Also, I thought from the video that the Judge had an earring, and the photo of him laughing confirms that. I know it's been common for men to wear small earrings like that for some time now, but seeing one on a sitting judge makes me feel oddly uncomfortable.

Am I missing something.....since when does race have anything to do with wearing earrings?

That can't be a good sign, if for no other reason than it show a lack of decorum; almost like disrespecting the office. As a matter of politics it can mean moonbat (which doesn't appear likely), or libertarian (a good thing).

But like King County, it does nothing to prevent you from voting 2 or 3 times.

This comment is not true. More people, but more people doing the counting per voter than any other county

Well, Sam can say whatever he wants to say on any show in order to whitewash himself and what he has done....but, no self-respecting, strong Republican in this state will vote him into office again...in fact, most of my fellow repubs will work very hard against him if he decides to run!

Psycoanalyst: We're going to do some word association
Moonbat: OK.
Psycoanalyst: Sky
Moonbat: Racist
Psycoanalyst: Shoe
Moonbat: Racist
Psycoanalyst: Moon
Moonbat: Racist
Psycoanalyst: Tree
Moonbat: Racist
Psycoanalyst: Bush
Moonbat: Nazi

Understand now?

I'm just as appalled as appalled by appalled. (Guess that makes me really appalled.)

Oh for pete's sake! Who cares if the judge wears an earing or if he has other piercings elsewhere on his person? All I care about is that we have the opportunity to Re-elect Rossi.

SHEESH!

What exactly are the racists comments you are refering to? Please quote them, as I don't think anyone else is seeing them.

Understand now?

Nope.

“She looks "ethnic". Doesn't that count for something as KC?”

“Jennifer Durkan looks pretty butch. She must be a Vagina Warrior.”

“Does anyone else think that Billy-boy Huennekens is gay?”

“Almost every single person I've met here in Washington who's advocated "social justice" have 3 things in common.

1) Sexual orientation is undeterminable.”

You'll notice that if you parse my comment, I used the phrase "oddly uncomfortable". Meaning that it made me feel uncomfortable, but that I considered that an odd reaction on my part. At the time I wrote it I was still trying to understand why I felt that way.

I think Jeffro distilled it quite well. Judges in our society are seen as figures of authority (because they are) and are supposed to be impartial. Part of the reason for the black robe is to make them neutral. How would you feel if the judge was presiding while wearing an ACLU T-Shirt? Regardless of how he ruled, that display on his person would create the impression of bias. Now I'm not saying that an earring all by itself creates an impression of bias, but it is out of place in the historical context of how we are used to seeing our judges. Had I seen him wearing it outside the courtroom while in a suit and tie, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. But seeing him wear it while in his robes and seated on the bench gave me reason to pause and ponder. That's all.

And please, can we be brutally honest here? How am I, or another person for that matter, NOT supposed to be offended when you tell me to "grow up"? Would you NOT be offened if I said "No offense, but you're a pinhead". Saying "No Offense" and then offeneding doesn't excuse it, it only makes it more hypocritical.

JT-
It would have been simple for KC too, if they hadn't had to hold out until all the other precincts in the state to come in. After all, they had know how many votes Christine Fraudgoire needed to win before they could tabulate. It was just that simple!

My point is that we don't live in a bubble. It would make more sense, in my opinion, to not generalize in such a way as to dilute the message by offending those who do not fit into the accepted "profile" of a Republican. Others do read this blog, I'm sure.

It just seems to follow that comments regarding sexual orientation, race, jewelery or whatever would alienate a whole generation of people who may be on the fence or uninformed regarding their party affiliation. I know. I have a 21 year old daughter with tattoos, etc. who voted for Rossi based upon our discussions and her own research. Why dilute the message with these posts? I am a builder member of BIAW, a Republican, a conservative Christian female, married with two children and Italian in descent.

My point is that I hate to have their point made for them by internal posts that could be offensive, when the future does depend on the next generation, as I said.

Butch isn't considered an offensive term. Butche's aren't offended by it.
And I for one, don't want my state run by 3 vagina's

I did not mean that your earring comment was racist. I meant that I had noticed several comments in other, previous posts that felt racist/biased/ or whatever. The earring comment just prompted me to comment. Obviously anyone who may be a little less superficial regarding race, sexual orientation, etc. is not welcome to comment here. Sorry to interrupt you guy's obviously private conversation.

appalled-
Your right, the next generation is very important. And true, we don't live in a bubble. But this is a blogg, and The next generation does not teeter on any comments made here. People are posting spontaneously to a live event. Which is their right to do, without someone coming in to do PC patrol. Relax wouldja?

I have no problem with you having a problem with what I said. I said it, I stand by it. But to take what I said, and then use that as a spingboard into a tirade about racist comments is just wrong. My comment was an honest depiction of how I felt at that moment. How is that in anyway offensice? If I had said "The judge is unfit to hear the case because he is wearing an earring" then you could have called me uninformed, ill-advised, narrow minded, and even offensive. But I said no such thing.

Having thought about it more, my opinion of the judge wearing an earring in court is that it is slightly inappropriate, and something that I would advise against, but overall a minor issue that should have no bearing on the case. It would be similar in my mind to a judge who dyed his hair blue. It would have no bearing what-so-ever on his ability to interpret the law and render judgement, but it injects an aspect of the judge's personal life into the courtroom that serves only as a disraction from the official proceedings.

Well said, and I apoligize for using your comment as a "spring board" for being offended by comments made by others. That was unfair.

Rolling Eyes,

"But this is a blogg, and The next generation does not teeter on any comments made here."

Untrue. I know many, many young people who read this blog, the comments and the other side's blogs and comments, to help form their opinions on these issues. This from kids who don't EVER watch the news......but are registered to vote.

So you'd like us to watch what we say, so the kids who are registered to vote but don't watch the news won't get the wrong idea. Got it. I understand what you're saying. But you know, they may need to see that other people have opinions and learn to deal with it, form their own opinions, and realize that life isn't always sugar coated.
I have never once been offened by anything said here, but that's just me. I must be thicker skinned.
But the Jenny Durkan, Christine Gregoire crowd like to think of themselves as such. It's part of the Feminazi movement you know? : ) Just so you know, there was nothing derogatory meant here.
You have a great evening appalled! And I hope that tomorrow we do not appall you so much.
Maybe you could even change your handle to "not appalled" Wudduya think?

Sincerely,
RookieRick
Earring-wearing, eye-rolling member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Is it just me, or are most of the Repubs better looking and better dressed and better groomed than most of the Dems?

Oh, and more awake, too.

Oh, and more awake, too.

No, it's not just you. Were perdyer. We know how to comb our hair! Kevin (cough) Hamilton.

The R lawyers look impressively very well put together and very coooool.

More seriously: It seems to me that KC's behavior (holding back its vote count until all the others were in) suggests a need for another bit of election law reform. Simply write the law so that no returns can be released until all returns have been certified and handed in to the Secretary of State's office.

Failing that, sequester the election officials and the folks counting the ballots.

And, since I'm the guy who asked the question about certification deadlines...if we were waiting for "reasonable certainty" from KC, we'd still be waiting.