Slog AM: Sound Transit Cans Ballard Tunnel Plan, Fires Plague California, a Playboy Séance

Comments

1

"Three people (including the paramedic) were transported to the hospital and the three drunk drivers were arrested."

Well it is Texas, after all.

Perhaps the world famous Texas Rangers need to do highway sweeps where they give out, I don't know, Certifcates or Medals or Starbucks coupons or whatever for the (seemingly rare) Sober drivers in the great state of Texas.

"Go South till ya smell it; go East till ya step in it,"
is just what I heard.

3

Austin Texas: Northern Pretentiousness mixed with the finest Southern Inconveniences!
Shout to Fatty Patty in Austin!

4

Yes, the other players giving cover so she could her hijab is poignant, but giving reverence to that ancient inherently misogynistic garment is rather paradoxical, I think anyway.

6

One of the physical dangers that comes with homelessness is sleeping. While asleep, we are immobile and unconscious, unaware of anyone who might take what little we have or commit a acting violence upon us. For those of us with homes, this is less of a problem. For the unhoused, it represents a major threat to health and safety.

Meth keeps you awake. It heightens your reflexes and fight or flight response. If you are homeless, it can keep you alive, at least in the short term.

Those who exploit the desperation of the poor are the lowest scum of them all. This drug, while seen as useful and therefore desired by the homeless, ultimately endangers their health. Further, the blame is placed almost entirely in the consumer, rather than the supplier.

7

I agree with #5, Islam and the people of the Islamic faith are absolutely right about women and what women's rights should be.

8

@6
Yes, a social worker I spoke with said as much - meth helps the homeless stay awake, when falling asleep at night would endanger them.
God knows, I lived in Belltown (Seattle neighborhood), and sleeping outside at night there is dangerous. I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it.

9

7 - true - as with all religions, we can respect them even though we have issues with them. That's not being hypocritical at all.

11

The Seattle headline is misleading, and your little blurb is misleading. Basically, Ballard just got screwed. There are two options that make sense: The cheapest and the best. The cheapest is an elevated train to 15th. The best is an underground station to 20th. Now they've rejected the best option, while other options are still on the table. These include:

An elevated station at 14th -- a terrible location and about 100 million more than elevated to 15th.
Underground to 15th -- about as expensive as underground to 20th, but no closer to the heart of Ballard than elevated to 15th. The user experience would be worse.
Underground to 14th -- much more expensive and much worse.

I realize this shit is complicated, but Sound Transit really doesn't know what they are doing. They never have. There should be a station at First Hill. The Mount Baker Station should be to the east, to better connect to the 7. The UW Station should be in the triangle, so that it can connect better to buses and connect better to the hospital and campus. All of these are known failures, and yet they continue. We deserve better than superficial coverage of projects that literally cost billions of dollars. This shit is way more important than gossip about a political candidate's egg donor preference. I would appreciate it if someone on your staff took the time to understand these issues, and reported on them, given the importance in the region.

12

RE: Soccer hijab

So, what happens if someone sees her hair? Does she go to muslim hell? Does she have to do some kind of penance? Or do the hair-seers have to do penance (or they go to hell)?

Anyone here knowledgeable on Islam able to tell us the penalties for seeing woman-hair?

13

10 - I assume you would take issue with forced hijab then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/there-are-two-types-of-hijabs-the-difference-is-huge/2019/04/07/50a44574-57f0-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html

I think both are misogynistic, but that's my opinion. It doesn't make me a bigot against Islam more than anyone bashing bible thumpers over abortion makes them a bigot against Christianity.

13

@7,
Nicely done

16

@14: What are you trying to say about the Islamic faith?

17

If a female wants to choose a religion that values, uplifts and works to empower them, they can certainly do much better than Islam.

19

@15 - Despite that her hajib is not forced, you can't fault people for conflating the harshness of the forced burkas and hajibs and having such residual thoughts on the matter. So, in the player's case it really is a matter of fashion just as any woman's clothing. I am not attacking her. These are simply the resulting discussions about our melting pot cultures.

