Checksum Arcanius

John McCain’s concession speech was the most eloquent I have ever heard the man. Strange time to pull that out of the hat.

I will post the text here once I find a good source.

I-985: I’m voting Yes, with reservations. This initiative is very far from perfect, but it does have some good ideas. The legislature has shown itself very willing to modify and even overwrite laws passed by initiative, so the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the opponents don’t make any sense to me. Anything terribly wrong with the law will get fixed, and hopefully the things that are right will stick around.

Some of my favorite things about the law:

• Requires toll funds to be used in the vicinity where the tolls are collected
• Opens HOV lanes during non-peak hours

Some of my least favorite things:

• Poorly defined non-peak hours
• Forces some local jurisdictions to spend money

I-1000: I’m voting Yes. Helping competent adults makes decisions they want to make should not be illegal.

I-1029: I’m voting No. It just adds bureacracy and rules; we already have too much and too many of each.

King County Charter Amendment No. 1: Both sides of this issue have merit. Certainly an elections director needs specific, technical knowledge about running an election, but it also seems ripe for corruption to have an elections director appointed by a partisan elected official, especially in the one-party county we live in. I feel that there is a higher risk that an unqualified person will be elected than appointed, and until corruption becomes more nakedly rampant than it already is, I think that this is a risk not worth taking at this time. Perhaps, as the proponents of the amendment point out, the auditor-less King County should gain an elected auditor rather than an elected director of elections. I am voting No.

King County Charter Amendment No. 2: I think that people should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever they wish; furthermore, I think that you and I should be able to discriminate right back against them. I disagree with legislating this kind of thing, so I am voting No.

King County Charter Amendment No. 3: I’m voting No. Most people will vote yes. Baaah.

King County Charter Amendment No. 4: I’m vehemently voting No. Politicians setting up rules for who can and can not run for elected office is a perfect recipe for government that is not under the control of its people.

King County Charter Amendment No. 5: I’m voting Yes, as will most others. It seems to me that having  economic input to elected officials should help them make their poor decisions in a more informed manner, if nothing else.

King County Charter Amendment No. 6: I’m voting No. Forty-five days is a plenty long time to review the budget for how large King County should be. Instead, the county has up and exploded in scope and size, and now they are crying about not having enough time to review their mamoth budget. Here’s a novell idea: cut the budget down, return money to your constituents, and kill two birds with one stone.

King County Charter Amendment No. 7: I’m voting No. Decreasing initiative access to the ballot doesn’t help anything except entrenched politicians.

King County Charter Amendment No. 8: Again, I see both sides of this issue. More information about candidates is good, but we have become so entrenched in one-party politics in this county that party affiliation doesn’t really give us additional information. I would like to try nonpartisanship on for size, and see where it goes, so I am going to vote Yes.

President and Vice President of the United States: Not that it matter who I vote for in this state, but I have chosen to vote for Libertarians Bob Barr and Wayne Root. If my one vote would have sent McCain to the White House, then I guess maybe he shouldn’t have been so flaming liberal throughout this campaign.

United States Representitives Congressional District No. 8: I’m voting for Dave Reichert. Fiscally conservative, socially laissez-faire, and just green enough to stay elected. His opponent Darcy Burner has impressive credentials but misguided political ideas.

Governor: I’m voting for Dino Rossi. In addition to aligning more closely with my political beliefs than Gregoire, his special interest seems to be the construction lobby, which is a heck of a lot better than the SEIU or WEA, which have the current governor in their pocket. Also, I think it is worthwhile to shake up government once in a while to see what happens. Perhaps Dino is a real leader who really will fix problems like transportation and draconian health care mandates. Certainly Gregoire hasn’t accomplished anything in either regard in her four years.

Lieutenant Governor: Marcia McCraw. A mostly meaningless position, it would still be good to get some fresh ideas and perspective into the office. Think about it: what has Brad Owen done recently?

Secretary of State: I’m a little skeptical of electing a Democrat to replace moderate-as-all-get-out Republican Sam Reed, who has done a mostly competent if forgettable job if we are to ignore the gubernatorial election debacle of four years ago. His opponent, democrat Jason Osgood is untested, but has technincal skills, innovative ideas, and an independent streak, all of which I are worth exploring, so I am voting for him.

State Tresurer: I think it is worth mentioning that the outgoing state tresurer, democrat Mike Murphy, endorsed his assistant, republican Allan Martin. That should raise some eyebrows, as should the fact that his opponent, Jim McIntire, is endorsed only by party-line democrats. Allan Martin already knows what the job requires, is able to do it, and will provide some semblance of counterbalance to the state’s heavy democrat majorities elsewhere.

Attorney General: This is an easy vote for Rob McKenna, who has proven himself extraordinarily competent and fair, avoiding any of the fiascos that plagued Gregoire especially towards the end of her tenure in the office. Rob McKenna is also a leading hope for the Washington Republican Party into the future.

