Forum Replies Created
Our go-to is Chada Thai out at 125th and Greenwood. A little further, but you get lots of whole galangal root and lemongrass in the tom kha soup. Nice people, good curries, my daughter’s favorite phad thai in the whole world, and they’ll make it hot for you if you want!
If you’re looking for an entry-level modern Dr. Who episode, it’s hard to do better than Blink (aka the first weeping angel one). Pretty good story, excellent villains, and you’ll never casually walk by a cemetery again.
Although one of my children may or may not be named after a character from DS9, I never really liked the series as much as the other ST series. Mostly, it’s because of Sisko, who I just never liked. OK, Enterprise was worse, but mostly because it went all-in on the post-9/11 plot line. Voyager did suffer from too many new particle shows (the ship has been saved by our new theta radiation generators that we’ll never see again!), but I liked most of the characters enough to overlook the flaws.
I don’t have much data on bulb life for LEDs, since we have a few weeks on the interior lights and a few months on the porch light. My “problem” with the CFLs is that I’m not 100% satisfied with them (mostly the slow startup) and they just won’t die so I can feel good about replacing them. CFLs seem to last better than tube fluorescents for us. We’ve run them for a few years and have only had the porch light die. Maybe we can trade? :)
We have new wiring and new-ish service in an old house.
The only thing I can think is that the 60 watt “replacements” have different light outputs. You probably know this already, but the 2700K is the “warmth” of the light, with a lower number being a little more yellow and a higher number being whiter/bluer. If you still have the packaging, you might be able to compare lumens, which is the total light output.
FWIW, we just replaced CFL bulbs with 75-watt replacements (sorry, don’t have the packaging for lumens anymore), and they are really nice and bright. Whatever you do when comparing bulbs, don’t go to Lowe’s. The display is crappy and the guy I talked to in the lighting department didn’t know the difference between watts, lumen, or color temperature.
I’ve been pretty happy with police responsiveness to my calls. The time it was important they were there in 2-3 minutes. The time they didn’t do anything, there wasn’t really anything that could be done.
On funding, I think they need to look inwards. When cops feel good enough about their position that they threaten to harass members of the press, there’s a real problem. When they get off from what would land you and me in jail not only with no jail time but also no professional consequences, there’s a real problem. We’ll see how the new chief does, but historically, there seems to be no impetus to do anything about problem cops. I’m sure the vast majority of cops are good people doing a hard, dangerous, and often thankless job. But when they close ranks behind the small minority of cops who should not be on the force, they tar themselves. If they get their own house in order, they will have the public support to get funding.
Chris, that’s definitely a valid viewpoint. I come at it from a different direction. In my not so humble opinion, what prevents the government from overturning a popular election/not allowing popular candidates on the ballot (eg Iran, Egypt, etc. etc.) is not that a percentage of the people are armed, but that the government has some respect for the courts and that police are unwilling to shoot their neighbors and family.
No matter how many guns my brother in law has (and he has an awful lot), he’s not going to hold off a determined SWAT team. There isn’t going to be a Red Dawn-style revolution where citizens with non-military grade weapons are going to hold off an army. Even though the cops go beyond what is legal in some cases, I don’t see them following orders to fire on crowds en masse.
That said, respect for the courts is a challenge. SPD officers certainly showed that with the response to the DOJ lawsuit, and the subsequent lawsuit against the reforms. On the other hand, you have no red states completely refusing to accept court orders on same sex marriage. Delay until the final court order is issued, yes, but not outright refusal.
Thanks for the good discussion!
Chris, I respect your reasoned argument, but I take exception to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This is one of my pet peeves. You see the “Congress shall make no law” quoted all the time, but you rarely, if ever, see the words “A well-regulated militia”. Even with the substantial change in interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court, the SC still says that regulation of guns is legal, just not outright bans of non-military-grade weapons.
I’m not a legal scholar or a historian on colonial history, but that doesn’t stop me from having strong opinions. :) What I have read is that the 2nd Amendment was largely planned to prevent the federal government from having a standing army, since the Founders thought that having a standing army would be too much temptation to go out and invade people. They might have had something there. Anyway, in the first or Second Congress, they passed some laws about militias, which I think are instructive to their view of what a militia was.
They basically boiled down to all able-bodied men of military age having to have a gun, powder, bullets, and other gear and having to turn out regularly for drills on the village green. The militia was the army. By the time the early 1900’s rolled around, militias weren’t working well for national defense and territorial expansion, so the system was changed into the National Guard and the regular army. Long story short, I see the Founders’ view of the militia as being much more like the National Guard than the free for all that the 2nd Amendment has become today. The NG can have all the guns they want, as long as they’re well-regulated.
Again, I’m not a historian or a lawyer, I just sometimes play one at work.
