Actually, a TON of people went around on ferry system. Vashon was jammed. Ferries running 2 hrs late by end of day on both ends-- Southworth and Pt. Defiance routes. Traffic from Pt. Defiance terminal had traffic backed up Pearl St. all the away to Hwy 16. As a Vashon resident, I actually avoided going home til long after 6:30 when Narrows Bridge re-opened. Sorry, but ferry system can't handle all the traffic delayed, we're not equipped on Vashon Highway to be the alternate route either!

Try Nate Silver's 538 blog, now on the NY Times site: numbers and polls and stats and analysis. Plus usually reasoned comments, not many but well thought out.

It was former WA senator Henry Jackson ("Scoop")

http://www.economist.com/node/2900081

I honestly think they're mostly a) lazy and b) conditioned to publish Election Night stories even though Election Night results are now woefully incomplete and of dubious utility.

Newspapers were the last to get the memo about classified ads and the internet (CraigsList, Redfin, etc.). Acute recto-cranial inversion.

Whenever there are groups spending this much money to get a measure like this passed while they are telling you that it is going to make a lot more money for you doing it their way, I believe the translation is probably: "We will make 99 cents and throw you guys a penny." Why else would the measure keep popping up when the citizens have previously voted it down.

Once the paradigm is changed in how this commodity is handled in this state it will not be possible to ever change it back. If this turns out to be a poor course of action we will just have to live with the outcome. When this much profit is at stake you can bet no one is really telling the truth about the bottom line.

One thing is for sure, liquor stores will become very visible and commonplace. I grew up in a state where there are large package stores on many a corner, complete with bright signs and a marquee listing specials (price wars) along with full page ads in the local papers. It's ugly. I wonder how much space will be given over to just liquor sales at the local Costco or Sam's Club stores or will they just open separate huge superstores just for spirits.

Probably, although I also know food donations have been coming in (most notably, I know Dan Savage sent dozens of Top Pot doughnuts. The participants were also sent many pizzas from Big Marios). In the livestream Paul Constant linked to yesterday (was it yesterday? Maybe it was Weds) the man filming went over to the food table, and they had a nice selection of breads and bananas and peanut butter, etc. So it seems like some protestors/volunteers are helping coordinate the food stuffs, but I'm sure they could use some more. Wish I had some specific answers for you, as to what type of foods are most needed. I imagine that several of the participants are likely VEGETARIAN, so yeah, something to keep in mind.

Oh, I just checked out their facebook page. Here's a list of needed items:

"Ppl are sleeping in westlake tonight despite tents being confiscated!! TROOPERS THEY ARE!! ♥ ♥

Supplies needed to help us occupy without tents include:
sleeping bags, camping/yoga matts, backpacks, non-perishable food, flu/cold medicine, socks, warm jackets, thermal undergarments, hats, gloves, umbrellas, portable power chargers such as "Energizer Energy to go XP 18000", and anything else you might think of that would help."

yep he went across 520!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/09/26/how-obama-spent-his-sunday-in-seattle

You'll probably have to contact the city Department of Finance and Administrative Services to find out for sure - the city has a lot of funds and uses different institutions for cash deposits. I skimmed the 2010 financial report and found that the city uses several different institutions that are approved by the state Public Deposit Protection Commission (PDPC); see pp 87-88. I don't know if the city is required to use the approved institutions but the PDPC provides insurance to cover any deposits not covered by the FDIC, so it's probably a fiduciary requirement.

The PDPC has a list of Qualified Public Depositories - it's mostly banks and a few trusts; no credit unions. It looks like they just approved state-chartered credit unions beginning July 1, 2011 to accept deposits up to $100k for each government. Considering the size of the city's different funds I'm not sure if any department could operate with that small of a limit.

The most recent PDPC bank listing shows that US Bank and Bank of America have the largest Washington public deposits, over $1 billion each. I'm betting the city mostly uses those two banks for operating funds.

Boo. I would prefer that the city uses credit unions but the PDPC requirements might make that too difficult for both the city and the credit unions, since the CUs would probably have to set aside large amounts of their deposits as collateral. A lot of CUs have been having problems as it is maintaining enough capital the last few years to comply with regulations, and having large depositors like city departments could actually make it more difficult for the CUs.

how about Monaco & France? gives you a tie if count the revolutionaries' takeover against them(the french rev left in 1814) otherwise; buddies since 1642.

or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was 1569-1795

Pax romana? 207 years

Pax Dei went from 989 CE to roughly the 1200's.

Pax Minoica potentially could take the cake (10-20 centuries?) - though there's lots of argument on the facts

Build a monument to the impending death of state run prisons and the rise of For-Profit prisons.

The Christian Science Monitor has some conservative writers.

