Archives for March 2007

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM:

7PM: Is John Edwards a faggot? That’s what cuddly, conservative pundit Ann Coulter said at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference, where she was the featured speaker:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot–so….’”

The audience at this preeminent conservative event of the year gave Coulter an enthusiastic ovation. Does Coulter (who has endorsed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney) really represent, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, “the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism”…? And if so, what does this say about contemporary conservative activism?

8PM: Should Reichert and McMorris give back their terrorist money? 22 Republicans representatives have benefited from money the NRCC raised from indicted terrorist financierAbdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari — including WA’s Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris-Rogers — and yet none have offered to give the money back. Republicans talk tough on terrorism, but I guess even a federal indictment doesn’t make your money not good enough for the NRCC.

9PM: Is it wrong to boo? Apparently.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

If like me, you love politics and you love chocolate, than you don’t want to miss NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s annual fundraiser, Chocolate for Choice:

Chocolate as far as the eye can see—and all for the right to choose! While our guests eat chocolate to their hearts’ content, our panel of celebrity judges determines the winning dessert entries in various categories. The evening also features a silent auction of fun chocolate-themed items and a live auction of exquisite chocolate creations.

Celebrity judges include such political luminaries as Darcy Burner, Ron Sims, Greg Nickels, Sally Clark and, um… me! Cathy Sorbo is the Master of Ceremonies.

Tickets are still available! Thursday, March 8, 6-8PM at Safeco Field’s Ellis Pavilion.

In the comment thread on an earlier post, Steven writes:

Somebody around these parts had a pretty good suggestion a while back. If you want to see what the surface option looks like, let’s close the Viaduct for a month and see how traffic responds. Then let’s vote.

The implication being that with the Viaduct closed, I-5 will slow to a permanent crawl while the city’s side streets are choked with drivers seeking alternative routes.

Of course, that’s a completely bullshit analysis, no matter how many times people repeat it. First of all, the surface-plus-transit option is not the do-nothing option — it is the s u r f a c e – p l u s – t r a n s i t option, which means it includes a number of surface and transit improvements to move additional vehicles and people through our existing surface streets. Improvements which would presumably include, um, a new, multilane boulevard in the shadow of the existing Viaduct.

Replacing the Viaduct with $2.4 billion worth of transit and street improvements is not the same thing as simply closing it. Would the surface-plus-transit option, whatever it entails, match the vehicle capacity of the existing elevated structure? Probably not. But it would provide a helluva lot more capacity than doing nothing.

The second problem with Steven’s thought experiment is that one month isn’t nearly enough time for local commuters to change their driving habits, especially knowing that things will return to normal after 30-days. But faced with years of Viaduct closure and disruption, well, that’s when all that seemingly superfluous grey matter tucked behind our foreheads really starts to kick into gear. It may not seem like it while they’re blindly cutting you off in traffic, but the average driver is smarter than your average bear, and will eventually adjust their driving habits to fit the new reality. Just as new freeway capacity attracts more traffic, reducing capacity will discourage some trips and reroute others.

So, how long would it really take to conduct Steven’s thought experiment under objective, real-world conditions? Well, according to WSDOT, if we end up rebuilding a new elevated structure, SR 99 will be shut down in whole or in part for up to 10 to 12 years.

That’s right, drivers will be forced to live without the existing capacity for over a decade.

During this decade of disruption, a Downtown Seattle Association comparison matrix shows that SR 99 would close nights and weekends for 5 to 7 years, and be reduced to two-lanes in each direction for 7 years. Various southbound segments will be closed for periods of time ranging from 6 to 21 months, while the entire structure would be closed in both directions for as long as 9 months.

And that’s if everything goes according to plan.

So when surface critics talk about how Seattle’s economy is going to completely collapse if we lose the Viaduct’s current vehicle capacity, I wonder how they think we’re going to survive the decade or so it will take to rebuild it?