I admit I was too harsh in my initial comment after reading the WaPo article. But please GS, try to nuance just a little in these threads so that you don't come across as hostile and unpleasant.

20

I mean, St. Paul didn't say anything different.

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:7-10, RSV)

Paul/Saul is continuously cited as the excuse to oppress people like the Roman he was, but the true value of any covering is to be seen as the self and individual, to be respected and valued irrespective of any covering, as a means of self expression. Anything forced and spoon-fed as a deterrent to arbitrary biblically understood sin will never be sincere or orderly unless questioned and compared to the alternatives, for the individual, first, else under the steel toed boot of oppression in the throat.

21

@16 Oh fuck off with your stupid bullshit already. He said it's up to women to decide what they want to wear, you cretinous bigoted dolt. How much clearer do you want it?

It's the orthodoxy and interpretation of a faith that's at issue. Leave your house once in while you loser shut in, maybe go visit a muslim country. Which you've never done.

You act like Christians haven't, for centuries, oppressed women or justified obscene violence with their faith. You don't think right here in the good MAGA US there aren't a whole bunch of shit head Christians working to reverse the last century of women's rights?

Worry about what goes on here.

22

The decision to wear a hijab isn’t crossing normalized members of society.

Opting to wear a niqab is.

Was a weird thought being like “ok they can drive but they just have tiny eye holes”.

23

@20 Not just St. Paul or the Romans. ALL the abrahamic faiths and some of their spin off cults treat women like shit when ever it suits them or they're allowed to.

And you don't have to travel far to see religious misogyny. Go to Brooklyn or Utah. Or anywhere really. Hasidic and Orthodox Jews and even Mormons right here in America FORCE garments (and worse) on women.

But do you see these bigoted concern trolls or their sock puppets whine about about that? No. Because these racist losers never leave their sad cramped dingy basements.

24

@22 - I don't agree with such a comparison.

25

All “sacred texts” are stupid. Live a good life for the satisfaction of living a good life, not out of fear of some sky god being pissy when you die.

26

I’m referring to cultural clash in the western world, Phoebe.

There are instances where the girl genuinely wants to wear the thing. You could chalk this up to religion, culture, family, whatever, but there are plenty of instances in the modern / westernized world where it is a choice.

Just as the garment is forced upon them in many other places.

But you haven’t seen the guys who haven’t undergone potty training, either.

I was referring to France’s banning of the niqab.

I think it’s safe to assume it is due to an inability to identify criminals.

I’d say just cover your mouth if you must.

27

@22 that might be worst comparison I have ever read

28

Double number reply two days in a row ;[

29

I am hard, but I am fair. There is no religious bigotry here. I do not look down on christians, muslims, jews, or hindus. Here, they are all equally worthless.

30

@11:
"I realize this shit is complicated, but Sound Transit really doesn't know what they are doing. They never have. There should be a station at First Hill. The Mount Baker Station should be to the east, to better connect to the 7. The UW Station should be in the triangle, so that it can connect better to buses and connect better to the hospital and campus."

Hear me out, because this is some radical shit that I'm about to drop on you. Sometimes, these decisions are complicated and influenced by a number of factors. For example, your suggestion of a different station location at UW betrays your lack of knowledge of what the University itself wanted or required. See, they have sensitive research equipment that can be disturbed by track vibrations and by electrical currents associated with operating a light rail line. They also have other plans for the university property that don't necessarily include accommodating a light rail station. And nobody in this state is going to tell UW what to do, much less our local transit agency. So the alignment couldn't just go wherever you think it should go. Similarly, the folks looking at the alignment options for Ballard and West Seattle generally have a lot of variables to consider; this shit isn't just so simple as you make it out to be.

31

29 - Totally agree, but I would replace with 'equally worthless' with 'equally annoying'.

32

I think C. Hitchens said it pretty well .. (I paraphrase): 'With Animism there were many gods everywhere, in the water, in the trees, gods in the wind, lots of gods. By the Roman era, they had just a few gods, concentrated on Mt. Olympus. Now we have monotheistic religions with only one god. I think they're finally getting closer to the correct number."

