Notes from the Armchair

Tim Burgess, Nick LIcata, and why Gay Softball=Awesome

2010-04-08T09:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Why Constance McMillen is Important

2010-03-31T09:40:00.000-07:00

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.

My continous stalking of Mike McGinn

2010-02-16T14:09:00.000-08:00

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?

McGinn and Tim Eyman

2010-02-12T11:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Rob Now, Pay Later

2010-01-21T07:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Let the Blame Game Begin!

2010-01-20T08:32:00.001-08:00

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.

It's January, MoFo!

2010-01-13T09:32:00.000-08:00

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.

An Incremental Approach (or how i found my pants)

2009-12-14T10:01:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing that I know, it's that nobody is happy with the progress of the health care reform bill. Liberals are pissed because the public option looks to be gone. Conservatives are pissed because there is an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid being tossed around. Nelson is pissed because of abortion. Lieberman is pissed because...well, nobody really knows why.

However, I am not pissed. Rather, I am a bit pleased - assuming, that is, the bill gets past the filibuster that has been promised by the GOP.

See, while some would tout the public option as the method to obtain some sort of universal health coverage, I would go so far as to say that they are wrong. Expansion of Medicare really is the way to go.

And it has to be done in baby steps, because just expanding the program isn't enough. There are plenty of other issues with the health care system that also need addressing.

For one, education. I know, Education doesn't seem like it would be of major import to improving health care in America, but it is.

For one, we need to have better physical and health education in schools. We need our children to eat better, understand why they should eat better, and to exercise. Long term benefits are reduced obesity rates, which come complete with reduced diabetes, heart disease, and compression arthritis, among a host of other obesity related ills. All of these cost a fair amount and then some to treat, and they are all chronic diseases.

Some people are furious that a college is denying obese students their degree, I applaud them. We should do the same in all levels of education, but that requires proper funding, and for the schools in poor communities to be given the tools necessary to not just educate in the classroom, but to apply that education in the home.

Another major issue is the cost of higher education. I won't try to say how much it costs to obtain an MD in this country, but I know it is plenty. To obtain these degrees requires taking on of debt. That is followed by all of the other costs associated with practicing medicine, plus the long hours, the difficult patients, the new technology, the new testing, etc, etc, etc.

All of these combined are what lead to the exponential rise in health care delivery costs. Doctors have to charge more and more just to survive. Insurance companies, in their bid to be more and more profitable, continue to pay around 75% of what they're billed, Medicare in the mid-50's, and Medicaid in the mid-40's. This further complicates the ability for a physician to focus on what they are best at - healing people, and giving them the tools to ward off disease.

Any long-term health care reform will require a complete re-thinking of how we educate our doctors, and how we educate the populace as a whole. That's a conversation in and of itself.

Regardless, starting by expanding Medicare so that people 55-65 can "buy in", and expanding Medicaid eligibility from 133% of poverty to 150% of poverty, while opening up the Federal Employee Plan to be purchased by individuals, is a great start. Health insurance premiums are basically a tax, anyway, just to a for-profit corporation that will gladly deny claims for their benefit.

Completely overhauling health care is going to be a long, arduous process. Doing too much at once will scare voters. Scared voters will vote for the Party not in control, and I'm sure the GOP would jump at the chance to use the nuclear option to completely overturn anything good that comes from this bill.

So, the incremental approach is good. Calm down, my liberal and progressive friends. Social Security wasn't available as widely as it is on the first bill.

Back to those Pesky School Issues...

2009-12-01T09:41:00.001-08:00

Here's what I have heard -

There is a chance that a marijuana decriminalization bill may reach the floor of the State House this year. What this does is turns possession or use of a small amount of marijuana into a civil infraction, complete with a fine, instead of a criminal infraction. There are cost savings involved (courts, prosecutors, police, jails), and this would create a new revenue source (fines). What I would like to see is that revenue source be allocated.

First, I would like to see our education leaders in Olympia work with the folks trying to get this bill on the floor. One of the things that will be done to sell this to more moderate and conservative lawmakers will have to be some sort of prevention or intervention program(s) paid for out of the new revenue source (although, in these difficult economic times, that may not be necessary, but stay with me here).

