I got Guinevere from a shelter in June 1997; they estimated she was 5 to 7 years old. I needed a mouser when I had a built-in-1905 farmhouse in Deary, Idaho. She did great at that, and when I moved to apartment living to chase jobs in Boise, Bremerton, Redmond, and Seattle, she adjusted well to a new life. She liked people, but hated other animals in her old age. Mostly, she just snuggled in beside me when I was working on the laptop or reading a book. Not a bad gig if you can get it.
She’s been sick. Hyperthyroid and when that was treated it revealed her kidneys were in severe decline. She had been getting somewhat better, and I was hoping she was in a state of the illness that was manageable. Not to be though, as she got a lot worse this weekend and it was clear I would be cruel to keep her alive. I made the appointment and took her in today. The vet put her in my lap and I got to hold hold her and pet her as the vet put her to sleep. It took about 30 seconds. She just laid her head down.
Kim babysat me this morning. This is the photo she took of me and Guinevere, waiting for the time to leave.
I don’t know quite what to do with myself (time to post to the Internets!) and I miss her.
For Port of Seattle Commissioner, Gael Tarleton is an incumbent and Richard Pope is a perennial gadfly candidate. I’m kind of torn on this race. Richard Pope is a little bit off, and he’s a one issue candidate. However, his issue is getting rid of the $73 million property tax levy the Port of Seattle gets from property owners. He’s totally right that there’s no reason for the Port to tax us rather than extract its fees from port traffic. Gael Tarleton is an intelligent candidate, and somewhat of a reformer. But most of her reforms are tinkering on the edges.
I’ll probably vote for Gael Tarleton, because I suspect Richard Pope will be an outlier on the commission and won’t be effective.
Sherril Huff has been running the King County Elections department since before it was an elected position, and has been doing a good job. Her opponent, Mark Greene, is running for the position because he holds a grudge over having lost the Republican primary for the 9th district to Paul Lord. In his mind, King County Elections stole (or allowed someone to steal) the election from him, and then destroyed the evidence.
There’s a slim chance he might be right, but I’m going with Occam’s razor here. If Mark Greene was really about elections reform, he’d make sure to oppose computer balloting without a verifiable paper trail. He doesn’t. He’s just a crank.
SJR 8206 – A constitutional amendment on the budget stabilization account maintained by the state treasury.
This amendment would require the legislature to transfer additional moneys to the budget stabilization account in each fiscal biennium in which the state has received extraordinary revenue growth, as defined, with certain limitations.
There are two ways to smooth out revenue fluctuations from year to year. One of them is to borrow from the future, which is what the federal government does. However, the state constitution requires a balanced budget and getting that changed isn’t politically doable. The other way is to put money away, to be drawn down when times are bad. That’s how Washington State currently does it. (Some states don’t do it at all.)
The rainy day fund is currently about $300 million. The revenue shortfall is about $2 billion. In other words, the rainy day fund turned out to not be large enough. Not even close.
This amendment requires that, if the state has growth that is more than 33% above the 10 year growth rate, the amount above that be put into the rainy day fund. In other words, don’t spend as much money when times are really flush and story it away. We currently save 1% of our revenues, and this won’t change that. It only adds additional saving for flush times.
The no argument is that we should spend that money on needed services instead. And while that is an attractive argument, we’d have to cut off those programs a few years later during the next recession. I’d rather us have sustainable programs.
And it’s much preferable to save the money than rebate taxes. That doesn’t prepare us at all for the next recession.
SJR 8205 – removes Article VI, Section 1A of the Washington Constitution.
This amendment would remove an inoperative provision from the state constitution regarding the length of time a voter must reside in Washington to vote for president and vice-president.
This one is pretty much a no-brainer. But before I explain why, here’s the provision which will be removed if this passes:
SECTION 1A VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. In consideration of those citizens of the United States who become residents of the state of Washington during the year of a presidential election with the intention of making this state their permanent residence, this section is for the purpose of authorizing such persons who can meet all qualifications for voting as set forth in section 1 of this article, except for residence, to vote for presidential electors or for the office of President and Vice-President of the United States, as the case may be, but no other: Provided, That such persons have resided in the state at least sixty days immediately preceding the presidential election concerned.
The legislature shall establish the time, manner and place for such persons to cast such presidential ballots.
Basically the deal is that at the time, the 60 day requirement was much more lenient than the normal residency requirement for voting in Washington. However, the Supreme Court invalidated all laws that establish a residency requirement that’s greater than 30 days for presidential elections. And now we just have a 30 day requirement anyway. So why not clean this provision up?
