Tim Burgess is going about this whole panhandling ordinance all wrong. That's all there is to it.
While I would be the first to jump up and say "Hey! Asking me for money while I'm taking money out of an ATM is annoying and wrong," passing an unenforceable ordinance isn't going to do much about it.
Even worse, the original idea - not near ATM machines, not near people getting out of cars (later changed to people using parking meters), and no touching - seems to be missing. If I read correctly, the bill now just adds a $50 fine for aggressive panhandling. Because that's how behaviors change. $50 to someone who has to beg for money for food or booze or crack or whatever.
Nick Licata made an excellent point when he attempted to add a sunrise provision, requiring that funding for beat cops come before expecting any enforcement of this bill. Last I heard, Richard Conlin is fast-tracking this bill, which may very well avoid this commonsense idea. Is it just me, or is this one of the first times that Mr. Conlin has not wanted to hold endless hearings on an issue? Even worse, take an issue that has had endless hearings, completely change the bill, not allow for public comment, and then swiftly vote on it? This is SO not Seattle process.
The funny thing...I spend a lot of time in Downtown Seattle. I work downtown, I grab a bite downtown, I shop downtown, I go to movies downtown, and there are various meetings I go to downtown. You know what makes downtown uncomfortable for me? It's not the homeless folks. They're annoying sometimes, but for the most part, they're respectful and blend in with the building facades.
Nope. It's Pike and Pine, between 2nd and 3rd Aves, especially around that McDonald's.
I'm sure many Seattleites remember the pomp and circumstance of the "Open House" at City Hall, where we got to go hang out with City Council Members, department heads, the Mayor. I was there. I had just purchased a new pair of fabulous pink shoes, after being at an event for the Schools Levy. While walking with my purchase form the Nordstrom Rack, I chose to go down 3rd Ave towards the parking garage I use, and realized how completely awful this area can be. Young and old folks shouting at each other, swearing, threatening, blocking the sidewalk, and generally acting like dicks.
I said to Mr. Burgess that day, "Have you been down on 2nd or 3rd between Pike and Pine recently?" He said, "No."
This is an issue of someone attempting to solve a problem that he really doesn't understand. More beat cops, greater communication between the police department and these folks who like to make a ruckus, that's what is necessary. Unenforceable panhandling ordinances are not.
There is already an aggressive panhandling ordinance. Enforce the law as it exists. And if you really want to make downtown seem safer, focus on the rabble-rousers.
This bill will likely come before the full Council on Monday. I do hope that Sally Bagshaw and Richard Conlin can say they voted it out of committee, just to vote it down by the full Council. I do hope that Nick Licata keeps his energy up, and reminds the Council and the public that we need more boots on the ground, not ordinances. And I hope that Bruce Harrell, Tom Rasmussen, Sally Clark, Jean Godden and O'Brien have the good sense to vote "No".
And if you hope so, too, be sure to email the members to that effect.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Why Constance McMillen is Important
I don't personally know Constance McMillen, which puts me right about where most of her supporters are. This puts me in an odd position - I don't really care about this individual, but I care greatly about this situation.
Every generation, gays and lesbians make inroads in our communities. We are able to be more out and open about who we are. We raise families. We move to the suburbs. We act like *gasp* straight couples.
But before getting to where we are, generations before us had to endure extreme discrimination. It's difficult to think that, up until the Lawrence v. Texas decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, gay sex was basically illegal in 11-13 states (depending on how you read statutes). We have made massive inroads at the ballot box (Ref. 71), and while suffering glaring setbacks (Question 1, Prop 8), we are doing better than ever.
But in the midst of all of this progress, I fear that we are forgetting that the next generation is still going through the dreaded high school years.
I don't find myself in the company of people under the age of 21 often. I don't get the question about how to or when to or who to come out to. My answer, however, would be simple: quietly, when you feel comfortable, and to whom you feel comfortable telling.
