. Party?” The Grand Old Party Party? To quote an unnamed individual at work, “Seriously?” To be consistent, maybe he should put his name on the ballot as “Dino Rossi Rossi.” Or list his current occupation as “Commercial Real Estate Estate.” Or his education from “Seattle University University.” I really hope Rossi doesn’t stutter, ‘cause then I’ll feel bad.

If you are a Democrat please vote for Gregoire. Don’t even think about Rossi. In a blue state, it’s amazing that the race 4 years ago was so close, and is still probably close this year.

Some of it may have to do with the fact that Rossi just seems to be a likeable, funny guy. When you see him, he’s always smiling. I like people who smile, it makes we want to smile and puts me in a better mood. Gregoire on the other hand, looks downright scary. In fact, I’m afraid of her, she looks really mean, like the strict Vice-Principal you once had in middle school that would kick your ass if it was legal. She’s like McCain and Rossi is Obama. But Gregoire can’t help it – a woman at her age (61) to have succeeded early on in the old boys network, she had to act hyper-professional. That’s just how it was back then.

Some may say in a local election, party affiliation doesn’t matter as much. The Seattle Times wrote an editorial blasting the Gregoire campaign for discussing Rossi’s stance against embryonic stem cell research, saying that it is irrelevant to the Governor’s race since there are no plans for stem cell research in Washington.

I disagree. A likeable Republican who can sway the votes of Democrats, I would be very afraid to vote that person into the governor’s office. Why? Many Presidential candidates come from the Governor’s office. I know, Rossi probably won’t be running for president anytime soon, but you have to stop thinking short-term and make strategic decisions that benefit you in the long-term. I would do all that I can to prevent giving Rossi a position in the Governor’s office, because you never know when a likeable Republican’s stance on embryonic stem cell research may come back later to haunt you if he gets propelled into the national spotlight. Look at Palin, who would’ve ever thought she would be on the ticket? It's not like I'm just voting for Gregoire to keep Rossi out. I believe she's done a good job and we need someone proven.

Vote Gregoire if you’re a social liberal. Vote for Rossi if you like people who smile.

From the PI Editorial:

Washington voters should re-elect Gregoire based on proven performance, capability and drive. Especially for uncertain times, she's a much more proven leader than her Republican rival, former state Sen. Dino Rossi.

Rossi was a capable senator and is a capable campaigner. But his avoidance of questions about his social conservatism, his unrealistic transportation ideas and even his unwillingness to be labeled Republican on the ballot all warn there's a lot about how Rossi would govern that most of us, including perhaps the candidate, would learn only after he took on the job.

Gregoire is a known, trustworthy performer. She led state agencies well for years, and has done the same for the whole state. Gregoire has made improvements and smart choices in perhaps every area of major responsibility, many long neglected.

If you want to look at a quick summary on their views, you can read the Seattle Times Summary. Note that Gregoire supports the WASL while Rossi is in favor of replacing it with a proven standardized test model. You’ll see below that I’m in favor of changing the WASL, but her stances as a social liberal trumps her position on the WASL.

Lieutenant Governor – Vote for Brad Owen (Incumbent, Democrat)

Seattle Times: No endorsement given
Post Intelligencer: Owen

What does the Lieutenant Governor do? From the PI Editorials:

The lieutenant governor acts as president of the Senate, serves on various boards and committees, appoints members to more such bodies and fills in for the governor during an absence.

Nothing I’ve seen really sways me one way or the other. I’m voting more for Owen just based on his experience. If you want to know more, see the Seattle Times article summarizing the two very different individuals, the article on McCraw and the article on Owen. See also the Seattle Times Voters Guide with the side-by-side comparison.

Secretary of State – Vote for Sam Reed (Incumbent, Republican)

Seattle Times: Reed
Post Intelligencer: Reed

Yeah, I know he’s a Republican, and not only that, he graduated from WSU. And I’m still voting for him.

What does the SecState do, you ask? Manage elections. From the PI Editorials:

Managing Washington state's elections requires solid professional oversight,fairness and openness to differing ideas…That's what the public has in its current leader.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

He is methodical, steady and refreshingly nonpartisan in carrying out official duties of his office.

Sam Reed: Will bring you the most comprehensive election information in the country. Brings experience and qualifications and a reputation throughout the state as someone with integrity. Supports the new top-two primary format. Supports law requiring ballots to be received by election day (many states already require this).