I’ll be voting for it. Even if it wasn’t inoperative, I’m in favor of making voting easier.
This measure would close state liquor stores and sell their assets; license private parties to sell and distribute spirits; set license fees based on sales; regulate licensees; and change regulation of wine distribution.
For the last few years, Costco has sponsored initiatives to privatize liquors sales and distribution. I’m generally in favor of the idea, but have opposed the specific measures in the past, and I oppose I-1183 as well. But it won’t break my heart if it passes either.
State Liquor Store, 1971
Right now beer and wine can be sold in private retail stores in Washington. Hard liquor is sold only from restaurants, bars, and retail stores run by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. I believe the hard liquor monopoly is a remnant of prohibition. I-1183 directs the state to sell any assets related to liquor sales or distribution. In practice this will mean that the stores will be closed, because another item in the measure limits sales to stores with 10,000 square feet. In other words, grocery stores and big box discount stores.
The measure does not eliminate the three tier system for distribution though; we’ll still have producers, distributors, and retailers. But some companies will be allowed to be their own distributors, bypassing the middle man. That means places like Costco can sell liquor more cheaply. Which is something I’d be fine with, but it will probably freeze out small producers from the largest sales channel in the state. Right now they have a better opening into the distribution system. I don’t know where I come down on that. I’d like small producers to survive, but I don’t agree with doing it by monopoly power and price fixing.
I-1183 will raise revenues for the state, from $5 million to $8 million in 2012, and $35 million to $42 million in 2017, depending on assumptions. Local government revenues increase as well. These are the numbers the state came up with. The No On 1183 campaign likes to portray this as a tax increase and therefore bad. People don’t have to buy hard liquor, so it doesn’t bother me much.
Where my opposition comes though is that liquor will more or less only be sold in grocery stores. My ideal privatization measure would sell off the stores to be operated privately. Or allow private companies to open competing liquor stores. But spreading liquor sales into groceries worries me.
Pushing Wheelchair adapted from photo by bradleygee (CC By)
Initiative 1163 – concerning long-term care workers and services for elderly and disabled people.
This measure would reinstate background checks, training, and other requirements for long-term care workers and providers, if amended in 2011; and address financial accountability and administrative expenses of the long-term in-home care program.
Quick background that I know most of my friends know, but not everyone who stumbles on this will. I spent 3 years caring for my mother during her terminal illness and for my grandparents as their health declined before they died. I hired a number of people to help care for my mother. We did not use an agency for reasons that are not germane to this. There was no good way to determine the qualifications or experience for these caregivers, and it was a crapshoot with respect to the care they gave. For my grandmother, I insisted we use an agency that performed background checks at least, and they supposedly gave their workers some minimal training.
In 2008, I voted for an initiative that created a licensing program and training for long term caregivers. It passed by a large margin. Since then, the state legislature delayed some of the requirements instituted by that initiative. This was an attempt to save money given the horrible budget constraints the state experienced. Instead of starting in 2012, the program now starts in 2014.
If I could be sure this was a one-time delay, I wouldn’t lose a lot of sleep. I wouldn’t like it, but we’d get the improvement in standards fairly shortly. However, given that we continue to have budget constraints, I fully expect the legislature to delay the start of the program again. I do not want it to be indefinitely delayed. If this initiative passes, the program starts in 2012, and the legislature can’t amend it for two years. By which time it will have started. It’s much harder to shut down an existing program than to delay one that hasn’t started.
I don’t care that it costs some money. In an ideal world, market forces would create a mechanism for ensuring care, but that hasn’t happened. The only way to ensure good long term care is to have a lot of money. People who are disabled or dying deserve a minimum level of care even if they are poor, and this initiative goes a long way to ensuring that.
On occasion I’ve contacted distant relatives when I find contact information for them. That’s been somewhat hit or miss. One big hit though was last month I contacted someone who turned out to be the cousin of Anne Klindt Falconer. Anne would be my second cousin once removed. That means she and my father shared great grandparents.
My second great grandparents were Anton Weiss and Clara Voigt Weiss. After Anton died in 1911, Clara moved to California and lived with her daughter Celia. Clara’s photo album went into Celia’s hands when she died in 1915. Her daughter Agnes took the album after Celia died, and Agnes’ niece Anne took the album when Agnes passed away.
