Pacific Northwest Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

Jack2142: Jul 17, 2014; Shitposting in Seattle

seiferguy posted:

She occupies a small part Pierce and King county that is overwhelmingly farmland (the biggest cities are Auburn, Bonney Lake and Edgewood of all places). There's low voter turnout, and usually in the primaries the only person to take her on is another Republican. The Democrats came close in 2006 (the same year that her roses story happened) but that's been it.

If it makes you feel better I haven't voted for her...

# ? Jan 30, 2016 06:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:18

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

This is the page of the Bundy's defense lawyer:

http://arnoldlawfirm.com/lissa-casey/

She seems to be a pretty competent attorney by most standards, but she has worked mostly as a defense attorney for DUIIs and harassment/stalking cases. It seems like kind of an odd choice for this type of case. I don't know if she has some type of ideological bent that makes her want to defend these people. Or whether she was just who was available.

glowing-fish fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jan 30, 2016

# ? Jan 30, 2016 21:51

Son of Thunderbeast: Sep 21, 2002

one of them probably has her on retainer

# ? Jan 31, 2016 02:47

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

Son of Thunderbeast posted:

one of them probably has her on retainer

A rancher in Arizona would have a DUII lawyer in Eugene on retainer?

# ? Jan 31, 2016 19:49

Son of Thunderbeast: Sep 21, 2002

glowing-fish posted:

A rancher in Arizona would have a DUII lawyer in Eugene on retainer?

# ? Jan 31, 2016 20:29

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

glowing-fish posted:

A rancher in Arizona would have a DUII lawyer in Eugene on retainer?

Maybe not the Bundys themselves, but one of the "militia" men, probably.

# ? Jan 31, 2016 23:43

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

foobardog posted:

Maybe not the Bundys themselves, but one of the "militia" men, probably.

As far as I know, none of them were resident in Oregon, and even if they were, you would think that if they had a lawyer on retainer, it would be a lawyer who was specifically about property rights or whatever. This is a pretty random selection.

My own guess is, even though most defense lawyers will take just about any case, they won't take it without conditions. Maybe she was the only lawyer who said "instead of giving you the best legal advice about how to get out of this with the minimum amount of trouble, I will let you turn this into a soapbox for your political views".

What are the chances that some of the defendants are going to do something ridiculous like claim that they don't have to testify in front of a federal court because it was a county matter, or something, and be held in contempt of court?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:51

Pixelboy: Sep 13, 2005; Now, I know what you're thinking...

glowing-fish posted:

What are the chances that some of the defendants are going to do something ridiculous like claim that they don't have to testify in front of a federal court because it was a county matter, or something, and be held in contempt of court?

I'm holding out for some good old fashion pro-se insanity.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:54

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Pixelboy posted:

I'm holding out for some good old fashion pro-se insanity.

FREEMAN ON THE LAND! I kind of want to see the media trying to discuss that seriously, and the Right Wing Pundits that will suggest they're actually right, and to check the fringe on the flag.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:58

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

Pixelboy posted:

I'm holding out for some good old fashion pro-se insanity.

How about a 9th or 10th Amendment defense?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:58

AcidCat: Feb 10, 2005

Any PN Goons in Bellingham?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 04:15

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

I'm just guessing one of these retards got a DUI in Oregon at some point and needed local counsel and suddenly they need a lawyer and know exactly one in the state. Because they certainly didn't foresee the possibility they might need one before enacting their daring plan.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 05:58

Fix: Jul 26, 2005; NEWT THE MOON

AcidCat posted:

Any PN Goons in Bellingham?

Yo.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 06:06

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

I whipped this up hastily, so its graphic design isn't really that exciting, but here is my bingo card for the trial:

# ? Feb 1, 2016 06:29

beepsandboops: Jan 28, 2014

Admiralty court! Admiralty court!

# ? Feb 1, 2016 06:41

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

beepsandboops posted:

Admiralty court! Admiralty court!

But it turns out that they shouldn't have been seizing a building so close to a navigable body of water!

# ? Feb 1, 2016 06:52

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

glowing-fish posted:

I whipped this up hastily, so its graphic design isn't really that exciting, but here is my bingo card for the trial:

ackowledge

# ? Feb 1, 2016 13:27

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

AcidCat posted:

Any PN Goons in Bellingham?

