Goldy

Dear driver of the big white van who decided the perfect time to suddenly move from the middle lane to the left lane (and of course, without using blinkers), was just at the moment I was merging into traffic from the left lane on-ramp at Island Crest Way and I-90… fuck you!

I’m preparing to move HA to a new server to better handle some of the changes coming up, so please be prepared for some downtime.  I’m just sayin’.

The conventional wisdom in political circles is that incumbents like Dave Reichert should become more secure the longer they hold office, but it’s beginning to look like the third-term Republican is becoming even more of a DCCC target than he was the previous two elections.  Reichert already has a challenger in the form of a female, ex-Microsoft executive (and no, her name isn’t Darcy Burner), and now finds himself one of only five Republican incumbents being targeted with radio ads for his vote against President Obama’s economic recovery package.

[audio:http://aufc.3cdn.net/38715940c2c9fd0336_odm6b6426.mp3]

The ad is paid for by Americans United for Change, a labor group, and it asks whether Reichert will continue to embrace Rush Limbaugh and his partisan divisiveness, or whether he’ll work with President Obama to enact real change.  (My guess is, the majority of his constituents would prefer the latter.)

Thanks in part to the complicity and/or laziness of our local media, Reichert has done a good job in recent years portraying himself as a “moderate” (whatever that means) while continuing to vote the Republican party line whenever his vote really counts.  A relentless campaign over the next two years to educate voters about the real Reichert could pay off handsomely in 2010.

Yet another name once bandied about as a potential challenger to Mayor Greg Nickels has officially dropped from contention, with Nick Licata announcing that he will instead seek another term on the Seattle City Council:

“After considerable reflection on how to best serve the community I love, I am happy to announce that I will run for re-election to the City Council.  A number of you urged me to run for Mayor, but I feel my role as a legislator, writing the laws that govern our city, is the one that suits me best.”

Greg Smith, Richard Conlin, Tim Burgess and Licata had all floated the idea of challenging Nickels, and all have backed down. According to the local rumor mills, that leaves only one potential serious contender left with a chance of unseating Boss Nickels this November:  popular former City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck, who reportedly beats Nickels in at least one private poll… for whatever that’s worth.

Now that would be an interesting race.

UPDATE:
Of course, just as I hit the publish button, Publicola posts that former Sonics star, and current city council candidate James Donaldson is about to jump into the mayor’s race.  I dunno.  Doesn’t seem like a smart political move to me, and while I’ve never met him, everybody tells me that Donaldson is smart.

The state legislature may have cut Seattle entirely out of federal transportation stimulus dollars, but at least we’re getting our fair share of the much smaller stimulus program aimed at criminal justice services:  $2.7 million of the $14.3 million being distributed to Washington state municipalities.  Of course, that’s only because the money is being divied up nationally according to a federal formula based on population and crime statistics, rather than the “Fuck Seattle” politics that tends to dominate Olympia these days.

(Hat tip, TNT)

The Seattle Times editorial board’s lack of empathy and curiosity is on display once again, this time in a smirk of an unsigned op-ed that dismissively rolls its eyes at families fighting to save their neighborhood schools from closure.

WASHINGTON law allows those who feel wronged by school boards or school officials to seek legal recourse.

The statute gives legal cover to the four lawsuits filed this week against the Seattle School District over its school-closures plan. But it does not hide their lack of substance.

[…] When it comes to government, the public must have a route to appeal, and in the case of harm, seek remedy. But a foundation held up by taxpayers has a high threshold. Nuisance lawsuits and those that seek not to remedy, but to obstruct, should be swiftly ferreted out and dismissed.

Shorter Seattle Times:  those who feel wronged have the right to seek legal recourse, you know, except when it gets in the way of saving money.

It is particularly irritating to see the Times pontificate on school closures knowing their credulous coverage of the issue over the past three rounds. The Times, which has been quick to criticize the district on other issues, simply accepts the school closure data—enrollment, budget, cost savings and performance numbers—as a matter of fact, while dismissing objections from parents as nothing but a “nuisance” and an effort to “obstruct.” And for a paper that is often so vociferously suspicious of government and government officials when it comes to property rights, public disclosure, transportation planning, the raising and spending of taxpayer dollars and almost every other issue, it is more than a bit ironic to see them urging parents to just shut up and sacrifice their own children’s education for the good of the district.

If the plan results in better-resourced schools, more successful students and district efficiencies that free up the money to pay for it, those children are being singled out for something good.

How very Mr. Spock of them.  If I didn’t know better, I’d say this editorial was written by a goddamn socialist.

While I haven’t educated myself nearly as well on the specifics of this closure plan, I know from past experience how “arbitrary and capricious” the district can be in justifying one proposal over another, and then suddenly changing course.  My own neighborhood school, Graham Hill Elementary, was slandered by the district during the 2006 closure process on nearly every metric evaluated.  Academic performance, neighborhood support, even something supposedly as concrete as our enrollment numbers were intentionally deflated in an effort to justify our school’s closure.  And when we presented our own numbers (including a detailed analysis from a forensic accountant) to the Times, they responded with public silence and private accusations of NIMBYism.

