SeattlePI reports that Rev. Sandy Brown my be a candidate for Seattle's 5th CD seat

From today's SeattlePI, Seattle City Council District 5 might have its first named candidate, Rev. Sandy Brown.

I wonder if he will call himself a political Independent.

http://sccd52015.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-guns-are.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/07/30/pastor-gun-safety-advocate-likely-to-run-for-seattle-city-council/#21728101=0

Pastor, gun safety advocate likely to run for Seattle City Council

JOSHUA TRUJILLO / SEATTLEPI.COM

as the campaign for Initiative 594 is officially launched at First United Methodist Church in Seattle. If passed by voters, the initiative will expand background checks to all gun sales. 

The Rev. Sandy Brown, who recently stepped down as senior minister at Seattle First United Methodist Church, is "strongly leaning toward" running for the Seattle City Council in next year's new district based elections.
Brown would run from District 5 at the far north end of the Emerald City.
"I'm being encouraged by friends to run and I've arranged my employment to make it happen," Brown said in answering a Facebook query.  "I live in District 5 and am excited about the possibility of representing my district on the Council."
Brown is walking before making a final decision to run.
He has just finished hiking from Florence to Rome in Italy, research for a guidebook on the Way of St. Francis.  He expects to be home from the Eternal City and make a decision soon after Labor Day.

He also might want to walk off the I-594 current controversy.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2014/jul/29/nazi-comments-continue-add-ammo-i-594-debate/

Advertisements are not endorsements, this isn't the Seattle Times or The Stranger.

I am not encouraging anybody to vote any particular way, at least not on Prop 1.

I'm conflicted. On this subject, I guess feelings could be pretty strong either way in Seattle's 5th CD.

"Where the guns are"

The reason I am posting this is that political identity is included. 

A question for candidates for non-partisan races often comes back to identifying candidates to a party, anyway.

Gun ownership is polarizing enough to drive people to be frank about their party affiliation.

To this point, I direct you to these two paragraphs:

Americans with a gun at home also differ politically from other adults. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to be members of a gun-owning household. Political independents also are more likely than Democrats to have a firearm in their homes.

Please read the article for more interesting information, and the entire study if you have an interest in the specific topic of gun ownership in America.

…

But on other dimensions tested in the survey, those with a gun at home differ little from other Americans. For example, they are as focused on health and fitness as those in non-gun owning households and are about equally likely to say they think of themselves as compassionate or as a trusting person.

I encourage you to ready the entire article, and the study.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households | Pew Research Center

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

* Does your candidate view themselves as a Republican, Independent, Democrat? 

* Tea Party and Socialist Party charts would probably require an undefined 4th dimension; political space takes on quantum political dynamics where political positions bend back on themselves, overlapping, self-conflicting, and in parts completely non-existent to each other's position, depending on the topic, all at the same time and none of the time.

Bring a towel.

Public people

Good for job, unidentified public-ish person. It is inevitable for many people to do this. I have essentially done this with FB and Twitter. I have 34 FB friends (you twice), and a couple hundred twitter followers on two accounts.

Had I gone back for grad school it would have been on what you had just done. The theory went, when I graduated a few years ago: there are, as the law has defined and society accepted; public people, limited public people, and private people. With the advent of ubiquitous social media and the self-reviewing nature of social media everyone that participates will split their personas to fit some if not all three of the basic public spheres: public, limited public/private, private.

Newspapers, bloggers, anybody, have/has a right to report on your public life (almost all of it) if you are a politician, public performer, etc, that has accepted a public role. The families of these willing participants often become unwilling participants to some degree.

Newspapers, and employers, media companies, have a right to report about you in a very limited sense if you are the spouse of the SDOT director, or there was a crime at your house, but it pretty much has to stick to that scope.

Newspapers, and employers, media companies, do not have the right to report on a private person. No reporter has the right to randomly pick my name and do a biopic on somebody battling line needles in my rain gutters. We make google blur faces when they map streets.

With that, I started a blog and twitter account just for my anonymous notes on the Seattle City Council District 5's race. It's a public thing that separates me from being any more of a public person than I have to be.

There are people that follow me on this twitter feed that would never follow me on my personal account. I will not disappoint those folks by colliding those worlds.  

@sccd52015

http://sccd52015.blogspot.com

I know, blogs are dead, but they retain a useful and interconnected memory that Facebook and twitter just do not have.