Archives for July 2009

I thought the Obama Administration was going to put science before ideology:

The federal government is not going to pull back on its efforts to curtail marijuana farming operations, Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said Wednesday in Fresno.

…

“Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS — Save Our Sierra — a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County.

What? Here’s what a National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine report said in 1999:

“Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. … For certain patients, such as the terminally ill or those with debilitating symptoms, the long-term risks [associated with smoking] are not of great concern. … [Therefore,] clinical trials of marijuana for medical purposes should be conducted. … There are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. … Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.”

NORML has many more references here.

We’ve had enough of those pesky poppies in Afghanistan:

The U.S. military bombed about 300 tons of poppy seeds in a dusty field in southern Afghanistan Tuesday in a dramatic show of force designed to break up the Taliban’s connection to heroin.

The air strike occurred mid-day in Helmand province and was observed by CNN’s Ivan Watson, who is embedded with the U.S. Marines operating in that province.

The military dropped a series of 1,000-pound bombs from planes on the mounds of poppy seeds and then followed with strikes from helicopters.

That’s right, we dropped “a series” of half-ton bombs on a pile of seeds. Then, apparently because those stubborn seeds hadn’t learned their lesson yet, the helicopters were brought in to completely break their will. Kidding aside, here was the real explanation for this exercise in elaborate destruction:

Tony Wayne, with the U.S. State Department, said the strikes on poppy seeds, that can be used to make opium and heroin, is part of a strategy shift for the military to stop the Taliban and other insurgents from profiting from drugs.

Uhhhh, ok.

So there have been changes recently to our strategy for combatting the opium trade. We’re no longer eradicating opium fields – a move that has done nothing more than impoverish farmers and drive them to the Taliban. Instead, we’re targeting more high level traffickers and trying to root out corruption. We’re also attempting to get Afghan farmers to grow alternate crops.

These strategies will have various levels of short-term success. Those successes will be highly publicized in the media, even as very little will change in the overall picture. As we take out traffickers and corrupt officials, new traffickers will take their place and raise enough money from the heroin trade to be able to corrupt more government officials. And as we are successful at moving some farmers away from growing opium, new ones will take their place (often forced by traffickers and corrupt government officials). In a country where the opium trade is small and the state has some semblance of centralized power, a strategy like this might make a difference over time. In a country like Afghanistan, where the trade in poppies is over 1/3 of the national GDP, and where the central government of Hamid Karzai (whose own brother is involved in the trade) has little power over much of the nation, it likely won’t work for decades, if at all.

So I’m not sure what Wayne thinks this bombing exercise will accomplish. Did they take a bunch of captured drug traffickers to the bombing site and taunt them by saying “look what we’re doing to your precious seeds!”? And even if they did, so what? I’ve occasionally seen news reports that try to equate participating in the opium trade as being a similar dynamic to an actual addiction to heroin, as if people who make money from the trade aren’t people making rational decisions to violate the law to make shitloads of money, but people with a drug problem who can’t help themselves. But there’s no chemical or psychological attachment to those seeds. It’s a commodity that the traffickers have to replace. To them, once American forces confiscate those seeds, it doesn’t matter whether we blow them up or put them on our bagels. They’re gone and they’ll have to find new ones.

There just isn’t a logical explanation for why you would rain massive bombs from the sky like this onto plant matter. It’s just a sign of utter frustration. It reminds me of the scene in Office Space where the three fed-up mouse jockeys take a baseball bat to the printer that never worked right:

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

The frustration is certainly warranted. Afghanistan will remain a no-win situation as long as international drug policies (which have been overwhelmingly dictated by the U.S. over the years) continue to keep the demand for heroin so high and as long as our fragile relations with nations like Iran and Pakistan force us into this failing strategy. But it would be hard to think of a single thing that’s more strategically backwards than this. The Afghan population already thinks we’re too eager to employ aerial bombings. I don’t think bombing a pile of seeds in air raid fashion is a good way to reverse that image. In fact, it makes us look crazy. And perhaps we are.

[kml_flashembed fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:239148″ targetclass=”flashmovie” publishmethod=”static” width=”400″ height=”300″]

[/kml_flashembed]

As Jon points out in the previous post, Boeing’s “no-strike clause or else” threat to its unions comes across as a bit shrill and hollow considering Washington’s reputation for having one of the most favorable business climates in the nation. I mean, “or else” Boeing will move 787 production where?