Anne sent me copies of the photos. This one is from Anton and Clara’s 50th anniversary in 1906. Seated in the center are Clara and Anton Weiss. Standing behind Clara is, I believe, my great grandmother Frances Weiss holding my grandfather, 2 year old George Archibald Weiss. (click for larger version)
Anton and Clara Weiss 50th wedding anniversary
The Cassville Index reported on the event. (Back then, the small town newspapers reported on who you had over to dinner.)
Golden Wedding
In Regensberg, Bacaria, on February 27, 1827, Anton Weiss was born. And near Cologne, Germany, Clara Voigt first saw the light of day on May 2, 1833. They both came to America in the same year, 1852, although they never met until within a few weeks of their marriage, Mr. Weiss spending some time in the east and was also in business in Dubuque before he came to Cassville in 1855 in company with Gustav Candler and William Schmitz. He formed a partnership with Mr. Schmitz and for seven years conducted the Cassville brewery and also a hardware store; when they dissolved Mr. Weiss retained the hardware business which he successfully conducted until he retired about fifteen years ago. Anton Weiss and Miss Clara Voigt were married by the late J.H.C. Sueclode, Esq., August 17, 1856, in the house now occupied by Thos. Williams, then owned by Jehn Berhardt Sr. (deceased), and standing on site of Mrs. Bernhardt’s present residence. In that house for a few months Mr. Weiss and his bride lived until their own home was ready, and since then their home has been continuously where they still reside although the building has been continuously enlarged and improved from time to time. TO bless the worthy couple were good sons and dutiful daughters and all now living, except the eldest daughter, were at the Golden Wedding last Friday. Robert was the first born, then Cecelia (now Mrs. Henry Klindt,) they reside at North Ontario, California. Frank of Pukwana S.D.; Theodore J. of Madison, Wis.; Joseph P. of Merrill, Wisc.; Mary died in June, 1898; Clarissa now Mrs. C.F. Troeller of Larrabee, Iowa; the youngest child, their daughter Agnes, died July 21, 1903. Other members of the family in attendance were Mr.s Frank Weiss and children, Marion, Theodore and Agnes; Mrs. J. P. Weiss and children Marie, Glenn and Archie; Harold, Paul and Agnes Troeller; Mrs. Barbara Freidmann of Chicago; and the Cassville relatives: Mrs. G. Kuchenberg, Miss Gertrude Josten, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Kuchenberg and children Hilda and Joe; Peter Voigt; Mr. and Mrs A.B. Teasdale and sons Charles and Harold. Mr. and Mrs Gustav Canderl, who for fifty years have been next-door neighbors, were at the wedding-dinner which was prepared by Mr. Weiss’ niece Mrs. Friedmann, one of whose many accomplishments is that she is a most skillful cook, and her offer to perform this labor of love was highly appreciated by the guests. A number of handsome gifts, leather coach, oak rocker and pieces of Haviland china and other tableware and mementos of the golden wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. A. Weiss from their living family and friends.
Anne identified the Troellers in the photo. Charles Teasdale’s son is still alive. I found contact information for him online, and he responded when I requested his help identifying his family in the photo. I haven’t yet built the Kuchenberg part of my tree, so noone yet for me to contact regarding those identifications.
Group photo at Anton and Clara Weiss 50th anniversary, with labels identifying known people
As I do most years, I like to write up how I plan to vote in the upcoming election and why. Although people are welcome to comment, or counter-argue, or whatever, the point of posting these is not to debate. Neither is the reason for posting these explanations to convince anyone, particularly people who disagree with my positions. I’m simply stating my opinion.
Photo by Oran Viriyincy (CC By-Sa)
Initiative 1125 – Concerning state expenditures on transportation.
This measure would prohibit the use of motor vehicle fund revenue and vehicle toll revenue for non-transportation purposes, and require that road and bridge tolls be set by the legislature and be project-specific.
That’s the ballot title and question. Which, unfortunately, is pretty bland and misleading. There are a grab bag of provisions in the initiative, most of which are bad:
Right now the legislature authorizes tolling on specific roads or bridges, and the state transportation commission sets the actual toll rates. I-1125 requires that the legislature set the tolls. That’s a guarantee for a political clusterfuck. Need to raise tolls to pay to repave or for structural fixes? A group of eastern washington legislators can hold it up. It also means every individual toll decision is subject to referendum.
It requires that tolls be uniform. That’s to remove what’s called congestion pricing. Want to cut down on people using the 520 bridge during rush hour? Charge a higher toll during rush hour. This provision would prevent that.
