screenshot-teamteresa.org-2017-10-27-10-57-38-124.jpeg

The whole "SECB Dissent: Vote For Teresa Mosqueda" is part me and part Dan Savage, but these opening paragraphs are where you see something that resembles me, from one perspective, and something that resembles Dan, from another.
The Seattle Times fears Teresa Mosqueda. And what is it they fear? That she will be more effective than Jon Grant. As the majority of the Stranger Election Control Board (SECB) pointed out in this paper's endorsement of Grant, "We've got two solid progressives in this race and [so], whoever wins, a solid progressive goes to the council." We agree that this is a win-win race for progressives. (And the Seattle Times is aware of this: "Neither of the candidates... is likely to fill Burgess’ moderate role.") But one of the two progressives in this race can point to a track record of actual accomplishments. One talks a good game, one gets shit done.

Teresa Mosqueda gets shit done.

And that's why we're voting for Mosqueda—and that's why the Times endorsed her opponent. For the Seattle Times editorial board, which is forever dressing up its conservative, anti-tax, anti-equity agenda in the drag of "moderation," the question was simply this: Which one of these two progressives would be less effective? Which one is less likely to get shit done? They concluded Mosqueda would be more effective—she would get shit done—and that's why they endorsed Grant.


I have always believed that bodies and language cannot be strictly separated. True, black Brits may not sound the same as black Americans or black Africans, but in the details, or in what Roland Barthes called the "rustle of language," the body of the individual is clearly heard. I can go on and on about this somatic/syntactic theory, but it's better you spent the time voting for Teresa Mosqueda.