Go easy on my indoor kitty Krusty! A tip of the hat to The Stranger, the song outro's are always pretty solid on Slog.


Why don’t we have a mayor like Cleveland? Because the progressive kingmakers in Seattle lined up behind the wrong candidate. I voted Farrell in the primary, but switched to Harrell in the general, which is probably a common story. All the signs pointed to deep dissatisfaction with sitting Councilmembers, but progressives just got used to magical thinking I guess.


May a black cat cross your path.


Totoman @3, I'm going to need a little more context about what's going on in Cleveland. I see a mayor-elect there who's willing to engage in the provocative rhetoric of "People over cars," but I'd have to know what he plans to do to give people viable alternatives to automobile dependency.

What really raises this question in my mind is the fact that it's Mike McGinn of all people applauding this message. When he was Seattle's mayor, McGinn was very happy to engage in that sort of rhetoric, but he certainly wasn't our most effective mayor in recent history when it comes to providing viable alternatives. That would have to be Greg Nickels, someone who was not so inclined to engage in provocative rhetoric.

Someone who can rightfully be accused of supporting "The War on Cars"


Staunch Marxist Charles Mudede supporting and applauding a rapacious capitalist like Gene Simmons? Whew, now I've seen everything.


The late progressive vote swing is a really interesting pattern. That pattern has been happening for a few elections now highlighted by Sawant's comeback in 2019 but in the last few elections the trend has actually increased from 9pt to the current 12-13. It seems clear from the data its mostly younger voters but I have yet to see any research why they wait so long to cast their ballot. If the reason is "not getting around to it" until election day that's fine and I applaud those who actually vote but I have to think there is also a huge chunk you never get around to it as evidenced by the low turnout this last election. It seems like there is a great opportunity here to try and engage these voters sooner and increase participation.


He is in court because your belief that he has the legal right to cross state lines with a murder weapon to kill several people while serving as a vigilante security cop is at best subjective, and the prosecutors had enough evidence to secure his indictment. This is how your legal system works.


@4: because he killed 2 people and maimed a 3rd due to his reckless actions.

but don't fret; he'll walk on everything but the gun charge. rittenhouse's right to self-defense will outweigh huber's and grosskreutz's.


@10: small point, but he kept the MSSA at dominick black's house in WI, and retrieved it from there prior to defending the used car lot, so he didn't cross state lines. i am not sure if he went back to IL with it.


Thank you for quoting Joyce, Herr Charles!
I use "Finnegans' Wake" text as Lorem Ipsum when beta-developing projects. A novel use I suspect Herr Joyce would approve.


"Back in the New York Groove" > "I Was Made for Loving You"


@9 Some people wait until nearly the last minute to vote because shit happens. The less ideologically fixed one is, common with younger voters, the more little details can influence one's choice. On the other hand, the longer one has been voting in Seattle elections, the more likely they are to have strong opinions about particular candidates.


@4 because he is a racist, murdering, piece of shit?


It’s fascinating how deep into the weeds some people will descend to armchair-exonerate someone from any responsibility for his own actions.

Anyone can just dial back the chain of events to some arbitrary point in the past when someone else fucked up and pin all the blame on them but no court or legal body concerned with determining culpability would accept that as a defense.

The case is being tried on its own merits based on a set of facts deemed relevant and permissible, and that may very well be enough to get your hero child soldier off scot-free. No need to work yourself into a lather over whatever events preceded it. You’re going to give yourself a stroke for no discernible reason.


We respectfully disagree.


do you think that maybe writing-off courthouse worker fear of rape and assault is just one reason the "progressives" got trounced a couple weeks ago here?


He crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm.

He crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm.

He crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm.

That is all that matters, his self defense is bullshit in the same way my right to self defense is bullshit if a 17 year old antifa kid crosses state lines and goes to a Proud Boy convention brandishing a rifle at angry people and using it on a crowd.

Go fuck yourselves and put that little shit in the slammer where he belongs.


Considering that Rittenhouse admitted he knew Rosenbaum was not armed goes towards the First-degree reckless homicide he is charged with in that death. Intent doesn't need to be proven for that charge to stick, whether or not the jury will find that to be the case is anybody's guess.