But the real reason behind the initiative is to prevent using I-90 for light rail. If this passes, there is no light rail to Bellevue. The main person bankrolling the initiative is the owner of Bellevue Square and a major investor in car culture related projects.
One of the effects of the initiative, though not explicitly part of it, is that it reduces the bonding capability for the 520 bridge replacement, which has already started. So to finish the bridge, the WSDOT will need to cancel about $500 million worth of other projects and shift the money to 520.
Really, all a person needs to do is look at who is sponsoring the initiative: Tim Eyman. He had one good initiative (performance audits) and a shit-ton of crappy ones. Including this one.
My great great grandfather was Nels Sorenson (born in Denmark, emigrated to Madison in 1883, died in 1931). His son Alfred came to the U.S. with the family. Digging up information on Alfred has been a pain in the ass. Mae Sorenson was his wife, and the most sordid parts of the story involve her.
At first, what I knew about him was two census listings for him. In 1900, he was living with Nels in Madison, and listed under the name Albert. In 1905, it’s the same. However, I couldn’t find any other mention of Albert Sorenson for the longest time. I managed to dig up a copy of his mother Katherine’s obituary in 1947, which mentions a son named Alfred B. I found a 1910 census entry for an Alfred and May Sorenson (with son George) in Madison. For the longest time I found nothing else, and I wasn’t sure if his name was Alfred or Albert.
I got the bright idea to search the Forest Hill Cemetery burial records for him, and found an Alfred Sorenson buried there in 1958. I wasn’t sure if it was the right Alfred though. (I didn’t notice that his burial location was adjacent to Nels and Katherine Sorenson, which should have been a clue.)
When I subscribed to NewspaperArchive.com, I tried to look up his obituary. Unfortunately, the 1950s are more or less a black hole on that site for Madison newspapers. They never got copies of most of those issues. Later, I searched for Sorenson more generally. It took a lot of weeding, but I found an article that referenced him. You’ll notice his name is hyphenated across two lines, so the O.C.R. didn’t make Alfred out of the text. It’s an interesting story:
Bond No. 1 Broken as Much Married May Fries Fish for Mate No. 2
Here’s the text of the article from 1 Jan 1933 in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Bond No. 1 Broken as Much-Married May Fries Fish for Mate No. 2
Mrs. May Sorenson, 47, Madison, has been a muchly married woman these last five years, it was brought out in circuit court Saturday when her husband, Alfred, 52, was awarded a divorce by Judge A. G. Zimmerman.
Sorenson recalled that they were married on Nov. 3, but he couldn’t tell the year, except that it must have been about 19 years ago.
Left, Came Back
After a number of years of married life, in which they didn’t get along any too well, Mrs. Sorenson obtained a divorce from bed and board and went her way. Her way eventually led back to him, in 1927, but before that she was married to two other men, Sorenson testified.
Herman Sachtjen, divorce counsel, told the court that in 1927 the Sorensons came to him and wanted the bed and boarddivorce judgment set aside. This was just before it would have become final after the regular five-year period required.
Enter Mate No. 2
Two days after the judgment had been set aside and the Sorensons had resumed relations as man and wife, Sachtjen was visited by William Baker, South Madison, who wanted to know:
What do you mean by taking away my wife?
He exhibited a marriage certificate from a county in Iowa. He was informed that the marriage was illegal, because Mrs. Sorenson had not received a final divorce decree.
Well, I’ll have her back again in two months, Sachtjen said Baker told him.
Baking for Baker
However, Sorenson saud he and his wife lived together until three months ago, when his wife went out to a rummage sale. He said he hadn’t seen her since.
Deputy Thomas Watson was called to the witness stand to testify as to where he served Mrs. Sorenson with the complaint in the divorce suit.
He said he found her in the home of William Baker, South Madison, frying a mess of fish.
Now, that’s likely to be the same Alfred Sorenson as in 1910, as there weren’t likely to be two couples in Madison with the names Alfred and Mae Sorenson. I’m not certain of the exact timeline, because I’ve found conflicting reports on the divorce dates and marriages and whatnot.
Searching for Mae Sorenson (and May Sorenson), I then pulled up some really interesting newspaper accounts from the early 1920s. Here’s the background, but you can search on Lemberger case or Martin Lemberger to get more information. In September 1911, a girl named Annie Lemberger disappeared from Madison. Several days later, her body was found in Lake Monona. Suspicion fell on a local laborer, John Johnson. He was arrested and locked up. He confessed under questioning and plead guilty. He recanted shortly thereafter, claiming that the police threatened to turn him over to a lynch mob if he didn’t confess. After his conviction, he was moved to a state facility, where he wasn’t in danger of extra-judicial mob killing. For ten years he maintained his innocence, but to no avail.