Jason Osgood: Believes unique bar codes on our ballots violates voter privacy. Brings change after having Republicans in this position since 1964. Doesn’t support the new top-two primary in its current form. Opposes requiring ballots to be received by election day.

State Treasurer – Vote for Allan Martin (Republican)

Seattle Times: Martin
Post Intelligencer: McIntire

Really, Randy? Another Republican graduate from WSU? Hey, it’s not a national office. The Seattle Times Editorial says it best:

…There is not a Democratic nor Republican way to manage the state's cash and sell its bonds. There is simply the right way.

Note that retiring State Treasurer, Mike Murphy, a Democrat, says, “I enthusiastically endorse Allan Martin.” Other endorsements include 45 current and former County Treasurers, both Republicans and Democrats.

Allan Martin: Assistant State Treasurer with experience and well-established relationships with other state, local, and municipal finance professionals.

Jim McIntire: Business economist who believes the challenges of these uncertain financial times are not technical problems to hand off to the next bureaucrat in line.

State Auditor – Vote for Brian Sonntag (Incumbent, Democrat)

Seattle Times: Sonntag
Post Intelligencer: Sonntag

The Seattle Times Editorials:

For more than 10 years, Sonntag pushed for the ability to do performance audits of agencies…In 2005, voters passed an initiative to give him authority to do performance audits.

His office has completed 11 performance audits, recommending changes that could save $3.2 billion. The audit of the Port of Seattle produced stunning findings that attracted a federal investigation. By the end of this year, the state Department of Transportation will have implemented 80 percent of recommendations in four performance audits.

Brian Sonntag: Will focus on refining and advancing our performance audit program. Experienced, earned certification as a Certified Government Financial Manager.

J. Richard (Dick) McEntee: Focus on appointing top financial and planning professionals, implement savings from performance audits, perform audits on Office of State Auditor (audit costs have been spiraling upward), Department of Social and Health Services, secondary and higher education districts. Will not spend one minute in office running for re-election, and rather will spend full-time taking fiduciary responsibility for every tax-payer dollar.

Attorney General – Vote for Rob McKenna (Incumbent, Republican)

Seattle Times: McKenna
Post Intelligencer: McKenna

Yup, another Republican. He’s done a lot as AG, protecting children from sex predators, clamping down on identity theft, fighting the methamphetamine epidemic. From what he’s done, I believe he deserves another term. In regards to nonpartisanship, from the Seattle Times Editorials:

The attorney general is the law officer of the state, and should represent the people before his political party. Ladenburg says he would do this, which is good. McKenna has done it.

And from the PI Editorials:

Most critically, he (McKenna) delivered on promises to nourish the existing nonpartisan professionalism in the office…It's a reassuring, even inspiring contrast to how any attorney general's office can be degraded from the top by partisanship, incompetence or both, as in the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales.

McKenna: Distinguished Eagle Scout. That says it all.

Ladenburg: Believes status quo isn’t working. Says McKenna believes that the primary function of his office is to act as the State government’s chief council – issuing legal advice and never taking a stance on the policy of the state agencies.

Commissioner of Public Lands – Vote for Peter J. Goldmark (Democrat)

Seattle Times: Goldmark
Post Intelligencer: Goldmark



Both papers believe a change is needed at this job. The Seattle times endorsed Sutherland twice before this, but has now switched to Goldmark after last winter’s flooding in Lewis County, where a Times investigation showed an absence of expert review of slide potential on land approved for clear-cutting.

What does the top dog in charge of the Department of Natural Resources do? From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Management of DNR is a big job. The commissioner oversees millions of acres of state-owned timber and aquatic lands. The office also has responsibility for harvest levels on industrial-scale forestland and small lots. In the summer, the department runs the state's biggest fire department.

Key issue related to this contest? Logging. From the latest article in the Seattle Times:

Goldmark: Environmentalists seem to support (encouraged Goldmark to run and have been a big source for his campaign). Environmentalists have won several lawsuits against the timber policies of Sutherland. Knows that last winter’s storm was bad, but belives DNR did nothing to determine if there was a risk of landslides in areas before they were clear-cut. Supports logging levels set after a 2005 court decision, and wants an approach that balances the needs of industry with environmental protection.