I think that the first thing to get funding, directed funding, is arts in schools. Band, drama, choir, etc. These are things that not only enrich the brain, but also give kids something to do that don't have the aptitude or desire to do sports, and gives them a creative outlet. Creative outlets are good things.

While I get that it's not that simple, and that Districts would probably not be fond of being given money with strings, too damn bad. We are seeing cut after cut to arts programs across the State. We have a new SPI that supports limiting the impact and necessity of standardized tests, we should be able to allow a broad based education system again.

Of course, I'm sure fines wouldn't be enough to fully, or even partially, fund arts in schools. One big component missing from our state's medical marijuana law is the lack of dispensaries. I would step out and say we should allow for a limited number of dispensaries, do a bit of taxing, and split it between health and education.

But that's just me.

Health Care and Arts in Schools

2009-11-23T08:48:00.001-08:00

The U.S. Senate has passed a major milestone - they were able to start debate on the massive health insurance overhaul bill. Republicans don't like it because it has a public option, taxes ultra-plush health insurance plans that pay for unnecessary services, taxes elective cosmetic surgery, and has cuts in Medicare.

Unfortunately, there are three Democrats, and one cranky old man from Connecticut who also don't like the public option, and one who doesn't like that there's no super staunch, anti-choice language in the bill.

And what is the rationale behind not supporting the public option: these Senators do not want to do anything that may harm the profits of the for-profit health insurance industry.

I didn't realize that people's health should be something considered profitable.

The one thing that I fear so many people miss, however, is that we are already paying taxes for the lack of full health insurance coverage across this country. Never mind the premium share that can easily be counted as a tax, just paid to corporations, but also the fact that, as premium holders and tax payers, we are already paying for emergency care that, were these 40 million plus uninsured Americans insured, would be unnecessary. Preventative treatment works. Visiting your family doctor before an infection festers into an emergency works, and saves money. The fact is that a universal health care system would cost less in taxes to fund than we currently pay for health care premiums.

There's plenty more that can and should be done to mend our horrid health care insurance and delivery system in America, but the Public Option is a good start. The requirement to have insurance (which in turn lowers the overall cost per actuary tables) is a good start.

Of course, education is another enormous piece of the puzzle. Another part of what forces costs up for health care is how much it costs to be one of the people providing the care. Not just doctors and ARNP's, mind you, but nurses, medical technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, pharmacists, optometrists. They all pay higher and higher tuition and books and practicum costs to be in their profession. And we can, and should, do better for education in this country.

I could get into the higher education portion, but instead I'll focus on the lower years.

What saddens me greatly in this country is our obsession with testing, and testing well. Don't get me wrong - I like testing. I like having something with which we can measure progress of pupils in the classroom, and, by extension, those teaching these kids.

However, this focus on making all learning being about scoring well on tests is doing a disservice to our communities. It is taking away the things that make our children grow up into members of our country with ideas, members with passion.

Specifically, the fact that arts are cut first disgusts me.

Kids need the arts. Be that drama, choir, band, or other artistic classes, these encourage our youth to become passionate about what they care about. These classes encourage children to think creatively, to look outside of the box, and to work as a team for a final product that is better than were we to go it alone.

I recently heard that my old school district, which is poised to open it's second high school (because voters were okay with over 3,000 students in a single high school for far too long), is going to cut arts out of one to favor the other. I'm not going to pretend I understand the geographic boundaries of the two schools, or if there is choice that is available to students, but cutting of arts is bad.

Children and youth do better at math and science when they learn music. They appreciate history and social studies more when they act out history on stage. They have a better grasp on reading and writing when an elective, fun class is putting those words into action or song.

And it sometimes gives them a reason to show up at school in the first place.

I know that we luck out in Seattle, with a new School Board member who gets the importance of arts and languages. I just hope that ou legislators get it this coming legislative session, and stop the cuts to schools that lead to the cuts in fine arts.

What I really want for Christmas

2009-11-17T10:08:00.000-08:00

It is amazing. "The Holidays", as we call them, are upon us. In a week and two days time, I'll be stuffing my face with turkey and mashed potatoes, followed by a healthy serving of pumpkin pie. That's what I do for Thanksgiving, because it's awesome like that.