I have heard stories of the progress made in high schools across America. A gay friend is a hot commodity in many high schools across America. However, the gay kids in America still face institutionalized discrimination, which is dangerous, plain and simple.
To use a personal anecdote (which I detest in general): I was in high school a long, long time ago. In a school with well over 2000 students, I was by no means the only gay, or even the only "out" fag. But, being who I am, I found myself a bit of a lightening rod for anti-gay folks. Unlike most out gays in my school, I refused to just keep my head down and be a little bitch to the anti-fagala bigots that populated my school.
At the same time, I was very much in tune with what was going on in Olympia, and knew that hate crimes against gays were a crime. Providing school administrators with the tools necessary to ensure a safe environment for gay students, I was left with the impression that attacks on gay students (or minorities of any type) would be handled swiftly and appropriately.
Instead, my school decided to embrace homophobia, and blame victims of violent, homophobic attacks for what happened to them. By telling students that it is their fault they are targets because they are too "flamboyant" or "boyish" (for a lesbian) is akin to saying "well, you wouldn't have been punched in the back of the head if you would just lighten your skin a bit" to a black man.
This all culminated in a very personal way, when I found myself the victim of a heinous attack perpetrated by a very angry, very homophobic young man who was much larger (height wise) and stronger than I am. I still remember the blows to the head by steel-toe boots. Even worse, I remember the Snohomish County Sheriff deputy telling me that if I was just a little less faggoty, I wouldn't have had anything to worry about.
That is institutionalized bigotry. That is what tells kids that it's okay to hate. And that leads to it being okay to attack.
Constance McMillen is probably lucky that she has so much attention on her little school right now. But I feel frightened for the little faggots in other schools who are seeing this acceptance of hatred by the people who are supposed to protect young people - school districts.
Moving forward, school districts need not have p0licies dictating who can and cannot be brought to a prom. Sure, have an age limit. But gender should not be a deciding factor. That is simply one more way of discriminating against gay and lesbian youth, and encouraging discrimination and violence against these kids who, ultimately, will replace the Barney Franks and Dan Savages of this country. The only way to do this is for gays and lesbians, regardless of their parent status, to take an interest in what is going on in their school districts, to pay attention to who they vote for, and to pay attention to school policies that will affect our incoming generation of leaders.
Because they are far more important than us.
Every generation, gays and lesbians make inroads in our communities. We are able to be more out and open about who we are. We raise families. We move to the suburbs. We act like *gasp* straight couples.
But before getting to where we are, generations before us had to endure extreme discrimination. It's difficult to think that, up until the Lawrence v. Texas decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, gay sex was basically illegal in 11-13 states (depending on how you read statutes). We have made massive inroads at the ballot box (Ref. 71), and while suffering glaring setbacks (Question 1, Prop 8), we are doing better than ever.
But in the midst of all of this progress, I fear that we are forgetting that the next generation is still going through the dreaded high school years.
I don't find myself in the company of people under the age of 21 often. I don't get the question about how to or when to or who to come out to. My answer, however, would be simple: quietly, when you feel comfortable, and to whom you feel comfortable telling.
I have heard stories of the progress made in high schools across America. A gay friend is a hot commodity in many high schools across America. However, the gay kids in America still face institutionalized discrimination, which is dangerous, plain and simple.
To use a personal anecdote (which I detest in general): I was in high school a long, long time ago. In a school with well over 2000 students, I was by no means the only gay, or even the only "out" fag. But, being who I am, I found myself a bit of a lightening rod for anti-gay folks. Unlike most out gays in my school, I refused to just keep my head down and be a little bitch to the anti-fagala bigots that populated my school.
At the same time, I was very much in tune with what was going on in Olympia, and knew that hate crimes against gays were a crime. Providing school administrators with the tools necessary to ensure a safe environment for gay students, I was left with the impression that attacks on gay students (or minorities of any type) would be handled swiftly and appropriately.
