Archives for June 2009

Here’s the case of an actual small business owner (as opposed to the apocryphal small business owners so frequently cited by large corporate interests) who supports the public option on health care and is speaking out.

Taylor, part-owner of TNT Software, will be a featured speaker at a major health care reform rally June 25 near the Capitol Mall. Sponsored by Health Care for America Now, a coalition of a thousand groups representing small businesses, health care providers, community organizers and labor unions, the rally will advocate for a government-run “public option” modeled on Medicare as part of national health care reform.

“Our message is that we need to support President Obama’s plan for a public health insurance option,” Taylor said last week. “Our feeling is that a public option should be available to every person in the U.S. As small business owners, that will give us another option, rather than having to rely on a single health care option.”

Funny, once you get outside the Chamber-AMA-right-wing-noise-machine nexus people actually like the public option. I’ve been wondering when more business folks would make the argument that health care must be dealt with in some practical fashion, this is great.

Cue the slime machine in three…two…one.

Last week’s contest was won by mlc1us. It was Santa Maria del Mar in Barcelona.

Here’s this week’s, good luck and happy Father’s Day!

Ryan Blethen joins the rest of his editorial board in taking issue with the anti-Referendum 71 folks’ “Who Signed?” campaign.

What I, and this page, take issue with is the Web site called whosigned.org. The site will list everyone who signed Referendum 71. On the Web site it says this is being done so voters can make sure the public record is correct.

We all know that is not the case. The real purpose of whosigned.org is intimidation. People who sign petitions should understand that it is public record.

No, we don’t all know that this is not the case, for while intimidation, to some extent, is certainly part of the purpose of the whosigned.org web site, the strategy is a lot more subtle and nuanced than the Times admits (or understands).

Petitions are a public record, in the sense that should R-71 qualify for the ballot, I would have the right to go to the Secretary of State’s office and spend days examining the petitions by hand. But in reality, that’s not very public at all.

Personally, I would love to see petitions for all initiatives and referenda go online, both a computer searchable list of the petitioners, and PDFs of the actual petition sheets. Petitions are not a secret ballot, and were never intended to be. We have the right to petition our government, and our neighbors have the right to know who the petitioners are. Furthermore, with all petitions online and publicly searchable, I have no doubt that a significant amount of heretofore unknown signature fraud will be uncovered by citizen watchdogs.

We constantly hear from Eyman and his cohorts that there is no signature fraud in Washington state, and thus no need for reforms to identify and correct the problem, but really, how would we know when we’ve never looked for it? And honestly, why should we believe that WA is magically immune from signature fraud when it has proven to be endemic in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Colorado and every other state with an initiative process?

But Ryan continues…

But just because somebody signs a petition does not mean they support the referendum. People sign referendums for all sorts of reasons. It is not hard to believe that someone who supports marriage equality will sign it because they firmly believe the voters, not the Legislature, should have the final say.

People sign petitions because somebody asks them. That’s the number one reason. I know. I’ve been there, both collecting signatures, and as part of a coordinated “decline to sign” effort.

Watch the professional signature gatherers, particularly the ones collecting signatures on a number of unrelated petitions. They’ll make the case for the most sellable measure—more often than not, with lies—and then after you sign the top page and fill in your address information, they’ll quickly flip another clipboard in front of you and ask you to “please sign this one…” and “this one…” and “this one…” and so on.  And more often than not, the signer will. You don’t even always have to fill in the address information on the subsequent petitions, the signature gather will sometimes offer to copy it over for you.

On the other hand, decline to sign campaigns are incredibly effective. Merely shadowing a signature gatherer, politely refuting his misinformation, and asking people not to sign, was enough to motivate most folks to walk away entirely. After a couple hours of such efforts the signature gatherer would sometimes offer to hand over the Eyman petition I was opposing, or dump them in trash, if I would only leave him alone to conduct the rest of his business unencumbered.