Much has been made of Boeing’s recent purchase of Vought Aircraft Industries’ Dreamliner plant in South Carolina, speculating that Boeing might leverage its investment to build a second 787 assembly line there. But this speculation ignores the reality of the deal, which is that it was only made necessary by the utter failure of Voight, like many of Boeing’s other outsourcing partners, to meet the quality and delivery standards necessary to keep the 787 project on time.

Boeing’s purchase of Vought’s facility was, in effect, an admission that Boeing’s outsourcing strategy, the “systems integrator” approach, is not working. There may be a flaw in Boeing’s overarching corporate strategy of dumping costly assets and globalizing production.

That’s right, Boeing bought the plant, responsible for assembling large sections of the 787’s fuselage, because it couldn’t rely on Vought to fix the facility’s endemic problems. Do you really think that’s a signal that Boeing is eager to entrust even more responsibility to South Carolina workers and managers when it already has a large, highly trained workforce available here?

Indeed, not only does Boeing have an ample supply of trained workers available in the Puget Sound region, it also has an assembly facility available that could be converted to 787 production with minimal capital investment and in little time. Of course, I’m referring to Boeing’s existing, 767 final assembly line in Everett.

Think about it. The 787 was always meant as a replacement for the 767, whose production has long been scheduled to be phased out one way or another. Remember, the main attraction to our region of Boeing getting the Air Force tanker contract was that it was based on the 767, and thus would keep production going at the Everett facility years beyond the model’s life as commercial passenger liner, and saving thousands of good-paying local jobs in the process. But in response to the Air Force’s obvious preference for a larger tanker, Boeing has resubmitted its bid with a tanker based on the larger 777. Win or lose, that’s a death sentence for the 767 assembly line.

But once (if) the 787 flies and Boeing swings into full production, that makes the 767’s Everett plant the obvious location for a second 787 assembly line.

Last year’s machinists strike my provide useful rhetoric for Boeing as the aerospace giant seeks concessions from legislators and labor, but even management understands that the bulk of the 787’s production woes have had little to do with local workers, and apart from the recent design flaw, have mostly stemmed from production problems from Boeing’s many out-of-state partners like Vought. In that context, what could possibly make more sense than starting a second assembly line at an existing Boeing facility with a highly-trained workforce that has proven track record of delivering quality product on time?

And if that’s not reason enough to keep 787 assembly here in the Puget Sound region, no amount of tax or labor concessions will be enough to convince Boeing management to change its mind.

Unsurprisingly, it isn’t at all terrible, in fact it’s rather good, if you look at rankings from a wide range of groups that aren’t hired by Boeing.

The first thing that has to happen to our discourse is that people stop equating unionization with “bad for business.” Yes, the bidness guys and gals (and certain newspaper owners) want everyone to think that, but that’s only because it’s easier for management to blame unions than to look in the mirror. A highly trained, skilled and well compensated work force is an asset to any region.

Sounds to me like the Labor Council is perfectly willing to entertain constructive suggestions, but I’m guessing “no strike clauses or else” may not be considered constructive. It’s called “bargaining,” not “the unions should give in because they’re unions.”

I truly do not understand why everyone on the right gets to act in their self interest and celebrate it, while anyone to the left-center who does so is vilified. I guess thirty or so years of neo-liberalism permanently reduced the capacity of traditional media and political leadership to do anything but get down on bended knee when the magic word “jobs” is incanted to protect policies that benefit only the business side of the equation.

For the umpteen millionth time, business should have a seat at the table, but problems inevitably arise as they always want to own the table, the chairs, the room and everyone in it, and then attack anyone who objects. It’s ridiculous, and hopefully labor’s new-found voice will start to plow some new ground in this state.

In gloating over the refusal of both the King and Pierce county councils to put tax hike measures on the ballot this fall, the Seattle Times editorial board congratulates council members for their political cowardice:

It is remarkable how the fear of losing an election concentrates the political mind.

I understand the Times’ knee-jerk, ideological opposition to tax hikes (unless, of course, we’re talking about driving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs out of business by forcing on them the expense of quarterly filing sales taxes in 45 states… that, they’re for), and they’re entitled to that, but their obvious pleasure over politicians bowing to fear, just comes off as unseemly.