David Brooks is the conservative pundit least hated by libs. Writes for the New York Times.

You might also ask this question on Electionland. 

There is an expert panel of local journalists there answering questions right now and it's possible that they already have what you are looking for.

There were several months of post-DADT training and surveys and readiness procedures included in the bill. I believe September 20th is the official date when the repeal becomes active/implemented or whatever. This weird murky in-between time has been confusing for everyone, with outed soldiers in a tenuous position, and initially some soldiers were still being discharged (although I think the administration finally put a stop to that).

I hear HBO is going to be running a doc special about DADT's history. I don't have fancy cable, but I bet it will be a good program.

I blame the Republicans.

In their defense it's likely none of them have read the thing because a) it was just released recently and it's over 1000 pages long; and b) the deep-bore tunnel option has already been selected by The Powers That Be.

In other words, the EIS is supposed to be an input to a decision. With the decision already made by fiat (so a tunnel advocate's reasoning would go), however, the EIS is an afterthought at best and moot at worst.

Let's hope our fellow voters are less cynical and more intelligent.

Bellevue is only 75% white compared to Seattle's 70%. Also, everyone knows the sisters hate the train.

The Mormon church has a very long and detailed list of policies, practices and beliefs. Belonging to the church requires an adherence to those policies. This includes the mandatory 10% tithing. Church members who break the rules are excommunicated from the church.

It is perfectly fair to state that you are not going to vote for someone who has agreed to adhere to the Mormon doctrine because it is incompatible with your own.

You are too late to stop the Dex phone book, but you can stop others. They require that you register to opt out 30 days before a phone book company starts its delivery cycle. The deadline was May 16 to opt out of the Dex book.

Here is the website http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Recycling/ReduceReuseExchange/StopPhoneBooks/index.htm

Presumably you can still opt out of the other brands of phone books, and opt out for next year.

Are you sure the character name wasn't Warren G. Craddock?
He appeared during the Kree-Skrull war as the "grand inquisitor" accusing people of being alien until they could prove that they were not, correct? Sounds like a bit of McCarthy and the Salem Witch Trials rolled into one.

PS: Wasn't it eventually revealed that Craddock was the missing fourth skrull from outer space who was hiding in that guise, trying to stir up unrest and shake the government and the superheroes to prepare for an invasion? (An invasion that never happened until Secret Invasion in the last seven years was scripted and pulled off by Bendis and Marvel Comics Group???)

Who wrote that? Roy Thomas or Stan Lee? Seem like that's about 1971 or so, after Lee turned over the writing duties to Roy Thomas around issue #52 or so, right?

For starters, I think there's a big difference between polygamy and polyamory-one seems to promote male dominance and one seems to promote equal relationships between men and women. Polygamy is mostly associated with religion, and much of the polygamy associated with religion encodes a social system that does not limit marriage to consenting adults (or, rather, defines a consenting adult as a female child as young as 12). If certain groups are practicing a polygamous marriage rite that only involves fully-grown women (not 16 year-old girls who have parental consent because the parents are also part of the religious organization) I think they ought to be as protected and free as any other citizen. I'm just skeptical that this is really the case very often- over and over again we hear of children being sexually groomed for marriage at very young ages and married off when barely even menstrual in groups that practice polygamy. Part of the problem I see is that it seems that polygamy is often a part of small cultural groups in the U.S. which are practicing a significantly different set of mores than U.S. culture promotes- this is fine, protected by our constitution, and encouraged as long as those mores do not violate the basic rules of our society (ie; child rape, no matter the justification, is wrong and will not be tolerated). The really difficult part here is that the government protects its citizens by oversight, and many of these groups are closed, so simply trying to gain the access to check on individuals in closed societies can be seen as persecution.

I haven't heard of polyamorous people (the distinction I'm making is that their group relationships might involve multiple men and multiple women or only people of a single gender) fighting for the right to marry (which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't happening). I get the impression (just from reading Savage, really) that lots of these folks have a primary or major stable relationship and then will engage with various other individuals for short periods of time or for an attachment that is somehow "limited" with rules. I don't know much at all about longstanding group relationships, and I think that's part of why you won't see poly marriage equality any time soon. If I, a young, progressive, female city-dweller haven't heard much and don't understand much, I can bet that the people who hold up this kind of movement (old, close-minded, conservative, rural) wouldn't even understand the question. Regardless, if all parties are consenting adults and no one is being coerced or abused, poly folks should be able to engage in whatever relationships they like, just like everyone else.

