I don’t mean to pick on Joni Balter here. Most people writing about a possible Dennis Kucinich Congressional run in Washington use the same dumbass term.

Republicans would love to run against Kucinich in a suburban congressional district because he is a fringe liberal sporting a carpetbagger label.

Look, if I still lived up North, I’d probably prefer Rodger Goodman or Marko Liias. I supported Ruderman before Inslee got in the race in 1998 and would certainly be willing to look at someone else. There’s a rich field of candidates to draw from, so it’s not like we need Kucinich. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to run from somewhere else.

And in fact the original carpetbaggers were pretty fucking awesome. After the Civil War, of course, many people from the North went South to seek out the new political climate of freedom and racial integration imposed by the Federal government. The people who went into elected office were smeared as carpetbaggers by their opponents. People like Adelbert Ames, a hero at Bull Run and Gettysburg who was appointed to the governorship of Mississippi during reconstruction before winning election to the US Senate and the governor’s office outright. While I probably wouldn’t agree with all of his policies, where it mattered the most, he was right: “he took several steps to advance the rights of freed slaves, appointing the first black office-holders in state history.”

But in the history of the Reconstruction South, the Carpetbaggers lost. After Ames won election as governor, political violence overtook the state. Appeals to the Federal government fell on deaf ears, and eventually he resigned under threat of impeachment and possible violence. And political violence won out throughout the South. The worst case was Colfax.

On April 13, 1873, violence erupted in Colfax, Louisiana. The White League, a paramilitary group intent on securing white rule in Louisiana, clashed with Louisiana’s almost all-black state militia. The resulting death toll was staggering. Only three members of the White League died. But some 100 black men were killed in the encounter. Of those, nearly half were murdered in cold blood after they had already surrendered. The incident once again showed President Ulysses S. Grant how hard it would be to guarantee the rights and the safety of blacks in the South.

…

Louisiana whites formed their own “shadow” government and their own army, the White League. The White League, similar to the Ku Klux Klan, intimidated and attacked Republicans and blacks all over the state. While the worst violence occurred in Colfax, other incidents were sparked in Coushatta, when the White League murdered six Republicans, and in New Orleans, when 30 were killed and 100 more wounded.

In response to these incidents and others throughout the South, President Grant ordered federal troops to restore order. But most of the relief was temporary. After Colfax, the federal government convicted only three whites for the murders. In the end, they were freed when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that they had been convicted unconstitutionally.

The plaque commemorating the incident, put up by the state of Louisiana, still says “On this site occurred the Colfax Riot in which three white men and 150 negroes were slain. This event on April 13, 1873 marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South.”

So that’s in a nutshell my problem with using carpetbagger as an attack. While obviously Balter and other political commentators aren’t trying to evoke the political violence and racial hatred that ended reconstruction, it’s there in the word. It means something more than just an outsider.

– As a feminist man, I’m still sometimes amazed at things that pass me by. I was caught off guard that there would be harassment on trains bad enough to make someone switch cars.

– While there is always more to do, Obama has certainly earned HRC’s endorsement.

– Seattle has been driving less even before McGinn.

– Fox News sounds like a terrible place to work.

– RIP Gil Scott-Heron.

This piece on Jim Tressel is pretty amazing. I’m not a big college football person: If I wanted to watch a violent corrupt game whose best years are in the rear view, I’d follow boxing because at least they pay their athletes something. But when a game is on on Saturday, I don’t care about any of that.

And now, we’ll hear about how everybody does it. And we’ll hear how it’s just what you have to do to keep competitive. But like those sorts of excuses in politics, I don’t buy it. If we hold corrupt people accountable, and we take away some of the incentives for corruption, this doesn’t have to happen.

Also like in politics, people substitute other people’s piety for judgement. Oh, he’s a Christian, he can’t be stalking men’s rooms for sex. Oh he’s a Christian, he can’t be a corrupt coach. But the truth is that the most and the least religious people are perfectly capable of disgusting things. If I had to bet, I’d say he probably believes the Christian stuff he preaches. I obviously don’t know, but people have a way of compartmentalizing.

I don’t really know where I’m going with this rambling piece. It was just supposed to be a one sentence link in an open thread, but I’m still writing. I guess to sort of make it local, we’ve all seen the decline of the Huskies since Rick Neuheisel’s recruiting violations, and I can’t imagine that Ohio State won’t suffer as well. Doesn’t really seem worth it, but I don’t suppose they thought they’d get caught.

– Maybe this explains why it’s so painful to read the Seattle Times’ editorials.