And then shopping season, of sorts, begins.

Lilian will require birthday gifts, and Christmas gifts (yes, it's true, I'm an athiest or agnostic, or something like that, but I do love Christmas), and Sergey gets a treat for New Years (damn Russians). Then there will be gifts for office mates (typically in the form of me bringing up coffee for the group), something for my family members, and this and that.

But, more importantly, I'll be receiving gifts (whoever said Christmas is a time for giving obviously has never received anything rad in their lives). This becomes a tricky situation every year.

See, I happen to be quite finnicky with what I want, and it changes regularly. For clothing, if I don't participate in the purchase, I likely don't wear it. I find myself with fewer need for house wares than most. I have all of the entertainment things I need (although, I confess, I would gladly accept a cherry red Les Paul Special, but that's just being greedy), and even a few that are completely superfluous (although, again, I wouldn't say "no" to a PS3).

So, what's a girl to ask for?

Well, all things considered, I don't really want anything directly. I've watched over the last year as our economy in this country and state have gone south. I've watched friends lose their jobs, only to become perpetually unemployed. I've seen more and more people living in squalor, and more and more services being cut due to budget constraints (although SHARE/WHEEL may very well deserve it).

So this year, I am going to say very clearly that Christmas is very much a time for giving. And everyone else should do the same.

That's not to say that we shouldn't continue with our consumer friendly ways. Consuming is a good thing. It allows us the opportunity to create more jobs. But perhaps it would be better to consume by purchasing toys and donating them to Toys for Tots instead of giving ten shiny new pieces of plastic to children that already have plenty. (http://www.toys4tots.org/)

Perhaps it would be better to purchase a boat load of socks and donate them to Heroes for the Homeless. (http://www.heroesforthehomeless.com/)

Perhaps it would be better to purchase a couple warm jackets, and donate them to St. Francis House, where they'll be freely distributed to those most in need. (http://www.svdpseattle.org/StFrancis.htm)

Or the good old fashioned purchasing of food, and donating it to your local food bank (and by food, I mean actual edible stuff, not cans and cans of clam chowder, or whatever is on sale).

We can still be consumers (which is good for the economy), while also doing something good for others. And for those thinking about getting me a gift (or paying down my credit cards ;-)), buy socks. Lots and lots of socks. I'm just going to give everything away, anyways.

And Then....

2009-11-10T09:19:00.000-08:00

So here is what Seattle looks like, starting in 2010:

Mayor: Mike McGinn
City Attorney: Pete Holmes
City Council President: Richard Conlin
City Council:
Sally Clark
Tim Burgess
Tom Rasmussen
Sally Bagshaw
Nick Licata
Bruce Harrell
Jean Godden
Mike O'Brien

What an interesting mix. And issue number one: the budget.

I really think we're in for an interesting four years. Of the candidates up for re-election in two years, I would only guess that Bruce Harrell would be in any danger of a strong challenge, and CW is that Jean Godden retires, and Jessie Israel runs for that seat (maybe even against Dorsol Plants...ooooh, that would be an interesting race!)

But what do we do until then? Here's some things that I think are awesome possum.

The Tim Burgess Panhandling Ordinance - This is a.o.k. After a bit of watering down, we have a proposal that bans panhandling in front of ATM machines, to people getting in and out of cars, and no touching. A bit more in the way of definitions (what is the area around an ATM? Not to people getting in and out of cars, how many steps from the car before it's okay? What about people who just sit with a sign near where people may get in and out, is that the same as verbal panhandlers?) is needed, but this is a common sense bit of legislation. I was at an ATM just yesterday, and had a rather noisy panhandler shouting for cash to everyone who went to use it.

Small Parks (and I mean really small parks) - I love parks, I really do. I like that we have some pretty cool parks here in Seattle. Do I love parks more than libraries? Not so much. However, I don't want to see funding for either cut...but then there are those small parks. Those ones that take up half a block in either direction in the middle of a neighborhood. What if the city turned those over to the Neighborhood Councils? Allow the NC to arrange for basic maintenance (mowing and the like), and in exchange, any major renovations, when they're due and there's money, would have majority input from the NC.