Instead, my school decided to embrace homophobia, and blame victims of violent, homophobic attacks for what happened to them. By telling students that it is their fault they are targets because they are too "flamboyant" or "boyish" (for a lesbian) is akin to saying "well, you wouldn't have been punched in the back of the head if you would just lighten your skin a bit" to a black man.
This all culminated in a very personal way, when I found myself the victim of a heinous attack perpetrated by a very angry, very homophobic young man who was much larger (height wise) and stronger than I am. I still remember the blows to the head by steel-toe boots. Even worse, I remember the Snohomish County Sheriff deputy telling me that if I was just a little less faggoty, I wouldn't have had anything to worry about.
That is institutionalized bigotry. That is what tells kids that it's okay to hate. And that leads to it being okay to attack.
Constance McMillen is probably lucky that she has so much attention on her little school right now. But I feel frightened for the little faggots in other schools who are seeing this acceptance of hatred by the people who are supposed to protect young people - school districts.
Moving forward, school districts need not have p0licies dictating who can and cannot be brought to a prom. Sure, have an age limit. But gender should not be a deciding factor. That is simply one more way of discriminating against gay and lesbian youth, and encouraging discrimination and violence against these kids who, ultimately, will replace the Barney Franks and Dan Savages of this country. The only way to do this is for gays and lesbians, regardless of their parent status, to take an interest in what is going on in their school districts, to pay attention to who they vote for, and to pay attention to school policies that will affect our incoming generation of leaders.
Because they are far more important than us.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
My continous stalking of Mike McGinn
Today brings the first State of the City address. I could have gone downtown and watched live, but that just sounds awful. Plus, Lili would be horribly bored. So, I'm watching from home. I wonder what he's going to say...shhhh...pay attention, Michael!!!
I'm going to eat some Lucky Charms while I watch.
One of the first topics that the mayor touched on was crime, specifically violent crime amongst our youth. I appreciate that he tied this in to the broader issues of class and socio-economic deficiencies in our city. That being said - I think we all know that something needs to be done. Mr. Mayor - what are you going to do?
After a bit of rambling about growing up on the East Coast, our economy not having a foundation in chain stores, and how idealism is a good thing (so pragmatism is a bad thing?), he got to the meat. The "big challenges" facing our city.
First things first, there is the budget. Mr. McGinn and I think just about everyone are in agreement. This is the most important thing that is facing the city and the Mayor's office. Without really getting into specifics, he gives on the GOP/Ben Nelson line of "reduc[ing] expenses", doing more with fewer people, and after laying off as many people as possible, maybe considering revenue increases (taxes).
It will be interesting to hear details. To hear what Mr. McGinn thinks are the programs that are too fat and bloated, and that we can either do without, or do with less people.
This is especially prevalent when you look at the second big challenge he mentions, not supporting the youth of this city "the way we should". Yes, there is an achievement gap. Yes, youth violence is on the rise. And apparently unemployment amongst youth is a major issue (define youth...I think of youth as under 18, and didn't realize we really tracked unemployment of teenagers under 18).
His response to the issue is holding town halls, reaching out to community members, educators, executives, etc, ask them what needs to be done, and do it. I agree that this is an issue that is extraordinarily complex. I understand that the mayor has no direct understanding, having spent 10 years as a corporate lawyer, doing well enough to start his own little non-profit funded by Vulcan. Are his children in public schools? So yes, there will be some major learning that will be necessary. But what I want to know - while you're out there getting all of this input, Mr. Mayor, what are you going to do? Are you going to work with the library system to help shore up a system that is bleeding employees and cutting hours? Are you going to work to expand the child-care assistance the City provides, to cover more families that qualify? Perhaps that program will only work with certain after-school childcare programs that basically extend the school day. And more police kiosks in high-crime areas. What are you going to do while you try to get input on what to do?
I think we are all in agreement that infrastructure is in dire need of help in this city. Potholes, lack of transportation alternatives, water and sewer, the power grid, fiber optics, stormwater runoff. It's good to hear that Mr. McGinn has the intention of looking at these problems, and tackling them head on. Admitting that they are expensive, and need to be done, is a great step, and I hope he means it. Fixing deteriorating infrastructure creates jobs now, and keeps our city wonderful for years to come.