Yeah, Ryan’s right, that some people will sign nearly any petition because they believe that everything should come before the people, but that’s a stupid and lazy abrogation of one’s responsibilities as a citizen. It’s supposed to be difficult to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, lest public policy billow in the fickle winds of public opinion, and thus folks should be encouraged to put a little thought into the issue before blindly signing. (Nobody, but nobody, will read the text of R-71 before signing, I can guarantee you that.) If knowing that one’s signatures will indeed become a public record—that is, a record easily searched by the public—then perhaps more folks would think twice before affixing their names to a petition that calls for taking away rights from a class of citizens?

And that, I believe… a more thoughtful electorate… can only improve our democracy, right?

Scott Morgan asks a fundamental question that needs to be asked when discussing our prison problem. How many people in jail for drug crimes are completely innocent, and are there solely because of how easy it is to convict an innocent person of drug crimes? He references the recent case of two men in New York City who were able to find video evidence proving that they were framed by the police. Had they not uncovered that evidence, there’s no question they would have been sent away to jail. Rarely, if ever, do juries believe the testimony of defendants over the word of the police. And in fact, many people just accept plea deals after their attorneys tell them there’s no way to win.

Morgan writes:

If it were only possible somehow to reveal the full scope of wrongful, fraudulent convictions in the war on drugs, I don’t doubt that the entire nation would be stunned and sickened. Yet, for anyone who’s paying attention, it’s not necessary to fantasize about the true extent of injustice and corruption that the drug war has unleashed on innocent people. You can read about it in the newspaper all the time.

In Ohio, we saw a DEA agent indicted for helping frame 17 innocent people. In Atlanta, we saw police plant drugs in the home of an innocent 88-year-old woman after shooting her to death. In Tulia, TX we saw a rogue narcotics officer frame and arrest most of the black people in town. In Hearne, TX we saw the same damn thing. And across the country, we’ve seen dozens of innocent people who might well have ended up in prison if they hadn’t been killed first by the police who raided their homes.

What should give anyone pause is how frequently we encounter law enforcement officials – and especially narcotics officers – who act as if they’re above the law. It should certainly give us pause to reflect upon how this points to the high likelihood that there are large numbers of completely innocent people behind bars in this country due to the drug war.

A number of people have been accusing Obama of not being forceful enough in his statements on Iran. The point has already been covered by bloggers far more knowledgeable on Iran than I, but it’s worth repeating: anything that allows for the Iranian regime to paint these protests as being influenced by external powers the more it helps them. Underscoring this fact comes this interesting tidbit from earlier today:

12:43 pm: Iranian state media reportedly lying about what Obama is saying:

This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting.

Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators.

In order to support their attempts to quell the uprising, the Iranian government is pretending that Obama is saying the things that John McCain, Charles Krauthammer, and Paul Wolfowitz have criticized him for not saying. This may be the best illustration to date for why the people who see the world as they do should be kept as far away from the White House as possible. They continually play into the hands of extremists, and they will never learn from their mistakes.

Obama’s response today was a little more pointed in the criticism of the Iranian government’s crackdown, but he still makes it clear that Iran’s future is up to the Iranians.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKUZuv6_bus[/youtube]

My understanding is that Persian culture reveres poetry. If this doesn’t cause a lump to form in your throat, maybe nothing will.

(Props to HuffPo.)

UPDATE 10:16 AM Sat. June 20–There are disheartening accounts from the BBC and elsewhere of protesters being shot and beaten. On an intellectual level I understand why Barack Obama needed to play things close to the vest.

On an emotional level it’s beyond appalling what is happening in Iran.

OC Weekly has a fascinating look at one Dr. Orly Taitz, the “queen bee” of the anti-Obama “birthers.”

The problem is most of the above facts aren’t true.

For starters, the Pakistan “travel ban” is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article. The full transcript from Obama’s grandmother shows that she never said he was born in Kenya—in fact, she repeatedly said he was born in Hawaii. The law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born, while Obama’s published COLB says his birth information was recorded four days after his birth in 1961. And those “forensic experts” who say Obama’s document is phony? There have only been three of them: Two haven’t published their real names or any verifiable credentials (one went by the moniker “TechDude”), and the other merely said that she can’t make a determination of a document’s authenticity based solely on a JPEG.