Phoo, I can’t say why sheriffs oppose 594 for sure. However, I can point out that most sheriffs are elected by county, that there are many more red counties than blue counties in WA (so more “red” sheriffs than “blue” in the association), that the NRA has substantial clout in red counties, and that the NRA will undoubtedly evaluate an endorsement for or against 594 in their next round of election endorsements/campaign spending decisions. Even without the NRA, 594 will fail by large margins in red counties, and sheriffs represent those counties.
Also, law enforcement isn’t all in one bloc against 594. EG, the Nat’l Association of Police Organizations* supports 594, as do a variety of chiefs and rank-and file officers.
* This sounds like a group that would send a delegate to the American Society of Association Executives (actual name of the group).
Interestingly, the initiative is quite specific about transfers. Based on the scare mailers and whatnot, I thought it was left vague. Based on Section 3 of the text, the following transfers do not require a background check:
* Gifts between family members
* Sales or transfers of antique firearms
* Temporary transfer to prevent death or bodily harm (take my gun and hold them off!)
* Law enforcement agencies and employees in the course of their duties
* Licensed gunsmiths receiving guns for service or repair
* Loans/temporary transfers (this is where it gets interesting)
– Between spouses or domestic partners
– At an established shooting range authorized by the local government if the gun stays on the premises
– At a legal organized competition
– To a minor while under the direct supervision of an adult who is allowed to have guns
– While hunting if the hunting is legal and the person receiving the gun is allowed to have guns
– Anyone who inherits a gun has 60 days to either get a background check or transfer it on to someone else
So Phoo’s comment is only marginally applicable. You can still go borrow a gun to try it out for sale, you just have to go to a legal range rather than the quarry out in the sticks. Another good example of the importance of reading the initiative rather than just relying on what various people are telling you. Actually reading what the law says completely demolishes most of the “well, what if” questions I’ve heard about this bill.
My co-worker sees coyote scat regularly at her house north of 85th. She said that it’s typical behavior for them to take a dump in the middle of trails, roads, etc. as a means of marking their territory. Theoretically at least, the coyote doesn’t care if it’s a roadway or a deer trail.
I was somewhat spooked by the bad reviews of the Navien units online. Have you had any issues?
I’m pretty sure they were Chinooks, the big beasties with twin rotors. Definitely loud for a weekend morning.09/13/2014 at 5:26 pm in reply to: Rather than hijack the Mars Hill thread; regarding taxes and churches #72960
BOC, if churches were following the teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels, they sure would be doing charity work. “It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” That’s a whole ‘nother argument, though! :)09/13/2014 at 12:54 pm in reply to: Rather than hijack the Mars Hill thread; regarding taxes and churches #72953
I don’t necessarily disagree with tax-exempt status for churches. I think that’s important for charitable non-profits and I can see it would be hard to separate non-profits from churches. What I do object to is churches being able to hide all of their finances. Every other non-profit has to disclose how much of the donated money goes to salaries and how much to programs, in addition to other information. Churches don’t. If MH had had that kind of transparency, people probably would have picked up on the financial shenanigans earlier and voted with their money.
NPR had a piece on this a couple of months ago, mostly about the even more egregious televangelist industry.
Like Bean Dogger, we had a 60-amp service. Unlike him, the previous owner had gone and put in a 200-amp panel without upgrading the service. If we’d run that up to 180 amps, we could easily have burned the house down without tripping the main breaker. We got that upgraded later on.
I would also definitely get a big panel when you replace the fuse box. We’re running out of circuit breaker slots in ours. It’s not much of a add-on to the price when it’s being installed, maybe $50 from close to the right size to plenty of extra. It don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for 25%-40% spare slots. The electrician will know roughly how many breaker slots he’s going to need, and then he can increase that by 25%-40% to a standard panel size.
The 7 person response level is for a person with very serious injuries. The SFD person I talked to said it was so they can have more hands than jobs (loading on to a gurney, starting IVs, chest compressions, etc. all practically at the same time). I would assume that a 14 person response would be two or more people in pretty dire straits. Something like a bad car accident would come to this level, or even a bad bar fight.
If you ordered a couple of fittings (and maybe a short hose to join them), you could link up between the fire extinguisher place’s standard fitting and your standard fitting. A little more elbow grease, but it might be worth the effort if it saves some trips to Renton.
Whatever was said in the campaign, I really appreciate the fact-based political discussion on this issue. Didn’t change my mind, but made me think. :)
Tammany Hall style, with me getting 100 votes? Eeeeexcellent. <taps fingers together Montgomery Burns style>
If they were hoisting several people at night, it was probably a real rescue. The return flight was probably to Port Angeles, which is the local USCG helicopter base. Presumably, there weren’t significant injuries that would mean a trip to the hospital.