Which leads to the bike and pedestrian plans. Yes, these are necessary, and great plans. Yes, they are underfunded. I am still waiting to hear how the Mayor's office plans to fund them, and when to expect that commitment to begin. Additionally, helping the county find more money for Metro sounds good, but tell me what that looks like. I think it would be more in the interest of the City to work with the County to have more control over what routes look like. And to really pressure Metro to get rid of the 40-40-20 plan, which, ultimately, hurts our great city.
Mr. McGinn has put a line in the sand...sort of...on the 520 replacement. But I want to know how he thinks that we can pay to put light rail across 520 when we still are working on getting it across I-90. Perhaps this is a bargaining ploy to have two lanes dedicated to bus rapid transit?
And the Big Dig can, in no way, be compared to what we're doing to replace the Viaduct. But, it seems he's finally letting go of the pipe dream that this won't be built, either as four lanes in a tunnel, or six lanes in a new viaduct.
And he knows there will be cost overruns. We have a psychic for a mayor!!!
His appeal for more deregulation I have mixed feelings about. While on the one hand, I totally agree with the park and ride lots, and facing reality to allow for some short term relaxation of rules to help keep the local economy from spiraling out of control, I would hope that he wouldn't be pushing for allowing long-term projects that go around the rules in order to allow for short term economic gains.
Overall, Mr. McGinn seems to understand the state of the city. While I didn't hear any big plans, or much in the way of plans at all (other than town halls for youth and family services), I confess that I am glad he didn't put forth any major plans at this stage. So far those haven't turned out so well, and perhaps he has realized his political mistakes.
And why is it that Bruce Harrell has to stand to talk?
I'm going to eat some Lucky Charms while I watch.
One of the first topics that the mayor touched on was crime, specifically violent crime amongst our youth. I appreciate that he tied this in to the broader issues of class and socio-economic deficiencies in our city. That being said - I think we all know that something needs to be done. Mr. Mayor - what are you going to do?
After a bit of rambling about growing up on the East Coast, our economy not having a foundation in chain stores, and how idealism is a good thing (so pragmatism is a bad thing?), he got to the meat. The "big challenges" facing our city.
First things first, there is the budget. Mr. McGinn and I think just about everyone are in agreement. This is the most important thing that is facing the city and the Mayor's office. Without really getting into specifics, he gives on the GOP/Ben Nelson line of "reduc[ing] expenses", doing more with fewer people, and after laying off as many people as possible, maybe considering revenue increases (taxes).
It will be interesting to hear details. To hear what Mr. McGinn thinks are the programs that are too fat and bloated, and that we can either do without, or do with less people.
This is especially prevalent when you look at the second big challenge he mentions, not supporting the youth of this city "the way we should". Yes, there is an achievement gap. Yes, youth violence is on the rise. And apparently unemployment amongst youth is a major issue (define youth...I think of youth as under 18, and didn't realize we really tracked unemployment of teenagers under 18).
His response to the issue is holding town halls, reaching out to community members, educators, executives, etc, ask them what needs to be done, and do it. I agree that this is an issue that is extraordinarily complex. I understand that the mayor has no direct understanding, having spent 10 years as a corporate lawyer, doing well enough to start his own little non-profit funded by Vulcan. Are his children in public schools? So yes, there will be some major learning that will be necessary. But what I want to know - while you're out there getting all of this input, Mr. Mayor, what are you going to do? Are you going to work with the library system to help shore up a system that is bleeding employees and cutting hours? Are you going to work to expand the child-care assistance the City provides, to cover more families that qualify? Perhaps that program will only work with certain after-school childcare programs that basically extend the school day. And more police kiosks in high-crime areas. What are you going to do while you try to get input on what to do?