Used to be (WWU grad). I'd live in Bellingham if it wasn't far away from any decent job or had well paying jobs to take advantage of :smith:

# ? Feb 1, 2016 15:29

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

In shock of all shocks, the piecemeal Bike Share system is failing to be self-sustaining or effective. Compared to other cities such as Washington DC, Portland, and Paris, Seattle's system is small and stagnant- divided between two hubs because of grants but still paying back initial start-up loans, resulting in a budget hole. Pro-bike pundits argue that the problem is a failure of scale/vision, helmet requirements, and that Seattle is not flat. Further, they argue that the solution is a greater expansion and investment to create a strong web; the success story is Paris, where a bike station exists within every third of a kilometer and has a mass of users every day.

"Bike share�s failure deflates Seattle�s self-image" posted:

The news that Seattle�s bike share program is insolvent only a year after opening is, symbolically anyway, a wound to Seattle�s green psyche.

It could be due to mismanagement. Or a lame rollout. These were some of the reasons offered for how a bicycling program could falter so badly in a place that fancies itself as Bike City, USA.

But what if the real problem is that our self-image is mistaken?

Pronto, the nonprofit system of 54 stations downtown and the U District where you can grab a bike for short-term rental, now has to be bailed out by the City Council for $1.4 million. Or allowed to die.

That�s not very much money, which is why I called this a symbolic issue. The city can pony that up without breaking into a budget sweat.

But there�s a more vexing problem: Nobody�s riding the bikes.

In its first year, people took 142,832 rides on Pronto bikes. That�s only 391 rides per day. It�s about seven rides taken at each station per day. Each station brought in only an average $30 a day in revenue.

These are terrible figures considering the bike stations are dotted around places like the Amazon jungle, which we imagine should be meccas of alternative transportation. For a particularly unflattering comparison, the Washington, D.C., bike share logged more than a million rides in its first year (although it did have twice as many stations).

�Washington, D.C., is freezing in the winter and horribly hot in the summer, but they�ve blown past us, definitely on bike share and also on their rates of bike commuting,� says Tom Fucoloro, editor of the excellent Seattle Bike Blog.

I called Fucoloro because he�s an evangelist for Seattle bicycling, but also a realist. Could it be that Seattle with its rain and hills and bad traffic is maybe not the bicycling city it purports to be?

We are falling a bit in the rankings. In the latest bike commuting surveys, Seattle dropped to number five among big cities. That�s still pretty good, but since 2000, bicycling to work has grown twice as fast in Washington, D.C., and three times as fast in Portland.

Recently researchers found the bikingest neighborhoods in the U.S. They looked at bike commuting rates by census tract and ranked the top 100 in the nation (a neighborhood near Stanford University is number one). Portland has 11 of these neighborhoods, Philadelphia five, Chicago two. Even car-crazy Los Angeles has one. Seattle? None.

After years of growth, the number of bikes going over the Fremont Bridge surprisingly dropped 2 percent in 2015. Meanwhile, other surveys have shown that what�s really soaring in popularity around here is walking.

Fucoloro supports saving Pronto. But he said the system is mostly for the casual bike rider, not the hard-core commuter. It could be that biking is rugged enough in Seattle that if you�re going to do it, you�re committed enough to already have your own bike.

But in his view the problem isn�t that Seattle has hit peak bicycling or something. It�s that after decades of talking and fighting about it, the city still hasn�t done much to make biking here better or safer.

�You can�t spray some sharrows and call it good,� he said. �If you�re considering trying out a Pronto bike, but you know you have to go elbow to elbow with cars on Fifth Avenue, are you going to try that?�

Probably not. D.C. has a connected network of bike lanes and paths. Calgary, Alberta, of all places, just put in a network of bike lanes. Here, whatever bike lanes get installed (annoying many drivers) tend to be short and disconnected from the others (which annoys the bicyclists).

The city wants to grow the bike share to save it. OK, if we�re going to have a bike share, it is nuts that there are no stations in places like Fremont or Wallingford. Another idea is to bring in electric bikes, but this involves even greater capital expense. I�ve written before that we should repeal the helmet law if we really want this to work.

It�s all an experiment. With the added tension that Seattle�s sensibilities about itself are hanging in the balance.

