Check Your Voter Registration Before Election Day and Other Helpful Tips

The King County Absentee Ballots are being mailed starting on 10/17/08. If you don't get yours within a week or so you might want to check and make sure you are really registered and you have an active registration. ATTENTION: If you aren't currently registered to vote in Washington you CAN still register until 10/20/08. You just have to do it in person at the King County Elections Office in Renton.

Remember you have to have your ballot POSTMARKED by election day, 11/4/08, to have it counted. You also have the option of dropping it off at a ballot collection site; in King County you can go here to find the drop off locations.

If you want to check on your voter registration status you can go to King County Elections Voter Lookup and enter your name and birth date or address and not only will it tell you if you are registered it will give you an online voter's guide with all of the races that will be on your ballot. Alternately (and this is what I prefer) you can go to the Washington State Secretary of State - Personalized Voter Information site and enter your name and birth date. This site will not only give you your registration status but will also give you your voter history for the last 3 years and a much nicer personalized voter guide. Either way, be sure you check one of these sites out before election day whether you are voting absentee or at the polls.

For those of you who are voting at the polls in King County you might want to check out the ID requirements and make sure you know where your polling place is located. You can find your polling place by using the KC Voter Lookup tool I linked to above.

No matter who you are voting please go out and vote; it's the only way our democracy will work the way it was designed. Let's see if we can beat the 83% turnout that the Secretary of State is predicting.

Much Ado About a 20 cent Fee You Can Easily Avoid

I addressed the proposed 20 cent bag tax that Seattle finally ended up passing in July here. Since then apparently a petition drive has been organized by the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax. To this end they have gathered over 20,000 signatures to get an initiative on the ballot. They need 14,374 valid signature to get on the ballot so with the 20K they probably have the buffer they need to get into the next election after the November 4, 2008 election. There has been a minor controversy about the use of paid signature gatherers that may be lying about the petition being PRO bag tax and not ANTI to collect signatures. The CtStSBT is apparently mainly a front for the American Chemistry Council which is the lobbying arm of the plastics industry. The ACC picked up most of the costs of the paid signature gatherers and the web site linked to above.

Personally I am kind of amuse by the hysteria of the CtStSBT and their frantic attempt to stop the bag tax from going into effect. It seems to me the arguments against the bag tax can be boiled down into:

1) Its an unfair burden on the poor. It will cost them $300 a year that they can't afford.
While its true that poor people can ill afford to lose $300 to a bag tax all they really have to do is invest $5.00 in some reusable bags that will last them for years. I'm pretty sure that Seattle is going to be sending out free reusable bags in the near future anyway.

2)The City's own research shows that 91% of Seattle's citizens reuse or recycle their bags.

Hey that's great. We Seattlites always have been good recyclers, it's good to know that we are really kicking ass on reusing/recycling our plastic bags. I don't know what percentage reuse as opposed to recycle but it would be better for the environment and more energy efficient for the recycled bags to never have been made in the first place. I reuse my plastic grocery bags as garbage bags and to scoop kitty litter but I'm not going to freak out if I have to start buying garbage bags or some other small plastic bags to use instead.

This next one I've seen in the PI Sound Off section a couple of times (go down a few comments) but not on any anti-bag tax web sites:

3) The bag tax is a health hazard.

Seattle bag tax is health hazard especially for low income families. When meat is carried home in a reusable bag one day (and it leaks) and then vegetables are carried home the next day you get cross contamination. With reusable bags, you create a breeding ground for bacteria which will quickly build up to extremely dangerous levels (especially if the bags are kept in warm areas between uses) which can also contaminate other customers food items. Since the poor are less likely to pay the 20 cent bag tax, they are the ones most at risk - as well as those who are buying groceries behind them.

Ok, I'm no expert on bacteria, or leaking meat containers but this argument just seems silly to me. If meat leaking on vegetables was a huge health hazard I think we would have heard about massive outbreaks of death by now. I have been reusing both paper bags and cloth bags for a while now and I haven't noticed any meat leakage or any bacterial growth so far. I also figure if I my cloth bags got messy I'd just, well... clean them.

Look, I'm not a huge proponent of the bag tax but it seems to be a step in the right direction. I mean how many more people recycle now that it is mandatory then when it was a voluntary program. Even when it was voluntary the city "encouraged" people to recycle by making the recycle pick-up fees cheaper than regular garbage. Sometimes people have to be guided into doing the right thing. The plastic bag tax is not incredible burdensome and all you have to do to avoid it is to bring your own bag when you go grocery shopping. I think its a small price to pay to take a small step towards reducing waste and encouraging people to step out of the "disposable mindset" we find ourselves in these days.