I think we are all in agreement that infrastructure is in dire need of help in this city. Potholes, lack of transportation alternatives, water and sewer, the power grid, fiber optics, stormwater runoff. It's good to hear that Mr. McGinn has the intention of looking at these problems, and tackling them head on. Admitting that they are expensive, and need to be done, is a great step, and I hope he means it. Fixing deteriorating infrastructure creates jobs now, and keeps our city wonderful for years to come.
Which leads to the bike and pedestrian plans. Yes, these are necessary, and great plans. Yes, they are underfunded. I am still waiting to hear how the Mayor's office plans to fund them, and when to expect that commitment to begin. Additionally, helping the county find more money for Metro sounds good, but tell me what that looks like. I think it would be more in the interest of the City to work with the County to have more control over what routes look like. And to really pressure Metro to get rid of the 40-40-20 plan, which, ultimately, hurts our great city.
Mr. McGinn has put a line in the sand...sort of...on the 520 replacement. But I want to know how he thinks that we can pay to put light rail across 520 when we still are working on getting it across I-90. Perhaps this is a bargaining ploy to have two lanes dedicated to bus rapid transit?
And the Big Dig can, in no way, be compared to what we're doing to replace the Viaduct. But, it seems he's finally letting go of the pipe dream that this won't be built, either as four lanes in a tunnel, or six lanes in a new viaduct.
And he knows there will be cost overruns. We have a psychic for a mayor!!!
His appeal for more deregulation I have mixed feelings about. While on the one hand, I totally agree with the park and ride lots, and facing reality to allow for some short term relaxation of rules to help keep the local economy from spiraling out of control, I would hope that he wouldn't be pushing for allowing long-term projects that go around the rules in order to allow for short term economic gains.
Overall, Mr. McGinn seems to understand the state of the city. While I didn't hear any big plans, or much in the way of plans at all (other than town halls for youth and family services), I confess that I am glad he didn't put forth any major plans at this stage. So far those haven't turned out so well, and perhaps he has realized his political mistakes.
And why is it that Bruce Harrell has to stand to talk?
Friday, February 12, 2010
McGinn and Tim Eyman
I despise the initiative process. It's not that I don't believe the People should have a say in the drafting of laws or governance, I just think that history shows we're not that great at it.
Take for instance the 2000 elections. I always love using this as my example, because it shows how awful legislating by initiative is.
In 2000, Initiatives 728 and 732 were passed with overwhelming support statewide. These mandated a reduction in class sizes, and increases in teacher pay. Wonderful things to strive for, to be sure, but not one inkling of a way to pay for these lofty goals.
Instead, voters also passed Initiative 722, with over 55% of the vote. 722 is the initiative that limited property tax increases to 2% (from the previous limit of 6%).
See - voters legislating is not the best thing in the world.
Of course, there is only one person who would have proposed I-722, that being Tim Eyman. Mr. Eyman has this thing where he seems to believe that the only way to legislate is via initiative. He is a true believe in governing by the people, even if the people don't totally understand what they're doing. This is the man who fought when the State passed legislation that created a section in voter's pamphlets to include a "fiscal impact statement." He does not want you to know what will happen when you pass a tax cut. All around, he's not that great of a guy.
The unfortunate thing is that Seattle's new mayor, Mike McGinn, seems to also believe in governing by the people. He is unabashedly using polls to determine what he should focus on as Mayor, along with an internet survey (with the top three being more light rail (good), legalizing and taxing pot (which can't be done by the city), and more nude beaches (priorities?)), and countless town hall meetings.
I hope that this is just a learning curve issue. The fact is that we elect people to govern. We pay taxes that pay their salaries, and the salaries of their staff, to govern. Yes, governing requires getting input from communities that are affected by specific proposals, but every single thing that is done does not require a poll, or a town hall, or an internet survey. Every thing that you want to do does not require a special election ballot.