Hell if Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev had just been a few years younger, he could have argued that having those pressure cooker bombs wasn't a big deal and using it in self defense was an expression of his sincerely held religious beliefs and he could be a champion for Chechen and Kyrgyz-Americans.


"He crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm."

A distinction without a difference.


@25. It means he is already under federal jurisdiction and subject to state and federal penalties up to and including imprisonment. Without violating this law, the rest of the events would have never transpired. There is a limit to self defense, for instance if you go looking for trouble and engage in a fight, you cannot simply declare self defense because you chose to instigate and left your point of defense to confront an visibly aggressive and angry person.

Too many people are putting the cart before the horse and conveniently forgetting this detail and questioning why he is even there at all and making that point an afterthought. Interstate commerce is a huge deal in sentencing and if you think he needs special treatment then you are part of the problem of institutional racism and classism embedded in our system and displayed in our media as a sideshow and political fodder.


@27. It's unfortunate, but I was incorrect in my facts after all. Thank you for correcting the record. I am now trying to catch up with the facts of the case.


@9 The late progressive swing is probably attributable to endgame GOTV pushes targeting younger more progressive voters.

When you look at the political landscape in Seattle it’s a little surprising the liberal Democrats do as well as they do.
1. The electorate is predominantly Democratic with reliably >90% voting for the Democratic candidate in Presidential elections.
2. GOTV efforts are traditionally led by party activists and in Seattle the party activists lean progressive.
3. Labor Unions are another source of GOTV. In Seattle there’s a split between the trade unions (carpenters, iron workers) and service unions (SEIU). The trades generally support the liberal Democrats while the services support the Progressive Democrats. The effectiveness of trade union GOTV has waited over the last decades while the service unions have the young activists with the time and energy to volunteer.
4. The Democratic District councils are dominated by the activist branch of the local Democrats.

So when you look at how much the landscape in in Seattle favors the Progressive Democrats over the Liberal Democrats the victories by Harrell, Nelson, and Davison are even more impressive.


“Seattle politics has officially entered the bewildering age of 13-point swings. Seattle Times reads the writing on the wall in this way: "The clear lesson from this year's ballot batches: any progressive down 12 to 14 percentage points on election night can catch up."

Lol, not if you’re down 30pts.


There are consequences to living in a country with a bifurcated and heavily biased news media. Rittenhouse was not guilty from the start to anyone who watched the primary source video, particularly as concerned the shootings of Anthony Huber (skateboard assailant when Kyle had already been forced to the ground,) and Gaige Grosskreutz (Mr. I have a Glock, wait, my hands are up! wait, now I'm taking aim at you, oh crap, there goes my bicep!)

Since we have been fed a pack of lies about this case over and over and over, people are so outraged that their initial biases have been solidly refuted by evidence presented in open court. Sitting US Representatives have called the obvious acquittal to come an injustice. The very President called him a white supremacist without a shred of evidence behind the allegation.

It's crystal clear that none of the felony charges should have been filed. The only charge that ever had a chance was the minor in possession of a rifle, because Rittenhouse may have been 90 days too young to do so. BFD.

Of course, if Rittenhouse is guilty of the weapons charge, one must ask why star prosecution witness Grosskreutz was not indicted for the equally serious crime of carrying concealed without a valid permit. The dude freaking incriminated himself on the witness stand trying to put Kyle away.

But you and I both know why Grosskreutz hasn't and won't face charges. This was in fact a political trial. It has been shown to be by Binger's flagrant prosecutorial misconduct where he both tried to admit evidence ruled inadmissible and fucking denigrated the defendant's 5th Amendment rights.

Is this misconduct the focus of today's news? Nope. The MSM have whipped themselves into a fury casting aspersions on the judge. How pathetic.


Maybe the clear lesson is that we should wait until Friday before releasing any election counts.