Really, Vessel Assist did them a favor. Now the sailboat fits under the bridge just fine without having to raise the bridge! Ernie is right on how they should have fixed the problem. Even pulling it out downstream would have been better. I hope Vessel Assist buys them a new mast!
It does remind me of one of my very favorite radio exchanges, which happened right there at the RR bridge (aka Bridge 4):
Sailboat: <gives sound signal several times to ask for the bridge to open>
Bridge 4: <Gives sound signals back saying they won’t open right now>
S: Bridge 4, this is _____. We asked you to open several times, but you aren’t opening the bridge. When will you open the drawbridge?
B4: If you look at the bridge, you will see a train. When the train passes, we will open the bridge.
LIA, I’ll go to name calling and ad hominem attacks if RichY will just stop posting data and information to back up his opinions. :) So that said, I have to disagree with RichY about the conclusions drawn from the sites posted. What I see on the Development page is a list of projects that are either complete or underway. I don’t see a list of unfulfilled promises. Am I missing something?
Kate, I definitely get where you’re coming from, and that’s a totally valid reason why the MPD would be put forward. Here’s another one: We spend about $100-$200K direct outlay every six years to get a levy on the ballot, not including soft costs and staff time. Do we want to keep putting that money into a line on the ballot, or do we want to funnel that to fund another playground renovation? I don’t know which one is more accurate, but I think it’s another possible reason.
RichY, thanks for the reminder about the Commons levies. While it’s true that those are parks levies, I think they’re also a somewhat special case since they were dedicated to a single project (large SLU park), not to mention a repeat of roughly the same levy although IIRC the second was on a somewhat smaller scale.
I know I’m asking you to do the research, but what’s your source that most of the 2008 and 2000 levy projects were not started/not done? Is there a list somewhere on what was promised and what hasn’t been done?
I am a yes vote. I think this actually gives us more accountability than the current system when you add in upcoming changes in City Council elections. Here’s why:
People talk a lot about accountability, but the current system of levies doesn’t really provide accountability. Sure, we vote very six years, but when was the last time a levy failed due to constituent concerns about the parks? I can’t remember one in the twenty years I’ve been voting on them. So there’s a threat of voting down a levy, but it’s not real. It’s like telling your kids that you’ll throw away all their toys if they don’t clean up. Pretty much everyone knows that there’s no chance of follow-through on the threat. Several of you are upset about the lack of maintenance and funding, but appear to be willing to vote for the old system of levies anyway. Isn’t the levy system not working for you, since you’re upset about the current lack of maintenance? IMHO, the levies are a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer time every six years that do not provide any real value to voters or the parks.
Right now, we also have the parks run by the Parks Dept under the Mayor’s office. Our elected official accountability runs through the Mayor and tangentially through the City Council’s budget authority. When was the last time you heard about parks being brought up seriously in a city-wide campaign? Just like the levies, I can’t remember that, either. Sure, you see pictures of the candidate in one park or another with children and a dog, and there’s a sentence or two about “maintaining the jewels in the Seattle Parks crown” or some such, but no real debate. It’s just fluff.
So what changes? With this change, the City Council becomes the governing board for the parks. If we don’t like what they’re doing, we can vote them out. Coincidentally, in the next election, the City Council starts up with district elections. The new districts will allow candidates with smaller war chests and time to canvass neighborhoods to win election. This has the potential to open up debate significantly on neighborhood issues. It’s not that hard to see a campaign focusing on issues like Ballard Commons or the car campers. If parks get neglected by the new district, then people can make it a campaign issue.
Other good things that come from the change to an MPD:
Money coming in won’t be restricted to capital or operations. Money restricted to capital improvements was why you saw parks opening up but nobody to staff them (same thing happened with libraries several years ago).
Roughly 50% of the money in the spending plan is targeted towards the maintenance backlog. I know that isn’t a guarantee, but even opponents say that the council will follow the plan for the first few years at least. That answers many of the complaints about maintenance of our current parks.
This frees up some levy money for the city. I know this isn’t popular among people who think that taxes are too damn high already, but if we’re going to have nice things like transit or preschool or whatever else, we’re going to have to pay for it. The last legislative session in Olympia and the failure of Prop 1 countywide proved that.
On the downside, I would have liked them to include a provision for some general public elected officials other than the council, and perhaps a means for voters to dismantle the MPD.
Finally, the Parks Dept was stupid to exclude the volunteer who cut the trees from the parks, and someone was even stupider to try to prosecute. Yes, I think he went beyond his bounds by cutting the trees without permission, but that’s a spot for training and a chat by a supervisor, not for criminal charges.05/30/2014 at 12:59 pm in reply to: NBR- Should They Move Goodwill to Bellevue Square Mall? #67511
Also, you can note tag color and come back for a sale. Every weekend, it’s a different color at 50% off. On Monday, that color is $1.29 and there’s a line waiting for the store to open.