The less we have any imaginary beings allegedly telling people what do via the mechanism of male-organized groups prepared to kill (or merely "shun") people for disobeying their arbitrary "rules", the better off we will ALL be. Definitely keep them away from control of the State.

Y'all can argue that the soccer player is "voluntarily" wearing her hijab, and that may well be true. Or maybe the actual 'choice' to wear it is far more complex, involving subtle layers of belonging, community, family, & social pressures. I don't rightly know her story. Are xtians forced to wear a cross? sometimes, sure. HOWEVER: She was not oppressing anyone during the soccer game. She was experiencing a problem, other players helped her. Good on them. End of that story.

As far as the -religions- actually go, fuck them completely. Islam and Christianity are both highly misogynistic religions that, daily, justify outrageous immoral atrocities in the name of their "god". We have plenty of examples.

"Love the believer, hate the belief."

33

@23

A greater irony is that the 'angels' Paul cites in context conclusively stem from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which droves of dreary muttering sleepy Christians recite with every Nicene creed praising the Godhead that under armed lock and key nitpicked here and there what was going to be included, a tradition followed for millenia that continues to this day.

"This phrase refers to the fallen angels described in the apocryphal Book of Enoch - these angels, called the "Watchers," were not among the angels that rebelled with Lucifer but were nevertheless led astray by lusting after the daughters of men. Acting out of lust, these angels took on human forms and mated with human women, giving birth to the 'giants.' God punished these angels by casting them down into the netherdarkness to be reserved for punishment at the end of the world."

Given that the apocryphal texts are no longer included as canon in latest biblical firmware update, this quote and justification for its inclusions is invalidated and premised on anathema. That is why peasants were not allowed to read! Do what you are gold like a good serf and worship a man yet God vicariously who is poor.

If all you can see are the superficial coverings of a person in assessing their value or morality, how can you possibly claim to worship as your lord and savior a pauper who had not even a stone on which to rest his head who broke bread and sipped wine with the wretched, diseased, sex workers, and the oppressed? Salvation is not mere contrite submission, it is standing up for a better world.

Francis Bacon and Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus of Rotterdam and all the rest who inherited the past from the Ancient World knew that scientific discovery and scripture were not inherently contradictory; to them, the scientific method and its approximations in testable and repeatsble approximations made laws and theories (thanks, Islamic golden age!) revealed the greater mystery of God's plan. They even believed you could not understand scripture without viewing it scientifically and in historical context. We need to step it up and inspire the Yahoo's to become more Houyhnhnm.

The texts of most world religions are rife with wisdom and honesty, fiction or otherwise. Glean what you can from it and use it as an almanac as a guide, not an instruction manual for assembling Ikea furniture behavior, Or Else!!

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2010/08/head-coverings-because-of-angels.html?m=1. Another perspective on the issue

https://youtu.be/pqoeM18vCaU

34

Speaking of living immoral atrocities: ol' Racist Mitch McConnnelllll.
Watch him get thrown some tasty shade while attending Rep. Cummings' funeral ...and be confounded! Righteous propers to the gentleman who showed McConnnnelllll some of the respect he deserves.
https://twitter.com/TrueFactsStated/status/1187538474385268737

34

All y'all clutching your pearls about this girl choosing to wear a hijab are so funny. As the professor points out I've yet to see you losing your shit about a Sikh in a turban or a Jew in a yamaka. And Nuns! You never ever lose your shit about Nuns, and a lot of orders have habits that cover the sister up from top to toe with only the face and hands exposed.
As a matter of fact the fastest growing women's religious communities in the US tend to wear the full habit. The women who join those communities wish to express their devotion to God with an outward symbol and cover their hair which is the EXACT same impulse shared with Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear a hijab.

Emphasis on the word choose.

If you have a problem with organized religion in general, that's totally cool. If you have a problem with ALL the patriarchal Abrahamic religions and their traditional abuse of women, I am right there with you. If you can't fathom why a woman would be a practicing Christian, Muslim or Jew because of that long standing history of oppression, I get it.
BUT if a person CHOOSES to express their religious beliefs by wearing a turban, or bindi or a yamaka or a hijab or a habit or magic underwear or a colander on their damn head?
Then they are making their own religious choices in a country where that choice is enshrined in the Constitution, and you can fucking MYOB.