Instead, focus on governing. Determine what you want to do for the city, and allow input, sure. Listen to the input. But for the big, grand ideas, YOU have been elected, so do some leadership. We cannot have a system of all Indians, no Chiefs. It doesn't work. When a department is planning something that will impact a specific neighborhood, ensure that they are taking in input via community meetings, and that should cut it.
I fear McGinn is becoming Tim Eyman, and wanting to have everything decided by popular vote, be that via an actual ballot, or town halls, or polls, or internet surveys. And Seattle sure as shit does not need Tim Eyman running the show.
If the administration does get out of control, then City Council - it's up to you. And I hope you're prepared for the task.
Take for instance the 2000 elections. I always love using this as my example, because it shows how awful legislating by initiative is.
In 2000, Initiatives 728 and 732 were passed with overwhelming support statewide. These mandated a reduction in class sizes, and increases in teacher pay. Wonderful things to strive for, to be sure, but not one inkling of a way to pay for these lofty goals.
Instead, voters also passed Initiative 722, with over 55% of the vote. 722 is the initiative that limited property tax increases to 2% (from the previous limit of 6%).
See - voters legislating is not the best thing in the world.
Of course, there is only one person who would have proposed I-722, that being Tim Eyman. Mr. Eyman has this thing where he seems to believe that the only way to legislate is via initiative. He is a true believe in governing by the people, even if the people don't totally understand what they're doing. This is the man who fought when the State passed legislation that created a section in voter's pamphlets to include a "fiscal impact statement." He does not want you to know what will happen when you pass a tax cut. All around, he's not that great of a guy.
The unfortunate thing is that Seattle's new mayor, Mike McGinn, seems to also believe in governing by the people. He is unabashedly using polls to determine what he should focus on as Mayor, along with an internet survey (with the top three being more light rail (good), legalizing and taxing pot (which can't be done by the city), and more nude beaches (priorities?)), and countless town hall meetings.
I hope that this is just a learning curve issue. The fact is that we elect people to govern. We pay taxes that pay their salaries, and the salaries of their staff, to govern. Yes, governing requires getting input from communities that are affected by specific proposals, but every single thing that is done does not require a poll, or a town hall, or an internet survey. Every thing that you want to do does not require a special election ballot.
Instead, focus on governing. Determine what you want to do for the city, and allow input, sure. Listen to the input. But for the big, grand ideas, YOU have been elected, so do some leadership. We cannot have a system of all Indians, no Chiefs. It doesn't work. When a department is planning something that will impact a specific neighborhood, ensure that they are taking in input via community meetings, and that should cut it.
I fear McGinn is becoming Tim Eyman, and wanting to have everything decided by popular vote, be that via an actual ballot, or town halls, or polls, or internet surveys. And Seattle sure as shit does not need Tim Eyman running the show.
If the administration does get out of control, then City Council - it's up to you. And I hope you're prepared for the task.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Rob Now, Pay Later
I shit you not. Someone actually came to the 43rd District Democrats monthly meeting, and spoke out against the Schools levy (props 1 and 2). While I have to commend her for willing to come before a what could have been a very hostile audience, and believe her primary focus was on Prop 1 (the capital levy), her entire argument seemed to be based on "schools haven't done a good enough job with previous levy money, and therefore don't deserve it."
I call bullshit. And unlike my "I'm voting no, but you should vote yes" for the housing levy (if it would have failed, it would have decimated public housing options in our city), I'm voting yes, and so should you. We cannot sit back and continue to do harm to our children. Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson does enough of that on her own.
But, why should I try to explain it, when Jello Biafra did so well:
Someday, even the experts will figure out that crime is not caused by rap music. Or even MY music. But by a power structure of self-absorbed property owners, so brain-dead and stupid, they won't even see that if you're too goddamn greedy to pay taxes for schools and services, they're not going to be any good anymore. And that uneducated time bombs are a very poor investment as a future workforce. And if you go on teaching people that life is cheap, and leave them to rot in ghettos and jails, they may one day feel justified in coming back to rob and kill you.
Duh.