Plastic Bags - I did not support the bag tax. Nope. Didn't like it. I thought it was too broad, with the paper bags being included, and was a bit off topic during a recession. However, I do agree that one thing we can and need to do as a city is lower our waste output, and overall, this is good economically. What about those fancy biodegradable plastic bags? Why not ban plastic bags, allow those biodegradable plastic bags, and require all paper bags be at least 75% post-consumer product? Give small businesses a few years to get into the swing of things, and *BAM!*, less non-biodegradable waste.

Public Safety - the gun ban is ridiculous. A great idea, sure, but completely unenforceable. Instead, let's work with the Legislature to make a minor change to that pesky RCW. And then ban guns in parks. Make it a misdemeanor to carry a gun in a park, and just add that on to any other crime being committed by someone carrying a gun in a park.

Music and Nightlife - Nowhere was this issue more prevelant than in the City Attorney's race. When asked at the Eastlake Community Council forum his opinion on some of the issues surrounding residences moving into traditionally commerical areas, Mr. Conlin hedged, stating that current noise ordinances should be enforced, and the city should work to help businesses better soundproof their facilities. Mr. Ginsberg called for exemptions to certain areas, specifically the Pike/Pine corridor on Capitol Hill, Pioneer Square and Belltown. Hell, even Mr. Rosencrantz (in a separate instance) brought up the idea of variable noise ordinances, depending on neighborhoods.

All of these miss out on one major point, and that is the indoor smoking ban, with the 25 foot buffer. Now, I am all for indoor smoking bans. Awesome. Fine. However, perhaps it is time for Olympia to revisit this initiative, and allow for outdoor areas that are confined by the business, where they can better keep an eye on their patrons. With the emphasis of mixing residences with nightlife, it is important that we start considering this issue, and look at ways to make sure that we can maintain a vibrant nightlife in this city, while also encouraging more people to live downtown, near where they work, and negating the need for cars.

We have plenty of other major issues coming down - transportation, the economy, taxes, wooing new employers, South Lake Union, sidewalks, violent crime. It's going to be a busy four years.

And my (almost) final blah blah blah about the election.

2009-11-04T09:56:00.000-08:00

I've guessed (poorly), I've criticized, and I've been positive from time to time.

I think a little more positivity would be a good thing.

There were some sharp elbows this year, to be sure. Originally, what seemed to be the nastiest race (outside of the County Exec and Mayor's races) was the City Attorney's race. I typically came away with the impression that these two lawyers were not too fond of each other. Personally, I have always found Tom Carr to be respectful and nice. Of course, all of my interactions have been as an E-Board member of the 43rd.

The first time I met Pete Holmes, I was a *little* intoxicated, and he didn't hold that against me, and he, Dominic Holden and I engaged in a solid conversation about issues that matter. I think it took me awhile to realize I was speaking with a candidate, so I was a bit more off the cuff than I probably should have been.

While Pete was definitely not pulling punches, I didn't get the negativity from the Holmes campaign that I did from the Carr campaign. And John Brumbach - you are a genius.

I have joked about how boring the Position 8 race was. Then, a few weeks ago, I received an email from the O'Brien campaign all but calling Rosencrantz pro-life. I was furious. As a Democrat that is staunchly pro-choice, I don't like it when people say things that I know to be untrue. I always believed that it was in O'Brien's best interest to let the rumors circulate, but never say it himself. But then, shortly after that, he got back to the issues (even the tunnel, which I disagree with him on. Strongly).

What Rosencrantz did after that, though, was inexcusable. He let the mud fly, and took something out of context that he, himself, supported, and implied that O'Brien wanted to toll neighborhood streets. I think that jumping on the tolling issue would have been good, but doing so by saying "I support systemwide tolling, and this is what that looks like to me, here's the difference between me and my opponent on this" would have been fine. I didn't hear enough from the direct mail and television campaign about what Robert wanted to do, which made me sad, because on a lot of issues, I agree with him (except nightlife. I disagree. Strongly).

Mike continued, except for that one transgression, a positive campaign from pre-primary, all the way up to the general election. That positivity will be a boon to the City Council. Way to go, Mike!