35

@34 - Well said Thanks Lissa.

36

@30 -- Oh, bullshit. I'm well aware of the sensitive equipment situation with light rail and the UW. That is what killed the original proposal, which was a station close to the HUB (in the middle of the campus). But there is no reason why it couldn't have been put a few feet to the west, in the triangle itself. There is already a tunnel to the parking garage underneath. You would build another tunnel, to the campus. But instead we have a pedestrian sky bridge to an underground station. Fucking ridiculous.

Likewise, there is no good excuse for excluding a First Hill Station, or not even considering a First Hill station this time. Yeah, of course it costs more -- but they are literally spending billions on bullshit like a train line from South Kirkland to Issaquah, but can't find the money to build a station that would likely be one of the busiest in our system.

Then you have the stupidity of "The Spine", which is basically a subway from Everett to Tacoma. This is a stupid idea, for reasons best explained in this comment: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/02/14/news-roundup-geeks/#comment-292594.

West Seattle rail is stupid -- obviously not the next thing we should build in the city. Ballard rail is OK, but clearly not as good a value as Ballard to UW rail. Fuck, Sound Transit's own study said so! They showed higher ridership for a Ballard to UW line, but decided to serve Interbay instead.

As for the issue at hand, it doesn't make sense. They are studying options that are clearly worse, and just as expensive. They are studying options that are no better, yet a lot more expensive. They are even studying options that are a lot worse AND a lot more expensive. Yet they won't study an option that is clearly better.

I'm talking about a study here. I'm not talking about a station. If they study it, and find that they simply don't have the money for a better station, then so be it. But if they spend a bundle on a station at 15th, or worse yet, spend money on a station at 14th, it will be one in a long list of stupid moves made by Sound Transit.

37

"The women who join those communities wish to express their devotion to God with an outward symbol and cover their hair which is the EXACT same impulse shared with Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear a hijab"

But not all women choose to wear the hijab...

37

Has anyone commenting on the Jihab or the Muslim faith ever lived in a foreign land and gained new perspectives from it? Did you speak their language? Did you get questions like "how many times have you been shot at"?

38

@35: You are kind, thank you. :)

39

Has anyone commenting on the Jihab or the Muslim faith ever lived in a foreign land and gained new perspectives from it? Did you speak their language?

42

@37: Yes , and? Not all women who are Mormon choose to wear the garment, not all Hindu women choose to wear a bindi, not all Jewish women choose to wear a wig and head scarf, not all sisters choose to wear the habit. The operative word is CHOOSE.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wearing any of these garments if you CHOOSE to do so.
Orthodox Jewish men have a whole host of garments that they wear to express their devotion to their religion. Are you out there wringing your hands over every little boy in Brooklyn in peyas? Condemning their entire religion because they aren't allowed to shave?

No? Is it just Muslim girls and women that you feel have no agency? In this country?

Like I said, the operative word in religious practice or dress is CHOICE. Stop pretending it's only the Muslim community that enforces religious conformity and fucks with their kids heads or has a history of oppressing women. And stop pretending that there's no such thing as secular Muslims, or lapsed Muslims or Muslims that are only halal when they go home to see their parents.

43

''With Animism there were many gods everywhere, in the water, in the trees, gods in the wind, lots of gods... " --Treacle, quoting Hitch.

And we've come so far, we've now swapped them
for Kochs. Great comment, though! Lissa's, too!

44

@41 -- "I discovered that the outbreaks that
I use to have on my Private part [sic!] dried up,"

So glad to hear it!
Congradulations!

I once got turned into a Newt.
.
But, I got better...

45

@42 women are thrown in jail for not wearing the hijab so that is a shit comparison.

46

@45,

Not everywhere, only in shit countries that are under the thumb of islamic oppressors.

In the US, where muslims are much more tolerant, women can choose to wear it or not.