I call bullshit. And unlike my "I'm voting no, but you should vote yes" for the housing levy (if it would have failed, it would have decimated public housing options in our city), I'm voting yes, and so should you. We cannot sit back and continue to do harm to our children. Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson does enough of that on her own.
But, why should I try to explain it, when Jello Biafra did so well:
Someday, even the experts will figure out that crime is not caused by rap music. Or even MY music. But by a power structure of self-absorbed property owners, so brain-dead and stupid, they won't even see that if you're too goddamn greedy to pay taxes for schools and services, they're not going to be any good anymore. And that uneducated time bombs are a very poor investment as a future workforce. And if you go on teaching people that life is cheap, and leave them to rot in ghettos and jails, they may one day feel justified in coming back to rob and kill you.
Duh.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Let the Blame Game Begin!
What a tragic moment in Democratic history. The seat held by John Kennedy, and then by Ted Kennedy, lost to a Republican who promised to block health insurance reform. All in a state that has all statewide elected officials from the Democratic Party, supermajorities in the State House and State Senate, and all the congressional seats held by Democrats.
Of course, all sides are quickly looking to blame someone else. But it is clear - this is everyone's fault.
Martha Coakley - after you won the primary, you should have kept on running. There's an old saying - always run like you're ten points behind. You ran like you were thirty points up, and that turns off people. Expecting them to vote for you because they have before, because you are a Democrat, is insulting.
Barack Obama - you should have done more than an email ask, followed by an appearance very late in the game. You had the team that could have helped, you could have taken notice sooner, but instead you took Massachusetts for granted.
DNC - Just like Obama, you waited until the last minute to get involved. Howard Dean knew that you have to take every race seriously. Tim Kaine - you are officially a failure.
SDCC - Just like the DNC, you also are a complete failure in this race. Perhaps it was the candidate, perhaps it was the lack of resources and talent provided, but you also bear responsibility. Sen. Martinez, I hope that this is not a harbinger of November.
And everyone else who didn't make a phone call to Massachusetts, who didn't email all their friends to make sure they got out and voted, who just sat back and said, "we're going to win this" - this is your fault, too.
So buck up, and get ready. We have a lot more work to do if we're going to keep our Party strong, and if we're going to maintain leadership in the US House and Senate, along with the State Legislature here at home. A lot of work.
Of course, all sides are quickly looking to blame someone else. But it is clear - this is everyone's fault.
Martha Coakley - after you won the primary, you should have kept on running. There's an old saying - always run like you're ten points behind. You ran like you were thirty points up, and that turns off people. Expecting them to vote for you because they have before, because you are a Democrat, is insulting.
Barack Obama - you should have done more than an email ask, followed by an appearance very late in the game. You had the team that could have helped, you could have taken notice sooner, but instead you took Massachusetts for granted.
DNC - Just like Obama, you waited until the last minute to get involved. Howard Dean knew that you have to take every race seriously. Tim Kaine - you are officially a failure.
SDCC - Just like the DNC, you also are a complete failure in this race. Perhaps it was the candidate, perhaps it was the lack of resources and talent provided, but you also bear responsibility. Sen. Martinez, I hope that this is not a harbinger of November.
And everyone else who didn't make a phone call to Massachusetts, who didn't email all their friends to make sure they got out and voted, who just sat back and said, "we're going to win this" - this is your fault, too.
So buck up, and get ready. We have a lot more work to do if we're going to keep our Party strong, and if we're going to maintain leadership in the US House and Senate, along with the State Legislature here at home. A lot of work.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
It's January, MoFo!
And an interesting January it has been.
All of the national and international goings on aside, we have a new mayor here at home, along with two new city council members and a new city attorney.
While I would hate to attempt Dominic Holden style humor at the expense of the new mayor's first 100 minutes, I do have little to no problem letting loose. That is one of the joys of being a gadfly of sorts.