@32 What if it was a 12-year old who shot the protestors in Kenosha? Or an 8-year old? Is self-defense the same for a child as an adult? I think we can all agree that children should not own guns, because they are not capable of making responsible decisions with them. Rittenhouse testified that he asked for the rifle because he thought it looked cooler than a pistol. Does that sound like a responsible gun owner who's intention was self-protection? Adults are more capable of telling the difference between a protestor acting erratically and a real threat, and that's why they have different rights. There were police officers and other armed vigilantes in Kenosha that night, and none of them shot anyone. Some of them even testified that they didn't feel threatened by the same people that Rittenhouse shot. So yeah, it is a BFD when you put an automatic rifle into the hands of a minor, and two people in Kenosha were killed as a result of that decision.


@34 It wasn't an automatic rifle, but whatever.

It's funny how you talk about how a child doesn't have self-defense rights because he is incapable of determining the legal threshold required to exercise it. Rittenhouse, a child for just a few months more at the time of this riot, actually demonstrated impeccable judgment in his exercise of that right, irrespective of whether you think he should have been there at all.

He only shot at people who were directly attacking him. We have Rosenbaum on a video from an hour earlier acting erratically. He was shot when he attacked Rittenhouse from behind and attempted to take his weapon. We have Huber who had already forced Rittenhouse to the ground and was attempting a lethal head blow with his skateboard when Rittenhouse shot him. We have Grosskreutz faking surrender before again taking aim with his illegally carried pistol. Rittenhouse shot him when he posed that threat.

All the time the mob was attacking him, he was attempting to retreat to police lines to turn himself in. These are not the actions of some idiot child or either of the three criminals whom he shot, but someone who had a fully informed legal theory of SD in his head along with great poise actually using the weapon.

The real takeaway here is that older, larger criminals decided to attack a smaller teenager who had the equalizer at his disposal. The stupidity of those choices is now on full display.


@39 And because you were an adult I support your right to buy any gun you want for whatever reason you choose, as long as you're not breaking any laws, harming anyone, using it sensibly, etc.

The 17-year old boy knew that he was breaking the law by obtaining a gun to begin with, but I think the trial has shown that he didn't have the maturity and common sense to operate that gun responsibly. He had no business being there, so his self-defense argument is weak. He has no gun safety or crowd control training, so he didn't know how to operate a gun responsibly or handle his surroundings that night. And he didn't know how to differentiate between someone acting erratically and a real threat to his life, as several others have testified. Even the confrontation with Grosskreutz shows Rittenhouse's lack of judgement, as he was reloading the rifle while the guy was holding up his hands to surrender. I am very skeptical of any vigilantes inserting themselves in situations where they do not belong, but a 17-year old boy simply does not have the maturity to handle a dangerous situation like this, and I think that's been proven in the trial.


@40 I didn't say a child doesn't understand the self-defense legal threshold, but rather children don't have the maturity and judgment to defend themselves at all. This is why we teach children to tell their parents or teachers when they feel threatened, or more importantly stay away from potentially dangerous people and situations. I think we can all agree that Kenosha was a highly dangerous situation that children should not have been part of.

Why do you assume Rosenbaum was trying to harm Rittenhouse by attempting to disarm him? If you were in a chaotic situation and saw a person with a rifle who was clearly not a police officer, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume they were a potential threat? And is disarming a potential threat not a form of self-defense too? Not sure if I've ever heard of a skateboard attack either, but simply covering your head with your arms is probably sufficient defense against skateboards. Alas, a 17-year old boy who chose to insert himself in a dangerous situation with an illegally obtained rifle and no training chose to escalate the situation and kill these people instead. That's pretty damn far from "impeccable judgment".


@1: Spoken like a hopelessly clueless cat hater. Cats, like dogs, are also carnivorous. They hunt birds, squirrels, mice, and other small rodents. Cats contribute to the circle of life and have their place in society like the rest of us. At least they're smart enough not to want to lustily sniff human crotches like the typical Mississippi Leg Hound.

@5: You tell 'em, Phoebe! Agreed and seconded. However shaken, I'm glad Kitty escaped Wile E. Coyote's jaws of death. :)


@4: Try to keep up.

@16 Greenwood_Bob for the WIN!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.