This applies to lots of different stuff in lots of different places. For example, in the US, women are thrown in jail for showing their tits in public. That's because the US is a shit country that is under the thumb of christian oppressors.

49

@45: And until this week women in Northern Ireland were imprisoned for life if they had an abortion. But hey! At least you could see their hair.

ALL of the Abrahamic religions have an ongoing history of oppression of women. And objecting to that oppression is totally legit. Being FORCED to adhere to a religious practice or philosophy is fucked up.
But we're talking about a girl who made a choice to wear a religious symbol in a country where the right to make that choice is enshrined in our Constitution.

50

Gotta wonder how much is Patriarchy/Stockholm Syndrome
and how long till we pass the Equal Rights Amendment
and toss the bondage and baggage we've been taking
for granted for so long.

51

@50: From your lips to god's ear

52

@46 @49 yes there are other atrocities towards women. That doesn't mean forcing women to wear the hijab is ok. Wearing it in America or any other free country is fine but until Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc. stop throwing women in jail for not wearing something I wont pretend that all Muslim women want to wear it.

53

"Different muslims have different ideas about womens rights."

Yes, and having traveled to over a dozen predominantly muslim countries, they range from shitty to appalling.

And the few my wife traveled with me to, she couldn't even walk a block alone before getting more abuse than she had in a lifetime in the USA.

54

"ALL of the Abrahamic religions have an ongoing history of oppression of women."

Yes, but some countries are still a few centuries ahead in terms of women's and gay rights and none of those countries leading that progress are Islamic.

By the way, neither Buddhism and nor Hinduism haven't produced any countries yet with women's rights as advanced in western nations.

55

@52: JFC. Read what I fucking wrote. In every one of my comments I have emphasized that the operative word is
Choice. Choice, choice, choice.
As in only if they do it of their own free will.
That means, (and I LITERALLY wrote this in my comment @ 49) Being FORCED to adhere to a religious practice, (such as the hijab or payas, or turbans) or philosophy (such as life in prison for exercising one's right to physical autonomy) is fucked up. Where you get the idea that I think you're supposed to pretend all Muslim women choose to wear the hijab is beyond me.
@53 & 54: Yes, and? You act like this is some kind revelation to me. It's not. And remember until this fucking WEEK in Northern Ireland women were sentenced to life in prison for having an abortion.
Religion based oppression of women is a global problem. Not just a problem specific to one, and only one, religion. Western Christians don't get a pass because of the abuses suffered by women in Islamic theocracies.
So just stop.

56

Assuming wearing the hijab is a choice is a pretty big ask. Even here in the good ol’ USofA there are societal and cultural pressures that make it more of a mandatory thing than a choice. Being raised in the US and not traveling or subject to different cultures give some quite a bit of tunnel vision. That way of dress is a tool of oppression dating back many centuries. To assume it’s some sort of free choice is presumptuous considering the history of the garment and the culture. There is likely just as much of a chance that this choice has been conditioned from years of growing up in the culture. Many times this choice is the choice between being ostracized and outcast by your family and peer group or not wearing the garment. I’d hardly call that a choice.

58

@56: Yes it sucks to be a Mormon or an Orthodox Jew too doesn't it? Cuz the same things apply to them here in the good old US of A. Family pressure, being ostracized, hell, Orthodox woman can't even get divorced, and step out of the Temple rules in Utah and see how fast you lose your whole family.
All Abrahamic religions have an on going problem with oppression of women.
All of them.
Stop pretending it is one and only one.
Cuz like I said in the beginning, I don't see any of y'all wringing your hands over Jews in yamakas or Sikhs in turbans, or Mormons in their Temple garments.

And it's cute how YOU assume that none of the half a BILLION Muslim women on this planet have any agency.

I'm certainly not assuming that all of those 1/2 a billion women are wear the hijab of their own free will, anymore than I assume that there aren't Mormon women in the same boat or Quiverful Christian women or Orthodox Jewish women dying to get out from under the thumb of their religions but can't.