Yes, we want our elected officials to listen to the people, but there’s a difference between representing the interests of voters and pandering to them. Editorialists can howl all they want about the budget crises facing nearly every single state and local government in the nation being crises of these governments’ own making (instead of, you know, being largely the result a nearly unprecedented economic downturn), but that doesn’t make the real life impact of the resulting budget cuts any less painful or the anti-stimulative effect of slashing government spending and jobs any less dangerous.

The bold and responsible move would be to temporarily raise taxes slightly to help soften the blow, so that we don’t have to, say, dramatically cut back our public health budget at a time we’re preparing for a potentially devastating swine flu pandemic. And with opinion leaders like the Times working hard to cultivate a climate of political fear, it’s no wonder such a proposal came from interim King County Executive Kurt Triplett, a non-politician free to act on what he believes is best for King County rather than what is best for himself at the polls, only to be quickly shot down by council members with opposite incentives.

Yeah, “fear of losing an election,” or of losing a majority, or of merely losing a reliable source of campaign money, that’s what tends to motivate politicians. But if that’s such a good thing, it’s hard to understand why the Times isn’t more satisfied with government we’ve got?

[kml_flashembed fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”http://blip.tv/play/AYGTlE8C” targetclass=”flashmovie” publishmethod=”static” width=”400″ height=”300″]

[/kml_flashembed]

The panel is joined by Mike Lux of Open Left to discuss his new book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came To Be. Some introspection about bloggers, journalists, and progressive politics happens.

Next, the panel collectively holds their nose and looks at the “situation” in California. Has Prop 13 lived up to its promise? What does the California situation tell us about the future in other states with pending TABOR-like legislation? Would a successful I-1033 turn Washington state into a dysfunctional disaster, à la California?

The conversation turns to pork. And how did your state’s Senators vote on the F-22s that both Obama and the Military didn’t want? At least we received money for ferry system infrastructure. Speaking of transportation infrastructure, Seattle’s light rail service started this week. Will people ride it and actually enjoy it? Or is there a telling (one-day) trend toward low ridership?

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Mike Lux of Open Left, and Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’s Carl Ballard

The show is 48:41, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_jul_21_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Martin at Seattle Transit Blog witnessed a car vs. pedestrian collision this morning on MLK Jr. Way. His conclusion?

We really ought to elevate or bury the traffic on MLK, to avoid this kind of thing. Anything less would be gross negligence.

Martin was, of course, being sarcastic (just in case you trolls couldn’t figure it out), and in so doing illustrates the absurdity of the cynical argument from anti-rail crazies that at-grade light rail is inherently unsafe, and thus Sound Transit should always be legally and financially liable for any collision with a train, regardless of who is at fault. You know, when a pedestrian runs in front of a train, that’s Sound Transit’s fault, but when a pedestrian runs in front of a car, well, that’s natural selection.

Oddly, unlike similar accidents involving trains, the Seattle Times and the rest of the local media have ignored this morning’s collision. Huh. I wonder why?

Both Crosscut’s Skip Berger and HA’s Carl Ballard took advantage of light rail to explore South Seattle. Both got off at Othello Station, both walked around the surprisingly active and distinctive neighborhood (surprising, at least, to outsiders), and both stopped for a bite to eat at one of the many Asian restaurants that dot the area.

And both came away with the same impression of how light rail will open up the once hidden neighborhoods along its path to the rest of the city.  First Carl:

The point of this (admittedly overindulgent) post is that light rail opens up a piece of the city for those of us without roots there and who make most of our trips without a car. Sure, this is something I could do yesterday if I’d wanted to. But it’s much easier to just get on a train than it is to figure out the bus schedule or to find parking if I’d wanted to drive. And I know exactly how to get home: hop on one of the trains that come every few minutes.

And then Skip:

For Seattleites who rarely get down to this part of the Rainier Valley, I predict Othello become a destination, even a place for a quick lunch for downtown workers who need a break. You can get there, have lunch, and be back downtown in less than an hour. I got off here and popped into the Huong Viet Cafe and bought a delicious pork sandwich. If I worked downtown, I might do that regularly.

[…] That’s one of the intriguing social prospects of the light rail line: it makes visible parts of the city that are often ignored. The trek down MLK, passing the new housing development, the old junkyards, the heavy machinery, the chain-link fence neighborhoods with “beware of the dog” signs and cars parked in the yard, the immigrant enclaves, the strange ethnic churches, the decaying strip malls — it helps put a big chunk of Seattle onto the visible map, at the very least for the tens of thousands of folks who will be taking light rail to the airport and might never otherwise see this part of the city.