Is it bad to call David Doud a slimey bastard? When he did what he did, Rob Holland basically said, "that's messed up, but let's talk about the issues". And look where that got him. Excellent job, Mr. Holland and Mr. Martin.

I think the real "boring" race was Tom Albro and Max Vekich. I found out last night, when I ran into Mr. Albro, that some people actually read what I write. But, as I said then, and say now, Tom and Max ran two great campaigns that focused on issues. I don't think I saw a single slight from either campaign against the other that was out of line (supporters don't count!), and they showed us what a gentleman's race looks like. As an aside - Why didn't anyone tell me that Mr. Albro is 74 feet tall?

Jessie Israel and Nick Licata had two very different campaigns. While Jessie had some interesting comments from time to time (ie: the Sonics), I personally believe that she had a positive campaign. She is a little bundle of energy, and I hope to see her run again in two years, with John Brumbach running the show.

Nick ran a quirky campaign, and also kept positive. I got to see him a few times out on the trail, and damn if I don't love his hats! Congratulations on a fourth term, Mr. Licata! And way to go Andy!

I got a robocall from the Bloom campaign. It talked smack about Sally Bagshaw. That made me sad. I get it - she was way ahead on election night in the primary. I get it - she had a lot more money raised, and a lot more "establishment" support. But she managed to continue talking about the issues. She was warm and welcoming the entire time. When she spoke, people nodded their heads. I don't think I heard a single bad thing about Mr. Bloom come out of her mouth. To the contrary, she would regularly cite his work, and what great things he has done, and she hopes he will continue to do. And I agree with her there, and trust that he will find an ally on the Council with Sally. Congratulations on a solid election, Sally! You earned it. And Kathy...you did pretty well, too.

And then there was Approve R-71. I hope the results continue to go well. The first results that I saw last night were aweful, and then they turned awesome, and then they got closer and closer. R-71 focused on families. The opposition used flat out lies to try to deny rights, and I am cautiously optimistic that the message voters have sent is that not only to families matter, but lies and innuendo are not Washington State values.

Finally - Kay Smith-Blum. No direct mail. No yardsigns. A campaign focused on internet GOTV efforts, and going out and meeting people. While she had ample ammunition to use against her opponent, she chose to take the high road, and focus on what she would like to do for our children. A solid win, and a solid new member of our Seattle School Board.

Overall, I am pleased with the results of this election season. We had good and great candidates running (for the most part), and in Seattle, I would venture that every candidate was running for the good of the city, and anticipate that every person who didn't win will continue to be active in their communities, and that we can all work together now to continue to make Seattle a better place to live, do business, have fun, and raise families.

Intra-Party Blah Blah Blah

2009-11-02T10:13:00.000-08:00

My calves hurt. That's all there is to it. It is a sad state of affairs, brought on by my own actions. Walking four(ish) precincts over the weekend for Joe Mallahan for Mayor was fun and tiring.

It was interesting, though, in that of the four precincts that got the full treatment, only one had actually been lit dropped by its PCO. I'm not sure whether the other three just didn't have PCO's, or if the members of the Party didn't feel the need to make that extra effort, to get out the vote for our candidates. Walking a precinct doorbelling is long, and a lot of work. Doing a straight lit drop is much easier, and I would venture a guess that most people could probably do their whole precinct, and two others, in as little as five hours.

And done. A reminder to voters to vote, a sample ballot of Democrat endorsed candidates, and free lit distribution for those who have been endorsed.

It makes me call in to question the importance of local LD endorsements. I've gone out and volunteered for four or five campaigns this year, and I've seen campaign volunteers from organizations that are non-partisan (technically), I've seen volunteers from labor, but I've seen very few actual Party members. That's not to say the people who donate, and go to special events...they may be there...but the regulars, the people who move for the passage of resolutions, who call for more accountability and responsiveness from elected officials...I see them at events, but actually hitting the pavement? Hitting the phones? Not so much.