Sutherland: Timber industry supports (they’re pouring vast money into his campaign). Landslides were product of an extraordinary storm that dumped more than 19 inches of rain in some places, and not from mistakes by his agency or logging companies. DNR more open to logging, which means more money for schools (school construction is funded by timber sales from state lands). Has earned some grudging praise from his environmental critics in relation to creating a 1,600 acre reserve protected from logging in Skagit County.

Vote for Goldmark if you’re a tree hugger and blame the Lewis County landslides on the DNR. Vote for Sutherland if you like Paul Bunyan and believe there was nothing that could have prevented the landslides.

Superintendent of Public Instruction (Nonpartisan) – Vote for Randy Dorn

Seattle Times: Bergeson
Post Intelligencer: Bergeson

Both papers endorse Bergeson primarily for her experience and longevity. However, this race really comes down to your opinion of the WASL. If you don’t have a kid taking the WASL, talk to someone who does and find out their opinion of how well it does or does not work. For me, it comes down to Kari’s opinion that the WASL needs to be changed.

My only hesitation in voting for Dorn is that he declined to respond to the Seattle Times Voters Guide. What’s he hiding? Another interesting thing to note about Dorn comes from the Seattle Times Editorials:

He (Dorn) emphasizes vocational education and says not all students need to take Algebra II. That opinion is diametrically opposite the view of Bergeson, the State Board of Education and this page. Regardless of what students do beyond high school, they will need a solid foundation in math.

I’m not sure I really agree with Dorn on that, but the need to change the WASL trumps that.

Vote for Dorn if you think the WASL is flawed and need to be changed. Vote for Bergeson if you think the WASL is fine.

Dorn: Will replace WASL with a testing system that is more fair, understandable, and takes less time, so testing doesn’t dominate curriculum and the school calendar.

Bergeson: Top goals: fix inadequate and outdated school funding system, reduce dropout rate/achievement gap, fix problems of No Child Left Behind law. Supports reading/writing WASL and the current delay in the Math WASL

Insurance Commissioner – Vote for Mike Kreidler (Incumbent, Democrat)

Seattle Times: Kreidler
Post Intelligencer: Kreidler

The Seattle Times calls Adams a “token challenger.” But at the same time, they endorse Kreidler with some observations:

During the recent good years…the major health insurers — Premera, Regence and Group Health — piled up surpluses by the hundreds of millions. This page raised an alarm about that several years ago…Our thought was that the state had created a kind of economic umbrella, and that under its shade the three big insurers had been liberal about raising rates, and not as competitive as the people had a right to expect…Kreidler did fight back when Premera wanted to convert to a stock company and sell shares on Wall Street. He fought the company in court, and won — at considerable expense — what we thought was a huge victory for consumers.

Kreidler: Proposed, and got passed, a law that expands authority to review proposed rate increases for regulated health care products. Guaranteed Health Benefit Plan proposal would not require employers to provide health care, but would have everyone covered whether working or unemployed.

Adams: Would review reserves and expenses of the major three health insurers to determine rate increases/decreases. Believes competition is necessary to bring down premiums. Would encourage looking at a true catastrophic illness and injury program for all employed workers.

Legislative District No. 5

For State Legislative District No. 5, I got lazy. Look at the Seattle Times Voters Guide which does a good job of listing out the answers from each candidate on top priorities, transportation, economy, projected budget shortfall, teacher salaries/class sizes, environment, health care, and boom/bust cycles of the economy.


State Senator - Vote for Cheryl Pflug (Incumbent, Republican)

Seattle Times: Pflug
Post Intelligencer: Pflug

How do you pronounce her name? Who cares, she is a UW grad. Finally. a Husky to vote for. Yeah, she’s a Republican, but from the Seattle Times Editorials:

The Maple Valley Republican is a workhorse reflective of the values of her rural-suburban district. Pflug's voting record eludes partisanship. When her GOP colleagues walked out last year after voting against scientifically accurate sex-education legislation, Pflug was one of two Republicans to stay and vote in favor of it.

See the Seattle Times Voters Guide for a side-by-side comparison.


Representative Position No. 1 – Vote for Jay Rodne (Incumbent, Republican)

Seattle Times: Rodne
Post Intelligencer: No endorsement available

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

An experienced lawmaker who pledges to deal with the state's mushrooming deficit through strict prioritizing, Rodne is needed in the Legislature. His opponent, John Viebrock, doesn't make a compelling case for change.