First, where I can praise our new mayor - park and ride lots, while temporary, are a good thing to allow near the outlying light rail stations. Light rail is already performing under expectations, and if there isn't some way to encourage more ridership, then we will basically have a longer, more expensive version of the S.L.U.T., with little to no public will to really make light rail a major transportation system. While some purists (ie: Publicola, FutureWise) believe in the all or nothing approach to alternatives to vehicles for transportation, McGinn has shown that he has at least some sense of pragmatism, and long-term thought capability.
Additionally, he has promised, through his brain raking 50 minute long speech at the City Hall open house, more outreach to the community, and better constituent services from the mayor's office. Combined with the anticipated 100% awesome constituent services from Councilmembers Bagshaw and O'Brien, this can only be a good thing.
But then there is the not-so-good.
For one, and this ties in with the outreach, how many town halls do you need before you decide what you are going to do? The fact is, Mike McGinn, you were elected mayor. You should have had a better idea of what you were planning to do before you jumped in the race. You and your staff get paid to govern. Governing by the people is anarchy, and I would caution you to move down that path. Get input, sure. Explain what you're doing and why? Definitely. But it is now your job to actually lead.
For two - WTF was up with the iPhones? I will be the first to admit that people throwing a fit about the cost need to calm down a bit - in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that high. But coming off of the whole health insurance debacle, along with you stating over and over that we need to do things more efficiently and lower the cost of running government (great GOP line), this symbolic move towards a much more expensive item to the city, that doesn't sync well with everything else the city uses, tells me that either you don't trust your staff to quickly and effectively learn to use a Blackberry, or that the rules of lowering costs only apply to other departments.
I suppose I shouldn't be too upset. I didn't vote for you, and I voted for just about everyone who is on the Council. If you don't take a leadership role, and quickly set the agenda, I'm sure that the nine other mayors...er...councilmembers...would be glad to set the tone for the next four years.
It's up to you.
All of the national and international goings on aside, we have a new mayor here at home, along with two new city council members and a new city attorney.
While I would hate to attempt Dominic Holden style humor at the expense of the new mayor's first 100 minutes, I do have little to no problem letting loose. That is one of the joys of being a gadfly of sorts.
First, where I can praise our new mayor - park and ride lots, while temporary, are a good thing to allow near the outlying light rail stations. Light rail is already performing under expectations, and if there isn't some way to encourage more ridership, then we will basically have a longer, more expensive version of the S.L.U.T., with little to no public will to really make light rail a major transportation system. While some purists (ie: Publicola, FutureWise) believe in the all or nothing approach to alternatives to vehicles for transportation, McGinn has shown that he has at least some sense of pragmatism, and long-term thought capability.
Additionally, he has promised, through his brain raking 50 minute long speech at the City Hall open house, more outreach to the community, and better constituent services from the mayor's office. Combined with the anticipated 100% awesome constituent services from Councilmembers Bagshaw and O'Brien, this can only be a good thing.
But then there is the not-so-good.
For one, and this ties in with the outreach, how many town halls do you need before you decide what you are going to do? The fact is, Mike McGinn, you were elected mayor. You should have had a better idea of what you were planning to do before you jumped in the race. You and your staff get paid to govern. Governing by the people is anarchy, and I would caution you to move down that path. Get input, sure. Explain what you're doing and why? Definitely. But it is now your job to actually lead.
For two - WTF was up with the iPhones? I will be the first to admit that people throwing a fit about the cost need to calm down a bit - in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that high. But coming off of the whole health insurance debacle, along with you stating over and over that we need to do things more efficiently and lower the cost of running government (great GOP line), this symbolic move towards a much more expensive item to the city, that doesn't sync well with everything else the city uses, tells me that either you don't trust your staff to quickly and effectively learn to use a Blackberry, or that the rules of lowering costs only apply to other departments.
I suppose I shouldn't be too upset. I didn't vote for you, and I voted for just about everyone who is on the Council. If you don't take a leadership role, and quickly set the agenda, I'm sure that the nine other mayors...er...councilmembers...would be glad to set the tone for the next four years.
It's up to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