As for me, I had the opposite experience, embarking from Othello Station, and suddenly finding myself in the middle of a bustling downtown Seattle street scene…a trip I am likely to take more often, now freed from the irritation and inconvenience of traffic (by car or by bus) and the hassle and/or expense of downtown parking. And at either end of the line, local merchants will benefit from the traffic of folks like Skip, Carl and me.

I was tempted to describe our explorations as intra-city tourism, but in fact, it is much more than that. Tourism implies a visit from outside, whereas light rail will ultimately serve to tie our city (and our region) closer together in a way that freeways and buses never have. Light rail, through its speed, comfort, reliability and permanence contracts the landscape, changing the dimension by which we experience distance from space to time, much in the same way as a high-rise elevator: nobody thinks of the fifth and fifty-fifth floors as being separated by fifty flights of stairs, and nobody plans their travel within the building accordingly. Likewise, when downtown Seattle, or any other stop along the way is always, say, 20 minutes away—not sometimes less, sometimes much, much more, depending on traffic—the boundaries between our neighborhoods will begin to blur, not in distinctiveness, but in distance.

The debate over light rail has largely focused on whether or not it is an efficient means of moving commuters, and no doubt commuters will always comprise the bulk of its ridership, but its impact on our region will be much greater that which could be achieved simply by giving commuters a better bus. Because it changes the way we view our region and use our various neighborhoods, light rail will make Greater Seattle both larger and smaller at the same time, an apparent paradox future generations will come to take for granted.

From an editorial in today’s Seattle Times (the emphasis is mine):

California’s tax structure is more aggressive. In addition to a sales tax it has a personal income tax. California designed its income tax to lay heavily on the wealthy, so that in good times it had a bountiful harvest of capital gains.

I think the the word they were looking for was “progressive,” but even an accidental description of an income tax as “aggressive,” because, unlike our system, it taxes the wealthy at higher rates than the poor, speaks volumes about the Times’ attitude toward tax fairness.

Join us tonight at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Author Mike Lux will stop by Drinking Liberally tonight (around 8:30) to discuss his new book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came To Be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n0AqdxstI0[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 332 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to get lost at.

So I make a tiny change in my template today to facilitate an ad. It works in Safari. It works in Firefox. It works in Opera. So I didn’t bother launching Parallels to check it out in the latest version of IE for Windows.

Of course, IE chokes on it. And that’s why IE users couldn’t read HA for a couple hours today.

It was a coding error, sure (a missing closing tag), but still, IE can be such a temperamental little baby.

UPDATE:
Speaking of goddamn Microsoft, Apple announced record non-holiday quarter revenue, profit and unit sales today for the second quarter in a row, despite the Great Recession. Looks like all those Microsoft ads touting how expensive Macs are, aren’t making much of a difference.

At the risk of setting off an even larger partisan tiff, I suppose you could say that a Mac is light rail, while a Windows PC is a smelly old bus.

Mike Lux of OpenLeft and many other progressive organizations will be at Drinking Liberally tonight, chatting it up with the locals, and plugging his new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be. From the inside flap:

The next time you hear a conservative accusing progressives (a.k.a. liberals) of being unpatriotic and anti-American, tell them this: “Progressives invented the American ideal and inspired the American Revolution. Conservatives, then known as Tories, opposed it. Since then, every major advancement in American freedom, democracy, social justice, and economic opportunity has been fostered, fought for, and won by progressives against conservative resistance. Now who’s anti-American?”

That’s my kinda rhetoric.

Join us at the Montlake Alehouse, 8PM onwards.

UPDATE:
You can listen to Mike on the third hour of today’s Dave Ross Show:

[audio:http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/07/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20090721_11am.mp3]

Crosscut’s David Brewster punks Seattle, giving 13 reasons for our “slug’s pace” at making tough decisions like building light rail. And you know what? I can’t really disagree with him.  For example:

7. Complacency. Seattle really is (was?) a favored city, so it’s not easy to feel a compelling need to make tough decisions, even if we feel some embarrassment about our procrastination. Our politicians reflect this by becoming “garden-tenders,” comforting the constituencies that elect them without having to make hard decisions that might alienate them. And, with only Democrats in office, there’s little fear of losing a job, once elected.

I’ve got a few quibbles here and there, but it’s worth the read.