See the Seattle Times Voters Guide for a side-by-side comparison.


Representative Position No. 2 – Vote for Glenn Anderson (Incumbent, Republican)

Seattle Times: Anderson
Post Intelligencer: No endorsement available

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Despite the growing presence of Democratic lawmakers on the Eastside, Anderson has won three terms and the respect of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. This is because he offers experience and a sharp fiscal eye. Veteran teacher David Spring is a worthy opponent, but not a better choice.

See the Seattle Times Voters Guide for a side-by-side comparison.

Superior Court Judges

For Superior Court Judges (all non-partisan), I’m not sure how to evaluate the candidates, so I’m just going to follow the endorsements of the papers. But this is one area you don’t have to worry too much about who you vote for since it seems as if all the candidates are qualified. Maybe the PI put it best:

We are not fond of electing judges. But King County voters have choices that would be hard to complain about.

Judge Position No. 1 - Vote for Tim Bradshaw

Seattle Times: Bradshaw
Post Intelligencer: Bradshaw

Seattle Times Editorials:

Trial-court experience is crucial for a Superior Court judge, and prosecutor Tim Bradshaw, 52, has a lot of it: 125 Superior Court jury trials, far more than his opponent for Position 1, Assistant Attorney General Sue Parisien.

Judge Position No. 22 - Vote for Julia Garratt

Seattle Times: Garratt
Post Intelligencer: Garratt

Seattle Times Editorials:

Garratt…has been a Superior Court judge pro tem since 1998…She has been a prosecutor and a public defender… Her Position 22 opponent, Holly Hill, has been a lecturer at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, giving her a big-picture overview of courtroom issues, but Garratt has more recent experience on the ground. Garratt has a precise, technocratic manner that will brook no nonsense.

Judge Position No. 37 - Vote for Jean Rietschel

Seattle Times: Rietschel
Post Intelligencer: Rietschel

PI Editorials:

Rietschel is the choice on the basis of experience and a record of firm but fair handling of cases as a municipal court judge for 12 years. Rietschel received exceptional ratings.

Proposition No. 1 Mass Transit Expansion - Vote to Approve

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This measure would expand and coordinate light-rail, commuter-rail, and express bus service…authorize Sound Transit to impose an additional five-tenths of one percent sales and use tax, and to use existing taxes to fund the local share of the $17.9 billion estimated cost…

On transportation related issues, I always try to find out what I can from a subject matter expert: Tony Woody, P.E., a transportation engineer who has led and worked on a variety of freeway, arterial, and transit micro-simulation projects. His professional experience includes traffic operational analysis, transportation planning, and microscopic traffic simulation modeling. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Civil Engineering and is a registered professional engineer in the state of Washington. Note that although he obtained his Bachelor’s from Oregon State University, this is more than offset by the fact that his Master’s is from that fantastic institution of learning that is the University of Washington. Although he is slightly biased in relation to this proposition, a summary of Prop 1 from Tony Woody, P.E.:

Prop 1 will fund:
· Additional Light Rail facilities to the North (Northgate w/extension possibly to Lynnwood) and East (Bellevue/Redmond)
· Increase Buses by something like 17%
· Provide easy access to a large portion of Puget Sound region homes (many new stations, stops, P&R with 1/2 mile of homes/business)
· Additional planning studies for new lines to Issaquah, and the South
· The ability to expand capacity for 50+ years (roads are already maxed out)

Some of the things that might be conceived as a disadvantage are the design modifications (conversion of lanes to tracks, etc.), but these changes are actually expected to make a net increase in mobility because we will have less people in vehicles. In addition, this will be something that we can continue to expand on for a long period of time.

For more information, check out the Seattle Times Proposition 1 Guide, which has a quick and dirty summary, plus Pros and Cons as well as the Seattle Times Voter’s Guide which has statements from both sides. See also the Sound Transit website, and click on the “Setting the Record Straight” for misleading or untrue statements about this proposition.

Why vote yes? Light rail is superior to buses. We need to encourage people to get out of their cars and into mass transit, and they only way to do that is if it is quicker and easier and light rail would do that. This proposition won’t even have light rail come out to Issaquah (although I keep trying to tell Tony’s wife to get him to sneak it in there somehow), but I still support it because we need to start off with a base network of light rail, and then expand from there.