Here’s where Mae Sorenson comes in. In 1921, she came forward to testify that Annie Lemberger’s family told her in 1911 that the father, Martin Lemberger, had done it. Mae also said she saw a bloody nightgown on the floor of the Lemberger washroom. The police arrested Martin Lemberger (in court, Perry Mason style) and freed James Johnson. The charges against Lemberger didn’t stick though, because the statute of limitations had passed.
Mrs. Sorenson's Conscience Is Clear After Ten Years
Things got stickier another decade later though, according to reports. Mr. Johnson’s lawyer was Ole (O.A.) Stolen. He used the notoriety to wrangle himself a judgeship, but resigned in disgrace over corruption. A newspaper decided to do a 10 year retrospective of the case in the early 1930s, and uncovered that Stolen had paid Mae Sorenson for her testimony.
The article linked above says Mae’s husband is George. So it might not be the same Mae Sorenson that married Alfred Sorenson. I haven’t found any other Mae Sorenson’s in Madison either. So I saved a few of the articles and noted the connection as inconclusive for the moment.
I found a burial record for a Mae Sorenson in Forest Hill Cemetery that lists her as being buried in 1958 (the same year as Alfred). That record has her birth date as 10 Mar 1884. When I visited Madison in June, I spent some time at the Madison Public Library and the Wisconsin Historical Society, looking through issues of the Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times on microfilm. I found both of their obituaries. Neither mentions the ex-spouse, which isn’t surprising. But both mention a daughter Evelyn who lives in California, which confirmed to me that the two burials are for the former spouses. And that Alfred is the one related to me, because it’s in the same plot as my great great grandfather.
Today a major piece of the puzzle fell into my lap. It’s an affidavit made for a moot court competition in 2004 about the Lemberger case. It’s not the real thing, but it has details that aren’t easily dug up, so they had access to the actual case materials. And it has other details that definitively connect Mae Sorenson to the Mae Sorenson who married Alfred Sorenson, my great great uncle. The preparers either filled in blanks with information from the Mae Sorenson connected to me, or that information was in the case materials. The former is possible, but I consider the latter more likely. If they needed to fill in blanks, they could have used any old information, as it wasn’t germane to the Lemberger case.
What are those details? (They have male/female variants of names in case the people who play these characters in the mock court don’t match the original genders.)
1. My name is Mae/Mark Sorenson. I was born on March 10, 1884 in Sparta,
Wisconsin. I was an orphan and grew up as a ward of the State of Wisconsin. I
moved to Madison around 1900. I joined St. John’s Lutheran Church in Madison
when I moved here and have been a member since that time.
3. I married Alfred/Freda Sorenson in November of 1907 but we divorced years
later. I lost everything in the divorce and even lost custody of my one dear child
to Alfred/Freda.
The points of connection are: Mae’s birth date is the same as that given in her burial record, her husband is named Alfred, and their marriage date matches the approximate date in the 1910 census and the marriage date given in the newspaper article on their divorce.
Now, to be really an truly certain, I need to find a lot of confirming records. But at this point I’ve moved it from uncertain to pretty likely.
Things to obtain:
marriage record for Alfred and Mae Sorenson on 3 Nov 1907 from Madison, either from the state, Dane County, or possibly the Wisconsin Historical Society
death certificate for Mae Sorenson from 16 Nov 1958 from Dane County or the State of Wisconsin
copies or transcriptions of Mae Sorenson’s affidavits and testimony from the Lemberger case in 1921 and 1922
Some nice to have items, but aren’t completely necessary to confirming the connection:
records from the Sparta State School for Dependent & Neglected Children from the Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Services and/or Wisconsin State Archives
death certificate for Alfred Sorenson from 17 Feb 1958
copies of the news articles in the 1930s that revealed the payments to Mae Sorenson
divorce case record from 1922 bed and board divorce
divorce case record from the second divorce in 1931
copy of Crime of Magnitude by Mark Lemberger (out of print, but looks like there’s a Kindle edition
!) (got the Kindle edition. list of characters at the front lists the husband as Alfred.)
And to make this unnecessarily long article unnecessarily longer, here’s the photos I took in June of Alfred’s grave marker and the plot where Mae was buried. There’s no marker for her grave.
Mae Sorenson plot (no marker)Alfred Bernhard Sorenson