Oy. It’s all so pathetic, it’s both hilarious and very sad.

(Props to Eschaton.)

The polls have closed and it wasn’t even close, with Sen. Ken Jacobsen capturing a commanding 40% of the vote in a five-way race to determine the incumbent, Seattle state senator most deserving of a serious challenge in 2010.  And once again an anti-incumbency sentiment appeared to guide the results.

	Votes	Pct.	Years
Ken Jacobsen	78	40%	26
Jeanne Kohl-Welles	51	26%	17
Adam Kline	38	19%	12
Joe McDermott	18	9%	8
Ed Murray	11	6%	14

The table above shows total years of service in Olympia, both House and Senate. And once again the top vote getters are those who have served the longest.

How the sentiment of HA’s rather insular audience translates into broader public opinion, I’m not sure, but I think it’s safe to speculate that it does show a growing frustration with the performance of the Seattle delegation as a whole.

That said, good luck challenging Sen. Jacobsen, who despite his reputation for being a little out there is perhaps the king of Seattle retail politics, with an unsurpassed lifetime D/Y ratio (Doorbells rung to Years of service).

Coming up, the final House runoff between Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney.

Overheard today on KUOW’s Weekday:

Steve Scher to his panel of journalists: If there was a fly in the room, would you swat it?

Knute Berger: Yes!

Alwyn Scott: Sure. Absolutely.

Lynne Varner: I would cradle it in my hands, take it outside, and say, “be free!”

Joel Connelly: I’d toss a salmon at it.

Today is the national Parade of Reason organized by Fuse and other progressive organizations, in which thousands of Americans will stop by their Congressperson’s local office and drop off a small memento illustrating their personal reasons for urging Congress to act now on climate change. You can get more information and find your local Congressional office here.

Oil and coal interests did some real damage to the climate change bill in committee, but there are still a lot of good provisions left, and… well… we gotta start somewhere, and soon. We all know Rep. Jay Inslee is a driving force on this and other environmental issues, but most of the rest  of the Western Washington delegation appears to be standing on the sideline. That’s why we need to urge Jim McDermott, Brian Baird, Adam Smith and Rick Larsen to get behind this bill now, help strengthen it on the floor, and get it passed when it comes up for a vote in a couple weeks.

And then there’s Rep. Dave Reichert.

Reichert likes to portray himself as moderate. The Seattle Times likes to portray him as a moderate. And faced with two tough, well financed challenges from Darcy Burner, Reichert occasionally found himself last session pushed into a few moderate votes, if only to save his own skin in November.

Of course, I’ve always insisted Reichert’s alleged “conscience driven independence” is a fraud, his votes against the party line always coming after the conclusion was foregone, and only after consistently opposing the measure in numerous procedural votes. So here’s his chance to prove me wrong.

Indeed, not only does Reichert have the chance to cast one of the only Republican votes for this legislation, he has the unparalleled opportunity to be the lone Republican getting out in front of this bill and leading the way. He and his handlers must know that climate change legislation has overwhelming support in his district—a pro-environment, hydro-powered district less economically dependent on fossil fuels than nearly any in the nation—so if he really wants to prove his moderation and independence (not to mention his legislative competence), now’s the time to show a little leadership and help shepherd this important piece of legislation through Congress.

But I’m not holding my breath.

From TPM:

So what are some of the biggest names of the Republican Party up to, now that the GOP is itself in the dumps? Well, some of them are hitting the circuit as motivational speakers.

Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Forbes have joined up with the “Get Motivated!” seminars run by Peter and Tamara Lowe, and are traveling the country to speak to business groups.

And get this — according to TPM, it would have cost over $2,000 to see Rudy two years ago, but now you can see him for $4.95 (or send your entire office for $19.)

I once knew someone who was sent to a motivational speaker type thing as an office punishment. You’d have to do something pretty bad I guess.

What I don’t understand is what people are being motivated to do. Sell out their principles for expediency? Oh, wait, now I get it.

Can’t actually abide liberals.