Gary Randall of the retardedly-named Faith and Freedom Network:

Randall said, “I think a number of legislators who are not comfortable with voting for gay marriage chose this vote as an alternative. Unfortunately, rather than a helpful compromise, this decision will most likely prove to be an enabling step toward same-sex marriage, as we are seeing in New Jersey.” Randall also said, “As this plays out over the next year or so, some lawmakers may find themselves at odds with their constitutes, in that a majority of Washington citizens do not favor gay marriage.”

Gary is probably right. If put to the voters, marriage equality would likely fail at the polls. That’s why Senator Ed Murray is a smart guy. He’s going step-by-step. If straight people like me can see and understand how absurd it is to discriminate against gays, change will come.

To be honest, I don’t really care about gay marriage. I don’t care about it because it doesn’t affect me. Gay people getting married doesn’t affect me at all. The Gay Mafia aren’t going to kick down my door and force me to watch Project Runway.

I understand why Gary Randall doesn’t like gay marriage. It’s two things, really; one he likes (marriage), and one he doesn’t (homos trying to GET married). Marriage is the bedrock of society, but gays can’t get married because… something about the Bible. I don’t know the passage, as it’s hard to find among all the other passages that talk about poverty. Gary can criticize the “gay lifestyle” all he wants, but does he want to allow lots of normal tax-paying, children-having, house-buying homosexuals to have the benefits of a union blessed not by God, but by a guy in the King County Administration Building?

Like I said, none of this shit affects me. Gays have to spend thousands of dollars to get what I have for free. I can visit a family member in the hospital, inherit a spouse’s assets, and make all sorts of medical decisions for a loved one. Gays? When their partner goes in the hospital, they better pray their doctor isn’t some fundementalist asshole.

The best arguement I ever heard on this issue is by the comedian Louis CK. Click here to see the video.

Last week I urged concrete aficionados to move to Florida, where road-enamored state and local governments seem to operate under the democratic principle of “one car, one vote.” But if your idea of responsible transportation planning is paving your way out of every traffic jam, then you only need to look as far as Arizona to find your Freeway to Heaven.

That’s a crosscut of Arizona’s I-10, which state transportation officials propose to expand from twelve lanes to twenty-four between Tempe and Phoenix. That’s right… twenty-four lanes. And yes, we’re talking about a freeway, not a bowling alley.

Just imagine this baby running along Seattle’s waterfront… and a hundred feet or so out into Elliot Bay.

This is what comes from trying to build your way out road congestion, instead of adopting integrated solutions that include mass transit and rational urban planning.

Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen may be our region’s most famous dog hater, but his colleagues over at the P-I don’t seem to possess much puppy love either, seeing fit to squander yet more precious column inches editorializing against dogs in bars and restaurants.

It probably says something about our legislators, and us, as a community, when we’re further along in the debate as to whether to let dogs into restaurants than we are with such issues as delaying the WASL until 2010 (ah, it’s only our education system, folks) and lowering the cap on payday loans from 391 percent down to 36 percent (the poor can wait another year). Clearly, those concerns aren’t as urgent as being able to take dogs to bars.

Or, maybe what this bill’s legislative progress says is exactly what the P-I’s editorial says by example — that it’s a helluva lot easier to encapsulate and move on a simple issue like dogs in bars than say… reforming education?

What exactly is the P-I suggesting? That the Legislature prioritize every issue in order of importance, and not move on down the list until the top-most issue is settled? If we had to wait until we reached a legislative consensus on reforming education before we moved on to any other issue, we might as well just disband the Legislature.

What a silly argument. At least as silly as the issue itself.

I’m doing some system maintenance. If things go down, or look strange, don’t complain. Yet.

UPDATE:
Well how about that. WordPress 2.1.1 requires mySQL 4.0. Which I don’t currently have.

Anyway, everything should be back to normal. If it’s not, let me know.

Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Hypocrite) makes a weasly argument for maintaining the 60-percent supermajority requirement on school levies:

Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said that Republicans are leery of making it easier to raise property taxes. She noted that the supermajority requirement stems from a 1932 citizen initiative.

And, um… of course, we should honor the will of these voters, despite the fact that nearly all of them are now dead.

I see this argument trotted out a lot — that because a measure was approved by voters by whatever margin however many years ago, its provisions are now somehow inviolate. But of course, this is just an argument of convenience to be used whenever it suits ones needs. For example, the 1932 property tax initiative that Holmquist venerates also capped levy rates at 40-mill, rather than the much lower 10-mill cap now in place. And it was just one part of a larger tax reform package that included a measure creating both a personal and corporate income tax… a citizens initiative that passed with 70-percent of the vote, but was thrown out a year later in a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

So I don’t suppose there’s something so special about that 1932 election that Sen. Holmquist would be willing to support an income tax and a 40-mill levy cap? Or that there’s something so insufficient about modern voters that they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to amend a provision passed by their counterparts 75-years ago?

Initiatives enact laws like any other law, and once the two-year moratorium is up, they can and should be amended to fix poorly thought out provisions or address changing times. It is true that initiatives are voted on directly by citizens, but then, so are our representatives.

Over on his blog, Postman asks “What really doomed Senate vote on school bill?” — and while he presents an interesting exploration of the politics that led to its failure, the simple answer is: Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle).

As a constitutional amendment the bill requires 33 votes to pass. (It would then need to be approved by a simple majority of voters at the polls.) The bill failed 30-17 after Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) shifted her vote in a procedural move that enables her to recall the measure for a later vote.

Sure, the Republicans reneged on a deal that would have assured passage, but the only vote that really matters now is that of Sen. Jacobsen. A careful observer will notice that only 48 votes were cast, with Sen. Paull Shin (D-Edmonds) absent on a trip to Korea. One can reasonably expect that should the measure come up a second time, both Senators Shin and Brown will vote for the bill. Assuming no other senator switches sides, that leaves Sen. Jacobsen with the deciding vote.

Jacobsen says he’s holding out for a measure giving Seattle schools an extra $30 million, and no question I hope he gets what he’s asking for. But I’m not willing to scuttle our best shot at removing our ridiculous 60-percent supermajority requirement for school levies. And hopefully, when push comes to shove, neither is Sen. Jacobsen.

Time to start pushing and shoving.

The state House Finance Committee is considering two bills this week, and committee members need to hear from you immediately.

The first is HB 1827, a bill requiring a “tax expenditure report” to be part of the biennial budget process. What does this mean? Very simply it requires an accounting of all tax exemptions, credits, loopholes etc., so that legislators (and voters) can quantify what they are costing the state in lost revenues. Hard to argue with that… unless of course, you simply don’t want the public to know how much corporate tax breaks are costing us.

The second bill — and this one really gets my goat — is HB 2117, which would codify the one percent annual limit on increases in property tax revenues, that was recently tossed out along with Tim Eyman’s I-747. Let’s be clear… re-imposing this 1 percent cap would not only be incredibly harmful to local communities — particularly those in slow-growing, rural regions of the state — it would be downright cowardly and idiotic.

There may be a cap rate that makes sense, but one-percent is nonsensical and vindictive — it can’t even keep up with inflation, let alone growth in population or growth in demand for public services. All across the state local taxing districts are on the verge of insolvency, and face a potential collapse in essential public services (police, fire, EMS) unless something changes, and quick. I-747’s court defeat is an opportunity to reexamine the issue and create a reasonable cap, while targeting some real property tax relief to those who need it most. (Hmm… a Property Tax Homestead Exemption comes to mind.) But to simply regurgitate Tim’s bullshit would be a total abdication of legislative responsibility.

So let your representatives know that you want them to vote YES on HB 1827 and an emphatic NO on HB 2117. The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition has made it easier for you; just scroll to the bottom of this page and submit the form.

And do it now.