At some point, as much as it hurts our green pride, we might have to concede that unlike Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., and the other bicycling capitals of the world, the one thing we�ll never be is flat.

My take is that the goal for pro-Bike proponents is more bikes and bike services, whether or not it actually serves any purpose or solution. I do seriously hope people remember the "Seattle is not a flat city" factor to the reasons the system is failing and realize we're not going to flatten hills just to create a problem for bikes to solve.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:39

koreban: Apr 4, 2008; I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than p. . .player hatin'.; Fun Shoe

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:44

smg77: Apr 27, 2007

koreban posted:

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

Maybe making it easier for bicyclists to remove themselves from the gene pool?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:48

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

koreban posted:

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

As bike use increases, the total percentage of crashes decreases; imagine a herd of bison where the size of the herd reduces the number of (middle-of-the-herd) bison getting eaten. This is recorded in Seattle as well as other cities. It should also be noted that as you increase the number of bikers that could potentially loving die or be permanently crippled from head trauma because of car-bike crashes or bad lanes (irrespective of the specific odds of such thing occurring), there is increased political pressure to reduce the number of car-bike interactions and increase and improve the number of bike & bike-only lanes.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:55

Drunk Tomato: Apr 23, 2010; If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

koreban posted:

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

Studies show that drivers are more careful around helmetless bikers, resulting in far fewer car/bike accidents overall. It's a strange psychological thing that planners have known for years, but "safety-conscious" officials tend to ignore when setting policy. Plus, helmet laws are thought to be a major nuisance and detriment to these bike sharing programs, because now you have to plan ahead and bring a helmet instead of just hopping on a bike spur of the moment.

Overall though, yeah. I'm always surprised when Seattle is looked to as one of the most "walkable", "bikeable", and "green" cities. People here LOVE driving their gas guzzlers. And the overall design of the city heavily favors the car, what with our 70% SFH or whatever the crazy ratio is.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

koreban posted:

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

There's two vectors, encoding personal (not public) safety into law is fundamentally a slippery slope and that while having less helmets may create more injuries, not requiring adults to wear helmets creates more bicyclists which is a net benefit. The second argument needs data not presented, but is less heartless than the first, so you usually see some sort of blend.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:01

El Jebus: Jun 18, 2008; This avatar is paid for by "Avatars for improving Lowtax's spine by any means that doesn't result in him becoming brain dead by putting his brain into a cyborg body and/or putting him in a exosuit due to fears of the suit being hacked and crushing him during a cyberpunk future timeline" Foundation

koreban posted:

What is the rational argument for repealing a helmet law for bicycle riders in a hill-ridden and heavily car-trafficked city?

They pay in advance?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:02

mod sassinator: Dec 13, 2006; I came here to Kick Ass and Chew Bubblegum,
and I'm All out of Ass

Drunk Tomato posted:

Overall though, yeah. I'm always surprised when Seattle is looked to as one of the most "walkable", "bikeable", and "green" cities. People here LOVE driving their gas guzzlers. And the overall design of the city heavily favors the car, what with our 70% SFH or whatever the crazy ratio is.

Is there some data to back that up? As far as I see there are more Priuses, Teslas, etc. on the road here compared to other cities. It's all anecdotal though.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:56

Soarer: Jan 14, 2012; I JUST CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S PONY AVATARS

~SMcD

I had no idea we even had a helmet law, and judging by the cyclists I see on my daily commute, neither do they, or they simply don't care and it isn't enforced at all.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:01

Krampus Grewcock: Aug 26, 2010; Gruss vom Krampus!

seiferguy posted:

Used to be (WWU grad). I'd live in Bellingham if it wasn't far away from any decent job or had well paying jobs to take advantage of

Ditto, Bham is pretty, and pretty chill.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:09

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Drunk Tomato posted:

Studies show that drivers are more careful around helmetless bikers, resulting in far fewer car/bike accidents overall. It's a strange psychological thing that planners have known for years, but "safety-conscious" officials tend to ignore when setting policy. Plus, helmet laws are thought to be a major nuisance and detriment to these bike sharing programs, because now you have to plan ahead and bring a helmet instead of just hopping on a bike spur of the moment.

Overall though, yeah. I'm always surprised when Seattle is looked to as one of the most "walkable", "bikeable", and "green" cities. People here LOVE driving their gas guzzlers. And the overall design of the city heavily favors the car, what with our 70% SFH or whatever the crazy ratio is.