Oh yeah and I'm also pretty cynical about the involvement of the American Chemical Council who's motives seem to by quite transparent.

$750,000 Buys a LOT of Arugula, Even at Whole Foods

CNN's Hardball, without Chris Matthews had a fascinating segment last Friday on whether Barak Obama is too cool. The segment was basically a rehash of whether Obama is too "elitist" to understand what its like to be an average American. I suppose this may be a legitimate question. Everybody wants a president that is in touch with the day to day problems that we encounter: the price of food, increasing gas prices and the like. However, instead of having a real discussion of the topic the one of the Hardball panel members, Margaret Carlson, tries to make the point that both candidates wives are out of touch citing Cindy McCain's one month $750,000 credit card bill and the fact that Michelle Obama mentioned shopping at Whole Foods for arugula and how hard it is to get fresh fruit. (h/t Crooks & Liars) She says this seemingly very seriously and without irony. Her fellow panel members don't protest her comparison they just kind of snicker in the background when she says "arugula."

Now let me get this straight. Michelle Obama worries about high food prices when she shops at Whole Foods for arugula and fresh fruit and this makes her as elitist and out of touch as Cindy McCain who runs up a $750,000 credit card bill in a month? You have got to be kidding me!

Look, I don't buy arugula, but I do shop at Whole Foods for organic fruits and vegetables when I can afford it. Whole Foods is expensive but spending $5.00 a pound for lettuce or whatever doesn't make you an elitist it makes you someone who likes a kick ass fresh salad. Practically everyone goes food shopping and worries about prices but when was the last time you had a $750,000 credit card bill?

I hate the word 'elitist" but if you are going to apply it to one person in this scenario it sure as hell isn't going to be Michelle Obama. This is one of many examples of the media trying to make a controversy or create a story where one doesn't exist. It's really sad that they spend their time on this type of thing instead of comparing what the candidates are saying or doing.

Organized Religion is Not for Me

Religion is a personal thing for me, and I think, many others around the country. We are the people that check the “other” box in surveys. We’re not Christians or Jews, Muslims or Hindus, for that matter we’re not even Wiccans or Mormons. We don’t go to church but we believe in God or at least a Supreme Being or Beings. Some of us like to discuss religion in an attempt to understand what compels people to gather together and celebrate their beliefs in a group. Is it the need to reassure themselves that they are following the “Right” God? Is it the need that almost all people have to form a community of like-minded individuals? What drives their belief in the same aspect of a Supreme Being? I am one of those that would like to have a serious discussion with religious folks about their religion.

Unfortunately, religion has always been one of those topics that are difficult to have a real discussion about without falling into an argument. This seems to have gotten worse in the last few years. The religious fundamentalists have always seemed to ally themselves with the most conservative politicians in our country, for obvious reasons I suppose. Both groups dislike change and are generally representative of the less tolerant members of our society. This alliance has emboldened both parties and allowed them to exert influence out of proportion to the members of each group. These groups have worked together to make it tantamount to political suicide to not be an overtly religious person (of the Judeo-Christian religion of your choice). And if you disagree with the government wearing the Christian religion on its sleeve, then you hate God right? Or you are prosecuting a “War on Christianity.” It is the same method the Right uses to shore up support for its political policies: “Why do the liberals hate America?” Both methods use the easiest method of persuasion; they twist people into believing that everything is an “us against them” proposition.

Organized religion, especially Christianity, seems to be uniquely suited to this proposition. The very foundation of most Christian sects is that the word of God comes to them through the Bible and one of the most important parts of the Bible is the Ten Commandments where God says, “thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” This is not exactly a tolerant attitude. If you combine it with the proselytizing that seems to be a part of most Christian religions, then it can easily be warped into the attitude that anyone that doesn’t accept their version of religion is the enemy. This is not reflective of the majority of religious people but it seems that a frighteningly large number of the more fanatically bent “people of faith” are drawn to these types of religious sects.

It may be unfair to dismiss organized religion based on a small subset, but the influence that these fanatical people exert paints all similar religions with the same brush. If the more moderate and reasonable sects of a religion don’t want to be lumped into the extremist category of their more fanatical relations then they should make an effort to distance themselves from them. Just as Christian religious leaders call upon moderate Muslims to denounce the terrorist acts of their extremist sects , it’s only fair if other people can call upon the moderate Christians to denounce the extremist Christians.

Where I live (Seattle, WA) there are many churches that do good charity work. They save lives by hosting and feeding the homeless; they raise money for disaster relief and host informative forums about political and social issues affecting the area. They do good work and are an asset to the community. But I also feel that I live in an area that is not dominated by extremist sect. We don’t have an aggressive push for prayer in our schools, or at public events. We don’t have churches calling for rewriting science textbooks to include creationism or push for banning books.