Had we followed the Times’ sage advice, and just shut up and accepted the district’s decision for the good of the many, Graham Hill would be shuttered today instead of over-enrolled and winning awards.  But we didn’t.  As with most aspects of our capitalist-inspired society, this is an adversarial process.  So we fought hard for our school, and we won.  And I applaud those communities who are doing the same for their neighborhood schools, in the face of overwhelming odds and the elitist admonishments of know-it-all editorial boards.

In fact, I’d argue that it is those parents who refuse to fight who deserve to be admonished, for if all parents fought as hard for their children’s education as those who are bringing these lawsuits, the needs of the many would surely be better served.

I know Frank Blethen keeps saying that the impending demise of the P-I will be a boon to his rival Times, but apparently not everybody is that optimistic…

The McClatchy Co., which owns 49.5 percent of The Seattle Times Co., has again cut the value of its share of the Seattle newspaper company — this time to nothing.

Because of The Seattle Times Co’s. “comprehensive loss related to its retirement plan liabilities” in 2008, McClatchy’s investment was zero as of Dec. 28, McClatchy said in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Huh.  I’m not exactly certain what a 49.5 percent stake in HA would be worth, but I’m pretty sure it’s worth more than nothing.

Our OCD pals over at Seattle Transit Blog are studying the details of our state economic stimulus bill, and they don’t like what they see.

Wait just a minute. What’s that amendment (PDF)? It’s from Representative Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island), whose constituents voted for light rail over the I-90 bridge?

Oh, I see, it screws over light rail across I-90. Again.

Apparently, thanks to Rep. Clibborn’s amendment, the one state project the voter-approved East Link light rail depends on actually ends up with $700,000 less than it had before the federal stimulus money. No doubt good news to those Mercer Islanders looking to maintain their SOV lanes as long as possible.

So when the people pass a ballot measure cutting taxes or limiting government, somehow their will is inviolate, and legislators quake in their boots at the very thought of overturning a voter approved initiative.

But when the people pass a ballot measure directing state funds toward reducing class size or increasing teacher pay, or banning certain inhumane hunting techniques, or… say… mandating electric utilities get 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020… well, apparently legislators feel free to reinterpret voter intent, or even sacrifice it altogether in the name of political or economic expediency.

Go figure.

One of the things that annoyed me about state Representatives Deb Wallace and Glenn Anderson’s interview regarding higher education funding was their instant dismissal of proposals to move to a high tuition/high financial aid model.

At least Anderson was ideologically honest, objecting to wealthy families paying full fare by saying that “we’re not a class society.”  Okay.  Wrong.  But fair enough.

Wallace on the other hand, brushed off the suggestion by saying that the math doesn’t work… implying that the state would have to come up with more financial aid dollars to offset the higher tuition costs, and that ultimately it would make college less affordable for low and middle income families.

First of all, that’s just plain dumb.  Let’s say you’re a low to middle income student currently receiving financial aid in the form of $3,000 in grants, and the UW suddenly jacks up its $6,800/year in tuition and fees to $17,800.  Now let’s say the UW (ie, the state) increases your grant by another $11,000 to offset the hike.  How much extra money did this cost the state?  Zilch.  You were paying $3,800/year and you’re still paying $3,800.  It’s a zero sum game.

But if you’re a student from a wealthy family, who does not need financial aid, and thus does not qualify for it, you’re suddenly paying an extra $11,000 into the system… money that can be spent to increase the quality of education at the UW, or expand the number of seats, or even lower the costs for truly needy students.

That’s how this model works, and at many of our nation’s most prestigious private universities, it generally works damn well.

For example, I just received an email to alumni from University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann, in which she explains how the economic downturn has impacted the university’s finances, and what it is doing to lessen the impact on students.  In fact, despite its endowment suffering a 19-percent loss over the previous six months…

Given the new economic hardships many Americans are facing, I want to focus on the steps we are taking to strengthen Penn’s commitment to access.  We can reassure prospective and current students alike that our financial aid packages will continue to meet the full need of every Penn undergraduate. We are moving forward to substitute grants for loans for all undergraduate financial aid packages beginning in September 2009.  As previously outlined, typical students from families with income less than $40,000 will pay no tuition, fees, room or board.  Students from typical families with incomes less than $90,000 will pay no tuition and fees. All undergraduates eligible for financial aid will receive grants rather than loans in their aid packages.

Tuition and fees at Penn for the 2008-09 academic year come to a stunning $37,526, compared to only $6,800 for in-state students at the UW.  And yet, students from families with incomes less than $90,000 will typically pay no tuition and fees at all.

As you can see, for those who pay full fare, the UW would be an absolute bargain when compared to much pricier private schools, even if tuition were to rise to $17,800.  That’s why the university can still attract so many students paying the $23,000 out-of-state costs.  Yet for those students coming from families on the middle and lower end of the income scale… well… not so much.  The problem is, we’re subsidizing all of our students, instead of just those who need it, while those supposedly elitist Ivy League schools come across as downright socialist.

So don’t tell me the math doesn’t work.  The math works damn well at Penn, and hundreds of other schools.  On this particular issue, it’s our legislature that isn’t working.