It would be nice if they mandated visibility markings and light at night though. Put them on the bike if you're worried about spur of the moment use. Most already follow this because they aren't loving stupid but I hate it when someone in a dark hoodie and no lights bolts out of the middle of no where after dusk.

I mean poo poo, I have no problem sharing the road but I wish these folks wouldn't make it more difficult to keep them safe, you know?

Also, if we're going to discuss hills, we should also be discussing weather. It's miserable most of the year for rides of any length of time.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:11

KittyEmpress: Dec 30, 2012; Jam Buddies

Solkanar512 posted:

Also, if we're going to discuss hills, we should also be discussing weather. It's miserable most of the year for rides of any length of time.

Man I am only here for a few months but I saw a dude biking shirtless in a loving downpour, not giving a single gently caress about the weather as he made his way around town.

An inspiration.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:39

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Yeah, Seattle is actually tough for biking beyond the roads and all of that (which could definitely be improved). I went on a bike tour of Paris, and it's basically mostly flat or small hills, and it seemed completely legit that a bike could be my normal form of transportation. But Seattle, it was just a harsh lesson that yes, Capitol Hill is a HILL.

People are brave heroes who fight the odds, but at the end of the day, I'm sticking to the bus.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:44

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Where are all these bike things located? I've only seen one downtown, i.e. where a bike would be least useful and most annoying.

quote:

Yeah, Seattle is actually tough for biking beyond the roads and all of that (which could definitely be improved). I went on a bike tour of Paris, and it's basically mostly flat or small hills, and it seemed completely legit that a bike could be my normal form of transportation. But Seattle, it was just a harsh lesson that yes, Capitol Hill is a HILL.

When Seattle became a thing, they spent a lot of time terraforming it so they could actually get up and down the hills with anything at all.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 21:03

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

Where are all these bike things located? I've only seen one downtown, i.e. where a bike would be least useful and most annoying.

When Seattle became a thing, they spent a lot of time terraforming it so they could actually get up and down the hills with anything at all.

The nearest one to me is at a pretty good place, near the Safeway on 15th and John, so very accessible. It'd not be bad for getting one and then going downhill to anywhere else, but going back up? Eh...

And yeah, this is why you should never build cities on hills. :colbert:

# ? Feb 1, 2016 21:06

Lazy_Liberal: Sep 17, 2005; These stones are precious

Just wear your dang helmets.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 21:16

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Pronto is great because its easy to do one-way trips. Biking from up on cap hill to downtown is fast and easy, bussing up is easy. Different transport options for different needs!

# ? Feb 1, 2016 21:51

Mortanis: Dec 28, 2005; It's your father's lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight.; College Slice

seiferguy posted:

Used to be (WWU grad). I'd live in Bellingham if it wasn't far away from any decent job or had well paying jobs to take advantage of

I'd live there if I didn't work in Anacortes. Such a great place.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 22:59

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

A few months ago I saw a few woefully out of shape tourists pushing those bikes up the hill from Alaskan Way with the most annoyed look on their face.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 23:03

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

I use pronto for quick trips from eastlake into downtown quite a bit. I've got the year long key pass and it's nice when I want to grab lunch with friends closer to the westlake area. I mostly just sidewalk ride slow and try not to be a dick.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 23:05

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

One of my "favorite" answers to the helmet law issue that isn't "appeal it and let god sort them out" is to mandate helmets for pedestrians so that whenever you are interested in a bike, you already have a (fitted, clean-ish) helmet on your head. The argument being that naturally you want people to be safe, and its better to save a few more lives in pedestrian-to-car collisions as well.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 23:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:18

Drunk Tomato: Apr 23, 2010; If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

Gerund posted:

One of my "favorite" answers to the helmet law issue that isn't "appeal it and let god sort them out" is to mandate helmets for pedestrians so that whenever you are interested in a bike, you already have a (fitted, clean-ish) helmet on your head. The argument being that naturally you want people to be safe, and its better to save a few more lives in pedestrian-to-car collisions as well.

Hell, let's make helmets required for drivers too! With one fell swoop, we can entirely eliminate transportation-related head-and-neck injuries!

# ? Feb 2, 2016 00:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

«‹›258 »