So to recap: ALL Abrahamic religions have an on going problem with the oppression of women. In Theocracies (Iran, the Vatican) or theocratically influenced counties (Northern Ireland, El Salvador,) these abuses are enshrined in law. And that is fucked up.
In secular countries the pressure to conform can come from family and friends and community. And that's fucked up.
Being FORCED or pressured to follow a religious practice is fucked up. CHOOSING to follow a religious practice is not.
Where all y'all fall apart is that you ONLY have a problem with one religion, but are perfectly willing to accept that people of other faiths have agency.

59

"Stockholm Syndrome: psychological response wherein a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands.

The survival instinct is at the heart of the Stockholm syndrome. Victims live in enforced dependence and interpret rare or small acts of kindness in the midst of horrible conditions as good treatment. They often become hypervigilant to the needs and demands of their captors, making psychological links between the captors’ happiness and their own.

Indeed, the syndrome is marked not only by a positive bond between captive and captor but also by a negative attitude on behalf of the captive toward authorities who threaten the captor-captive relationship.

As the Stockholm bank robbery incident proves, it takes only a few days for this bond to cement, proving that, early on, the victim’s desire to survive trumps the urge to hate the person who created the situation.

By the 21st century, psychologists had expanded their understanding of the Stockholm syndrome from hostages to other groups, including victims of domestic violence, cult members, prisoners of war, procured prostitutes, and abused children. "

Try being openly Gay or an out-spoken Woman, Minority
or child
below the oft-dreaded Bible Belt* and see just how far you get.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome

*or wheverthefuck the far far FAR so-called
'right'/Patriarcy/Funda-Mental-ists are In Charge.

60

Pass the Equal Rights Amendment, already America.
And let's set ONE-HALF the Population FREE.

What have we got to Lose?
This Planet's about a quarter inch
from ditching its biggest Pests.
Us.

We need a better Plan
that includes Input from Women.

61

“ Where all y'all fall apart is that you ONLY have a problem with one religion, but are perfectly willing to accept that people of other faiths have agency.”

Nope, I think they’re all fucked up but out of the majors, Islam is the most fucked up. Go travel in some Islamic countries and you’ll very quickly figure this out. It’s the intersectional left who thinks Islam should get a pass. They will rant and rave about how culture in America oppresses women with their “unrealistic” body and beauty standards, but then sit around and clap a Muslim in a hijab.

62

@61: LOL have fun arguing with the Lissa you built in you head. Tell me did you buy the straw to build her at the feed store or do grow and harvest your own?
LITERALLY nobody on the big scary "intersectional left" is cool with women being forced to wear the hijab, or being forced to conform with any other religious practice.
One more time:
Being FORCED or pressured to follow a religious practice is fucked up. CHOOSING to follow a religious practice is not. Even if you think that religion dresses funny.
Your homework is to write that out 100 times until it sinks in.

63

“ Being FORCED or pressured to follow a religious practice is fucked up.“

Great so no more bitching about how the attractive and slim women in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue are “oppressive”. After all, no one is forcing American women not to be lard asses.

64

@63: Sports Illustrated is not a religion my dude, but your wild flailings as you loose this argument are duly noted.

65

LOL, lose not loose. Sorry!

66

‘Loose’ is probably what would happen to your pants if you lost 50lbs sugartits.

But fat-shaming is not oppression, that’s a choice.

68

The next time I hear about a 16-year-old girl only eating salads so she can look good in a swimsuit over the summer, I’ll have to remember, that’s not oppressive beauty standards at work, that’s free will!

69

@66: Ah calling a woman fat! The last traditional feeble weapon deployed by a man who has lost an argument on the internet. Ooo! Unless you also want to wildly speculate as to my hair color/marital status/number of pets? Those are also accepted demonstrations that gentlemen such as your self have backed themselves into a corner.
Game over punkin :)

70

@68: A little friendly advice: when moving those goal posts remember to bend your knees.

71

@69 -- I'd like to do a little speculatin', lady.
blonde.

(how'd I do on gender?)

72

@71: No need for speculation! As my profile picture clearly shows, my fur (with the exception of the blood stains) is snowy white. :)