Other areas of the country aren’t so lucky. They have churches pushing their Christian agendas on the secular arena. They use their influence to push values that they believe in on the general public that may not believe in them. If the more moderate sects don’t believe that this is right, why don’t they speak out against it? Why don’t they use their status as religious leaders to call for a more tolerant attitude from these more fanatical sects?

I don’t know why. Some kind of religious politics I suppose, maybe someday someone will explain this to me. But until then, this will be one of the reasons that organized religions don’t appeal to me. It seems hypocritical to be for tolerance but not speak out against intolerance in other sects of the same religion. It is a failure of sorts and one that has a profound effect on the country. Until I see some organized religion that is willing to stand up to the fanatics, especially those in their sects, organized religions will be forever lumped into the category “watch – may be dangerous.”

The First Amendment to our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” to my mind this reflects the intent that government should stay our of religion and religion should stay out of government. Organized religions don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept.

I'm Back!

Ah... it has been a long time since I have updated Turpentine (Note: my old blog) and lots of things have happened since. So to bring everybody up to date:

In mid-October 2004 I was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome so I was forced to give up much of my typing and since I have to do some at work...this blog had to suffer.

In early November 2004 - Bush was declared the winner of an election that had MORE irregularities than the last one he was declared the winner of in 2000. Not to mince words - this fucking depressed the hell out of me. To compound my depression Kerry basically gave up without a fight. He reneged on his promise to make sure every vote was counted; he really screwed the folks in Ohio.

This depression/funk lasted through Retail HELL Season (Christmas) when we store owner work 7 days a week 12 hour days, and towards the New Year when we STILL didn't have a governor here in Washington.

Then Christine Gregoire (D) was determined to have won the election for Governor by less than 150 votes after 3 counts. This gave me some hope for the future of Washington even though this result is still being disputed by the Republicans. In some of the thickest political irony I've ever seen they want to have a REVOTE. Can you see the bloody murder they would be screaming if the Democrats had suggested such a think if Rossi had won? (Not to mention Bush.)

But what finally snapped me out of my funk was Howard Dean being elected to the chair of the DNC. Now I have hope that the Democratic Party is not going to swerve to the Right to try and get votes from people that will never vote for them anyway. I think that I would rather have us fail and be true to our values and ideas than try to squirm and weasel our way into victory.

Coincidentally, my carpal tunnel symptoms seem to have lessened so I can type now. I even got another letter to the editor published in the Seattle PI, this one about how the Republicans are trying to twist FDRs words into an endorsement for their "private/personal" Social Security accounts. The letter I was responding to is here.

Thanks for stopping by...see ya soon.

Scott

First Debate to Kerry

Thursday's debate was pretty important, especially for the leaners and undecideds in the country. I think that Kerry showed that he could be a strong confindent leader, not the wishy-washy flipflopper that Bush tries to make him out to be.

This debate should have been Bush's to dominate. Foreign policy is his ONLY strength in the polls. (Ok people would rather have a beer with him but he's a teetotaler so that doesn't count.) Instead of coming out on the attack he basically just stuck to his normal stump speech points - Kerry flip-flops and Iraq wasn't a mistake. His first point is wrong but can easily be made to appear correct if you edit the footage correctly. The second point is so incredibly wrong that you wonder if Bush is in the sam universe as the rest of us. I mean obvioulsy he can't say "I made a mistake." But I really don't think he has any concept of how screwed up Iraq is. He blew his best chance to score big and grab a lead that Kerry couldn't come back from, so Kerry gets the Win for this one.

That said, I think that Kerry could have done better. He did well to get Bush on the defensive right at the start, but he kind of fumbled in the middle. If Bush hadn't been making faces at Kerry like a petulant 6 year old and unable to think on his feet, I think the debate would have been a tie more than the grand victory the Dems and most media outlets have declared it to be

Some Results Are In

Well it looks like Gregoire is going to trounce Ron Sims something like 70% to 30% in the Dem Governors Primary. Kind of depressing when you think a guy named Mike the Mover is going to get almost 5% if things keep up like they are.

The race between Alice Woldt and Helen Sommers looks like it is going to be so close that we will have to wait for all of the absentee ballots (lots of folks in Seattle vote that way) are in to see who wins. Right now there is a difference of less than 50 votes with Sommers with a slight lead.

I saw a bunch of people with Woldt signs down on the corner of NW 15th Ave and NW Market St. There was also one loney Sommers person. Whether that means anything or not who knows.