SEIU local 925, representing 6,500 University of Washington employees in academic, research and business departments, overwhelmingly voted last night to voluntarily give up scheduled wage increases for 2009-2011.

“Giving up raises won’t stop staff layoffs,” said Anne Lawson, SEIU 925 UW chapter president. “But it will preserve more services for students, faculty and hospital patients, and keep as many experienced staff as possible.”

State employee union leaders aren’t stupid, and everybody I’ve spoken to has seemed more than willing to negotiate concessions to help soften the blow of impending budget cuts.  And that’s the way it should work, rather than the governor or legislature simply imposing wage and benefit cuts, unilaterally abrogating contracts that had been negotiated and signed in good faith.

In response to my post taking legislators to task for the deceptive language in their bill authorizing “carbonless energy parks,”  Rep. Jeff Morris (D-Hole I’m Digging For Myself) tells the Bellingham Herald’s Sam Taylor that I’m just plain wrong:

It currently is a nuclear site, they, Energy Northwest, want to build a thermal solar facility. The bill transfers a water right from the nuclear facility which was never built to the carbonless park….. or maybe they could store black helicopters there?

Well, we all know how much I hate being wrong, which is why, before publishing, I tend to research my posts, even the snarky ones.  So before throwing in that “black helicopter” line, let alone flatly refuting me, Rep. Morris should have done a little more research himself… or at the very least got his story straight with Rep. Brad Klippert (R-Kennewick) whose own press release on the bill actually touts the nuclear option:

Klippert said the bill provides for water usage from the Columbia River for cooling of nuclear reactors.

“We have one nuclear reactor in operation and two others partially constructed. This bill specifically addresses the need for water. With three operating nuclear reactors, we could produce as much electricity at Hanford as all the wind generators in the United States combined,” said Klippert.

Oops.  Is that the whirring of helicopter rotors I hear?

Rep. Morris is right that there is also talk of building a solar-thermal project on the 20-square-mile Hanford site,  but Energy Northwest’s Jack Baker makes clear that for now it’s just talk:   “We want to build solar facilities there in the future when the price is right, and have options there for future nuclear development.”

Again, I’m not opposed to debating nuclear energy; I think there are valid arguments pro and con.  But this adoption of the phrase “carbonless energy parks” on a bill that, amongst other things, specifically secures water rights and tax breaks for the construction and operation of two additional nuclear power plants, is clearly an attempt to deceive, not persuade.

Perhaps, in Rep. Morris’s defense, he too was deceived.  I dunno.  But when it comes to his assertion that this bill is about nothing more than transferring water rights from an unfinished nuclear facility to a solar thermal one, it is he who is wrong, not I.

While Carl is emailing Republican congress-critters to ask them if they really consider Rush Limbaugh to be the de facto leader of their party, it is amusing to look back on our homegrown R’s own sad history of right-wing talk sycophancy.  Indeed, after seizing control of the Washington State House during the Gingrich-inspired red tide of 1994, one of the first things the new Republican majority did was appease their god by sponsoring House Resolution 4684 in his honor:

WHEREAS, Rush Limbaugh has exercised dignity, decency, integrity, and wisdom in exposing the foibles of political correctness and other peculiar doctrines held dear by radical fringe wacko elitist kook nutcakes; and

WHEREAS, Rush Limbaugh has spent his life serving humanity as “the epitome of morality and virtue” while on the “cutting edge of societal evolution” performing “libosuction” on “young skulls full of mush” and firing lethal shots with devastating aim at the whole spectrum of liberal ideologies;

[…] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the state of Washington honor Rush Limbaugh for the dedicated service that characterizes his life’s work, for the outstanding example of diligence, integrity, and excellence he has set for others, and for the hope that his future endeavors will bring him even greater levels of satisfaction and success…

Yup… after being swept to power by an angry electorate, this was what 30 Republican co-sponsors determined to be one of their top legislative priorities.  The subsequent collapse of the GOP over the next decade or so starts to make sense in hindsight.

Read the whole resolution.  It’s just as amusing as the excerpt.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Kate Riley once accused Darcy Burner of being “inauthentic” when in fact, the opposite is true: Darcy is perhaps too authentic, at least to be a successful politician, occasionally saying things she’d gain absolutely no advantage in saying, just because, you know, she believed them to be true.  It’s one of the traits that makes Darcy… Darcy.

So while it was sad to see her lose the November election, it is strangely good to see she hasn’t “learned her lesson,” as evidenced by this video of Darcy over the weekend, speaking out on behalf of the Employee Free Choice Act, and challenging recently appointed US Sen. Mike Bennett to do the same.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPwnZu7_u4I[/youtube]

Of course, this is the kind of spur-of-the-moment, grassroots video that drove her political consultants batty, and prompted media establishment types like Riley to brand Darcy as some kind of wacky, nutroots lefty.  Perhaps it’s not advisable to always speak her mind, if she has any aspirations of running for office again.  Professional politicians just don’t make videos like this.

But then, Darcy has never been a professional politican.

UPDATE:
To sign the petition mentioned in the video, click here.