But the one precinct that did get a lit drop, got a lit drop. In my district, I know that we have PCO's who make sure that every door gets our sample ballot, and some who will take lit from the campaigns as well. I don't know what our total PCO turnout was this year, but those sample ballots can be quite important for the non-sexy races - Port Commissioner, School Board, Charter Amendments (j/k). I can only hope that we are able to push out the Democratic vote for the candidates that we support best.

I have decided to update my predictions for the results. Again, not necessarily how I want things to go, just how I think they'll go.

Referendum 71 - APPROVED by at least 53%

I-1033 - NO by at least 50.01%

County Executive - VERY close, and too close to hypothosize on.

Seattle Mayor - MALLAHAN, 52%, McGinn - 40%, Write-In - 12%. I also expect to see a lot of under-votes for this race.

Seattle City Attorney - I have no idea. The late voters may be swayed by the cop being shot.

Seattle City Council, Pos. 2- Conlin, 64%, Ginsberg, 36%

Seattle City Council, Pos. 4 - Sally Bagshaw - 62%, David Bloom - 38%

Seattle City Council, Pos. 6 - Nick Licata - 56%, Jessie Israel - 44%

Seattle City Council, Pos. 8 - Either Rosencrantz, 52%, O'Brien 48% or O'Brien 58%, Rosencrantz 42%

Seattle School Board, Pos. 5 - Kay Smith Blum, 54%, Mary Bass, 46%

Seattle School Board, Pos. 7 - I have no idea.

Seattle Prop. 1 (Housing Levy) - Yes - 64%, No - 46%

Everything Starts at the Seams

2009-10-28T14:07:00.000-07:00

Every election season, I like to look back, and think about where I did good, where I did bad, how many people I got to meet, and leave a positive impression with, and how many new enemies I have created.

I would say that this year is probably one of the busiest thus far, and really all over the map.

I was an early supporter of Joe Mallahan, which really wasn't a big deal...until he and Tubby McGinn got through the primary. Then, the shit went crazy.

I was an early supporter of Sally Bagshaw, only to become overly impressed with Dorsol Plants. A part of me was glad he didn't get through the primary, because I think Sally is awesome, and I think that he is the future of this city.

I was an early supporter of Jessie Israel, and then, after watching her campaign get slaughtered by its management, became a tepid supporter, at best.

And I was an early supporter of Pete Holmes, and held what was likely the worst attended fundraiser for his entire campaign. Only two people who said they'd show actually came. Lame.

Then there was position 8. I voted for Jordan Royer in the primary, and that didn't go too far. Left with two choices, I quickly moved to Robert Rosencrantz, was told he was pro-life, donated to Mike O'Brien, looked more closely at Robert's choice stance, confronted him on it, received an answer that clearly put him in the pro-choice camp, and then became extra angry at the lies being spewed about him. What was originally a boring race between two overly-nice guys has become, arguably, the nastiest race this season (next to City Attorney).

Now it's almost over. Six days, and this year's race will be done. I still stand by all of my previously made endorsements.

But how will everything throw down? I will attempt to predict! Please note, these are just predictions based on polls, campaign financing, anectdotal evidence, and signs around the city, as well as the amount of advertising, and effectiveness of that advertising.

Statewide Measures

R-71 - Approved! by at least 53%

I-1033 - NO! by at least 50.01%

Countywide Races

Dow Constantine - 49%, Susan Hutchison - 51%

Rob Holland - 56%, David Doud - 43%

Max Vekich - 51%, Tom Albro - 49%

John Creighton - 70%, Write-In - 29%, Stalkers - 1%

Seattle School Board

Michael DeBell - 96%, Write-In - 4%

Kay Smith-Blum - 53%, Mary Bass - 45%

Wilson Chin vs. Betty Patu - No Idea (I support Wilson, for what it's worth)

Seattle City Attorney

Pete Holmes - 52%, Tom Carr - 48%

Seattle Mayor

Joe Mallahan - 53%, Mike McGinn - 40%, Write-In - 13%

Seattle City Council

Richard Conlin - 65%, David Ginsberg - 35%

Sally Bagshaw - 63%, David Bloom - 37%

Nick Licata - 57%, Jessie Israel - 43%

Robert Rosencrantz vs. Mike O'Brien - I have no idea (but I think it will be close)

Housing Levy - Yes - 68%