Yes, we have excellent bus service in King County Metro, with more than 9,000 stops. It provides a spider web of services whereas light rail will only have a few stations to begin with. But we have to start somewhere, and buses have problems that light rail solves, and would therefore encourage people to get out of their cars. Problems such as…

Buses get stuck in traffic. When I’m sitting on the bus, and we’re not moving because of a traffic accident or a Mariner’s game, I think to myself, I should have drove in today. Yes, you can build more bus lanes, but light rail has dedicated tracks. I’d think about trading in light rail for buses if you agree to build bus-only lanes for the majority of their routes. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of when buses merge onto the freeway or other streets and have to fight through regular traffic just to get to the HOV lane, like you do by my house. Yes, this issue is being fixed in many areas, but light rail would never have that issue.

Another reason light rail is more efficient, is because you would be able to get on and off much more quickly. For commuter park n’ rides, in the morning, when I get on the bus, it takes way too long for the entire line to snake through one set of doors. Same thing when you get off in evening, you have to pay and go through one set of doors. With light rail, you’ve already paid as you get to the loading area, so when the train comes, it’s an easy on or off through multiple sets of doors, making the whole process more efficient. Okay, maybe time-wise, you only save a few minutes, but the perception of efficiency would help encourage people to take light rail rather than buses.

So, maybe you’re all for mass transit, but you don’t like the cost. The position of the Seattle Times is that a 0.5% increase would bring our sales tax to 9.5% in Seattle, one of the highest in the nation, and that it would retard the economy and hurt the poor.

First of all, we don’t have a state income tax, so quit your whining about the high sales tax. The second part is, do people really stand in a store and think, well, I was going to buy those shoes for $70 ($76.30 with tax), but now, with the additional tax, those shoes are going to cost me $76.65, so I’ll pass? If I was making a big purchase, I would consider the impact of the sales tax. But right now, when I’m calculating the sales tax, I just round it off to 10% anyway. As in, hmmm, I was thinking of buying a Tag Heuer watch for $2,000, can I really afford that? Oh, wait I need to adjust for tax, so really it would be about $2,200 – can I afford that amount? One other thing to note: most food in groceries are not subject to tax. But if you really need to make a non-grocery purchase, and you’re low on money, it would be easier to select the $40 pair of shoes rather than the $70 pair, rather than worrying about the 0.5% increase in sales tax.

What’s the actual dollar impact to you? The typical adult would pay about $69 a year, and the median household, earning around $65,000 a year, would pay $125 per year. That doesn't include sales taxes paid by businesses, some of which would be passed on through higher prices.

When the Seattle Times Editorials came out with their recommendation against Prop 1, it occurred right about when the credit crisis was happening and the Dow Jones was taking a tumble. I think their thinking back then was, why add on a tax now with the economy in shambles?

The PI endorsement came out more recently. The thinking here is that, yeah, a tax isn’t great right now, but what’s worse is job loss. It’s all about “jobs, baby, jobs.” From the PI Editorials:

All things being equal, we'd support the expansion of Sound Transit for many reasons…We could make the case on transportation grounds, the environment…But all things are not equal. Not now…The first priority in this economy must be the creation of good-paying jobs and voting yes on Proposition 1 will do just that… Sound Transit is a critical public works project. A one-half cent boost in the sales tax seems a reasonable price to pay for so many new jobs.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels estimates at least 66,00 direct and indirect jobs would be created, and the US. DOT estimates 47,500 jobs are created for every billion dollars invested in transportation projects. These are jobs that will not come to the region if we do not expand mass transit.

Vote Yes if you understand that light rail is far superior to buses and realize the benefits in terms of transportation, environment, and jobs outweigh the costs.

Vote No if you can only see in the short-term and want only immediate fixes, or you believe building more freeway lanes will relieve congestion (which it will not, since it just means more people would end up driving), or if you enjoy sitting in a bus while it’s stuck in traffic.

"Antiphospho-what?" Part 2

Just some last thoughts on antiphospholipid syndrome:

From the Mayo Clinic:

The cause of primary antiphospholipid syndrome is unknown. However, some factors are associated with developing antiphospholipid antibodies — though not necessarily developing the syndrome.

These factors include infections, medications, and genetic predispositions. None of which Kari had. In regards to genetic predispositions:

Although the disorder isn't considered hereditary, research indicates that relatives of people with antiphospholipid syndrome are more likely to have the antibodies.