One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama — i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as “the Left” rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim. It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post — at least according to Politico’s Patrick Gavin — just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

Personally I blame Craigslist and non-objective bloggers. Luckily there are so many liberal voices in today’s national media.

In addition to his Rupert Murdoch perch at Fox, Krauthammer remains as a regular columnist at the Post, alongside fellow right-wing Obama haters such as Bill Kristol, George Will, Jim Hoagland, Michael Gerson and Robert Kagan — as well as a whole bevy of typical, banal establishment spokespeople who are highly supportive of whatever the permanent Washington establishment favors (David Ignatius, Fred Hiatt, Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Howie Kurtz, etc. etc.). And that’s to say nothing of the regular Op-Ed appearances by typical Krauthammer-mimicking neoconservative voices such as John Bolton, Joe Lieberman, and Douglas Feith — and the Post Editorial Page itself.

What we really need more of now is establishment Washington ideas, that will be wonderful. Maybe then we could have some Goldman Sachs alums fix the economy and some big pharma and AMA folks could pitch in with health care reform.

Meanwhile we can keep the rabble distracted with immigration, abortion and guns.

They fall for it every time.

Over at Crosscut (motto: “News from the great beyond”), Ted Van Dyk proclaims: “Peter Steinbrueck hurls some thunderbolts at Mayor Nickels.”

“Thunderbolts”…? Really?

Look, I like Peter well enough, but Zeus he ain’t. And the fact that Van Dyk would characterize him as such, even if only metaphorically, tells you a lot about Seattle’s bizarrely passive political culture.

If a board member of a not-for-profit—say, a prominent arts organization—were to use the organization’s internal email list to invite folks to a political fundraiser for a fellow board member running for local office… that would not only be inappropriate, but an obvious violation of IRS rules, right?

Somebody from the real press might want to look into that. There could be a story there.

This is exactly the sorta tone deaf and indecisive mismanagement that frustrates parents and forces many of the more affluent ones out of the Seattle School District:

Parents at a Seattle School Board meeting Wednesday night protested a proposed new assignment plan that — at least during its transition phase — would not guarantee that younger siblings could go to the same school as an older brother or sister.

[…] The School Board voted to move forward with the new student-assignment plan, but postponed a decision on the sibling issue until a detailed transition plan is developed along with new attendance boundaries in the fall.

Accepting the new assignment plan but postponing the sibling issue is the worst of both worlds, a half-assed move that leaves affected families in limbo for many more months. How many more kids are going to come back to school next September not knowing if this is their last year in that building? Does the board know? Do they care?

And in making this half-move, the board also telegraphs an incredible lack of confidence in its own decision making process, and perhaps, a lack of preparation to boot. I mean, shouldn’t the assignment maps be drawn and the sibling issue be settled before springing the new plan on parents, let alone approving it? And if the board doesn’t have enough confidence in the plan to settle the sibling issue up front, how can parents have confidence in the plan as a whole?

One abundantly clear lesson that was learned from our recent rounds of school closures is that despite all the press about failing schools, most families are not only satisfied with their children’s education (at least at the elementary school level), they love their schools so much that they’re willing to ferociously fight to save them.

Yes, our schools are underfunded. Yes, there are a handful of bad teachers and bad principals to whom the system just doesn’t seem capable of giving the boot. And yes, yes, yes, there are some curriculum issues—like slavishly teaching toward the WASL—that have proven a disservice toward teachers and students alike. Seattle schools aren’t perfect. Far from it.

But while we all want to improve the level of education in Seattle schools, it’s the complete and utter lack of stability that drives parental dissatisfaction levels sky high. How do you build a functional school program and community when from year to year you never know how many FTEs you’ll lose due to budget cuts, which principal will be rotated in or out of your school, which school your kids will be assigned to, or even whether your child’s school will remain open at all?

Nobody wants that for their child, and many of those who can afford better choose thusly.

There’s a reason why parents like those opposing the new assignment plan have taken to vociferously protesting school board decisions: we don’t trust ’em! And, we’ve learned that the board has so little trust in itself, our protests have a good chance of being successful.