I know that when I talk about marriage as a concept, especially about why I'm fighting for marriage equality, I talk a lot about how marriage is a legal and economic contract. The system of marriage in our country is set up to support two people joining their financial and pragmatic lives (one house, one unified insurance plan, one set of taxes, the ability of one to make decisions if the other partner is unable, protections for each partner's rights if there is an accident or a split, etc.). The ramifications of marriage between many partners would be quite different- it would require a lot of specialized legislation for multiple-partner unions (Jack does a good job outlining these issues in his third paragraph). Gay marriage is much simpler because all it requires is that we accept that both partners are of the same gender- every law regarding how marriages actually function remains the same.

Usually, extending rights just means removing the exclusionary language from the existing law. In the case of polyamory, I think it would require some specialized rules, which makes the entire thing a little trickier. None of the above, however, means that when there's a movement from poly people to seek marriage rights that I would oppose it. I'm generally a fan of extending rights and protections, especially for minority groups.

Follow the link in the article:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/18/house-votes-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-federal-funds

to:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm

But I'm not sure a tea-partier would believe Planned Parenthood's website. Your best bet for official language would be to find the actual bill that granted funding to them.

Actually, further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

It looks like federal funds for abortion have been banned by congress through that bill and attached as riders to any further funding (or something like that).

The time and place are the idea of the kid himself. He felt that doing it there would give folks a sense that nowhere in America is safe. Allegedly, it is this very aggressive, kill-lots-of-children approach that got the feds so interested. It is also why they worked so hard to build a case against him that would remove him from society for as long as possible.

What would it take for you to accept that he is a real terrorist? The only difference between Timothy McVeigh and this kid is that McVeigh had a more reliable bomb supplier. Both parked vans they believed to be full of explosives and set off detonators. Both were anxious to kill children for the sole purpose of terrorizing Americans. If the FBI had supplied the truck McVeigh used would you dismiss him the same way?

It wasn't just Nixon-- all of the presidents from FDR through Nixon had secret recordings and JFK and LBJ in particular were prolific secret recorders. What the exact purpose of these recordings was is debatable. For the most part, they just served as innocuous records of meetings for future reference and posterity. But there was certainly an aspect of using them against people or at least holding them accountable for what they said in supposed closed-doors meetings.

The thing with Nixon is he never thought he would lose control of them. He thought that having the only record of these meetings would let him control the flow of information and that he could cherry-pick evidence against his enemies (and allies) from them. He never thought they could be used against him because for one they were secret, but he also certainly believed that even if they were discovered he couldn't be legally obligated to hand them over.

The law covers homosexual behavior/sex. Bisexuals engage in homosexual behavior/sex and if they are in the military and caught doing same-sex sexy times they could be discharged under DADT.

My 4th Amendment rights demand that I opt way the fawk out

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Who?

(you don't get to be on the A-list for life... you gotta earn it)

According to some, he was out to wreck the east asian economies...
Yet another group claims he's anti-serbian.
And the Beck-erheads believe he's a former nazi collaborator (even if it were true, he wasn't older than 14 at the end of the nazi regime - the truth is: he was ordered by nazi occupiers to hand out flyers to jews to attend 'meetings' and agreed, but instead informed his fellow jews it was a ruse and they'd be deported if they showed up).
AND his nickname to some is 'the man who broke the bank of england'.

On the other hand, he personally donated over $1million to try and get marijuana legalized; he spent 25.5 million bucks against GW in 2004; his foundation/charity, Open Society Institute, spends $600 million, per year, opening people's minds to progressive ideology in nations across the world; his financial contribution to Hungary's dumping of Communism in 1989 is considered significant; and he's also considered crucially responsible for the Rose Revolution.

He's also been convicted of insider trading and has owned a stake in the Carlyle Group (through which GW Bush and Bin laden are famously linked).

I think perhaps he's neither truly progressive nor occasional neocon. He's simply a very shrewd profit-maker who plays whatever side will line his pocket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories#United_States

Yes, if you know the name & birthday. Search form here:

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/OSOS/VoterVault/Pages/MyVote.aspx

You could go learn about it at Electionland http://wa.electionland.com/topics/I-1100-1105-privatizes-liquor-sales. You'll get all the perspectives from community and the journalists from the local media.

There is also a blog post on the Questionland Blog which says why not to vote for it: http://blog.questionland.com/http:/blog.questionland.com/electionland-gave-me-a-frontal-lobotomy

If you don't know and don't care then you should not vote on it and leave the decision for the people who do know and care.

Here's a discussion on whether it is ethical to vote on issues which you don't know or care about: http://wa.electionland.com/questions/15116-non-functional-answers

I'm not great with odds, but I think over 100,000 people have RSVPed as attending on Facebook, so if you figure about half will actually show that would be around 75K. Yeah, I'll go with 75,000.

On a personal note, i will be one of the 75K. I have my ticket booked and my lodging arranged. Hello, DC!!!