Commissioner of Public Lands: Republican Doug Sutherland has done a good job making the office more efficient while acting as a good steward of Washington’s public lands. He deserves re-election.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: I had the chance to meet incumbant Terry Bergeson at the FIRST Robotics Regional in March this year, where I in my role as a FIRST ambassador escorted her around the competition. While she enthusiastically cheered on the robots, it’s her policies that have failed to significantly improve Washington’s public education system. While her opponent doesn’t really get the full picture either*, Randy Dorn will bring a fresh face to bear on the issues and I think that will help get the ball moving again, for better or for worse.

Insurance Commissioner: Ever wonder why there are so many more options for car insurance than health insurance in Washington State? The insurance commissioner is a big part of the answer. There are a relatively few restrictions on what kind of car insurance plans can be offered in Washington State. The result is a large array of choices, which keeps competition for your dollars high, which keeps costs low. On the other hand, any company wishing to offer health insurance in this state has a long list of criteria they must meet. The result is fewer choices, all of which are more expensive than a more limited plan that covers less could be. The incumbant, Democrat Mike Kreidler has done nothing to improve this situation. His opponent, John Adams, has an independent insurance background and has listed opening up the health insurance market as a top priority. John Adams gets my vote.

Legislative District No. 41 –

State Senator: A traditional limited-government republican, Bob Baker is an easy choice over democrat Fred Jarrett who helped Gregoire get hundreds of millions of new taxes.

Representitive Position No. 1: Centrist republican Steve Lizow is a moderately better choice than Marcie Maxwell.

City of Bellevue Proposition No. 1 Levy for City Parks and Natural Areas: I’m voting Yes.

Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 Mass Transit Expansion: Every time I hear of Sound Transit’s newest initiative, I always think “You’re doing it wrong!” No exception here*. I’m voting No.

* The correct answers are 1) voucher schools and 2) congestion tolls on all roadways.

As originally suggested by Nordsieck, I have compiled a couple of graphs depicting the relationship between voting on the bailout plan and the seniority (time since first elected) of the voter. Check it out below, and feel free to draw your own conclusions. My conclusion? DC corrupts.

For more damning evidence, check out the relationship between campaign donations and voting in the House of Representatives.

A few months ago, I submitted the paperwork to run for the Republican Precinct Committee Officer in precinct 41-3084. It was sort of my last hurrah in support of Ron Paul after the somewhat disappointing outcome from the Washington State Presidential Caucuses.

Failing to find the results immediately after the election, I forgot about the whole thing for a couple of months. Today, for some reason, I thought about it again, and this time I was able to find the PCO results from the primary election:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/200808/pcoresults.aspx

In In the closest election I have ever been involved in, I lost by only two votes to the incumbant. I didn’t even run a campaign — my oponent, however, did (he sent out letters). With results like this, perhaps politics is in my future?

The relevant results:

When I heard that the $700 billion bailout plan was rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, I grew giddy. It was wonderful and strange to have that feeling caused by politicians, after the constant disappointment I have become familiar with, especially with the Bush Administration. Dave Reichart, for whom I voted, was one of the gutsy Republicans who defied the Administration to vote no.

Principles are those central tenants a person can fall back on when the going gets tough. One of the principles of the Republican party — at least in theory — is believing in the free market and keeping it mostly free. Admittedly, a lot of people figured this out before me, but it has become apparent to me as well that George W. Bush and his administration generally lack principles, or at least any principles that I can fathom. This bailout package is just the latest,and for me the greatest, indication of this.

Perhaps if the Democrats had shown as much guts back in 2003 as the Republicans just did, we wouldn’t be in this Iraq 2.0 mess? Just a thought.

Of course, as a friend recently pointed out, we’re not out of the woods yet on the bailout package. More votes are likely, and this first one may have just been the “well we rejected it once” vote before it gets tweaked and passed, essentially the same. So get up and write your representatives and senators. Lets leave this thing dead for the long run.

The only thing Bush could do at that point to restore any of my respect would be to veto. Anyone want to guess what the chances of that are?

Initially, I thought that both the driver and the cyclists who assaulted the driver after the driver ran over a cyclist should be charged and tried for the crimes they each committed. I even thought that the cyclists who attacked the car after the incident were really just shooting themselves in the foot, because without the damage to the car, the driver couldn’t have claimed that people were beating on his car before he drove over cyclists. However, based on the hugely biased police report that the Seattle Police Department appears to have no intention of correcting, I have grown pretty certain that even with no damage to his car, the driver would have avoided any charges.

The City of Seattle’s refusal to hold the driver accountable for his actions has, in my opinion, legitimized the vigilantism pursued by the cyclists. The City can’t expect its citizens to shun vigilante justice while the city itself shuns justice altogether. Maybe the cyclists who attacked the driver knew, from previous experience, that the city would not hold the driver accountable, so they knew they had to do it themselves. Or maybe the cyclists were just thugs looking for a fight. Regardless, in my mind, the cyclist’s actions have been justified by a government unable or unwilling to perform its most basic duty.

Here is a very worthwhile article by Brad Templeton about some of the myths we hold about transit. Seeing empty buses roam around the Eastside most of my childhood, I always suspected that this was the case, even though it flew in the face of “common knowledge.” Its good to see that I wasn’t so far off in my suspicions.

The same guy also does a brief analysis of walking versus driving, with surprising results.