– Google Correlate is clearly not Google Causation.

– The money for that Queen Anne bike bridge could have gone to, um, bike infrastructure somewhere else.

– This looks like a really terrible movie.

– So I’ll be at Folklife instead.

If I told you at the start of the legislative session that there was a large hole in the budget and that there were 2 or maybe 3 possibilities to fix it, you’d probably think the moderate thing to do would be pick some of each of the ways available. Moderates might, to use less vague terms, want some tax increases and some spending cuts while they looked at ways to deficit spend through the downturn. Moderate the pain of tax increases with spending cuts and moderate the pain of spending cuts with tax increases. Yet somehow in our state, the people who want all cuts get to claim moderate status. Take the Trib editorial board, for example:

The spending plan, unveiled jointly by Democrat and Republican budget writers, was a feat of compromise. Working across the aisle, lawmakers were able to stave off the cruelest of options for filling the state’s $5 billion shortfall.

“Reduce, but not eliminate” was their guiding mantra. Legislators saved the Basic Health Plan, but continued the freeze on enrollment. They preserved access to state health insurance for immigrant children, but tightened eligibility.

Pain but not death. When so much pain could have been avoided, that’s still moderation. Sure not letting people into Basic Health will be disaster, but otherwise, we’d have to consider cutting tax breaks for out of state banks. You guys, we can’t do that and be moderate, can we?

It carves 22 percent out of the higher education budget, but gives universities the authority to set their own tuition. It cuts funds for teacher pay, but only commensurate with the hit state workers are taking and without freezing longevity pay.

It makes it tougher to educate the next generation. It decides that the best way to attract new teachers is to cut their pay. In a time when American manufacturing is on the decline and a college education is more important than ever, it makes one harder to obtain. But at least there’s still a tax break for bull semen.

The budget is equal-opportunity agony, with the priority where it should be – basic human necessities – and the responsibility for its tough choices shared by both parties.

Except for the tough choice to close multiple loopholes. That was only one side. And even though it would have eased the pain, it would be partisan. Therefore not moderate. Therefore bad.

Anyway, then they go on to say that making the workers’ comp system more corporate friendly is also a victory for moderates. Because blindly giving more power to employers is moderate. I don’t think every moderate decision is necessarily the right one (I don’t think I’m going to convince anyone that a 70% high earner’s income tax is moderate, for example). But I wish the ed boards across the state at least had the courage to call the extremism they’re pushing what it is.

One of the most dispiriting aspects of the shitty budget is the fact that a majority of House legislators voted to soften the blow. The most ludicrous, outdated tax exemptions remain on the books, not because we lack the majority the constitution requires to repeal them, but because of the extra requirement imposed by the voters. I hope Darryl is right that this time the legal maneuvering will work. But if anything, past courts’ rulings have been pretty consistent that they don’t want to hear any challenge to these initiatives, so nobody has standing.

So if this challenge fails, I’d like to offer a potential solution that pits Tim Eyman’s populism against itself. In the past the same legislature that claims to respect the will of the people in these instances have been quick to cut the class size initiatives. So my solution is a more broad based initiative that says the legislature needs 2/3 to cut education (or social services, or higher ed whatever polls best, or whoever is willing to spot the money).

Ideally, this would provide a class of people with standing, but as with the tax side, I’m not sure the court will think anyone has standing. Still, even if this bad, probably unconstitutional law stays on the books, it’s better than the status quo.

Right now, there is no incentive for the no tax people to compromise since cuts need 50% and tax increases need 66%. But, if budget cuts have the same hurdles to pass, then we might see a more balanced approach emerge.

And, yes, I’m aware that everybody has their own idea for an initiative, but nobody has the money. I’d prefer a court win to initiative trickery. But we can come back to the same place every few years, or we can find another way around it.

– What ABL Said.

– 100 mbps on the low end.

– The family planning bill I’ve been mentioning passed the state house.

– The Tea Party doesn’t seem as popular this year.

– After this May, are the Mariners legit? This is the most excited I’ve been for a sub .500 team in as long as I can remember.

Ryan Blethen has a column defending the fact that the ed board talks about the mayor of the city in its masthead and the speaker of the state house. As a frequent critic of the ed board, let me say: that isn’t the problem. The problem is that you’re wrong about them.

Even casual readers of The Seattle Times’ Opinion section have probably noticed two names: Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and state House Speaker Frank Chopp.

Yes. They are high profile elected officials. I expect the ed board of the largest daily paper in the state to mention them.

They are difficult to miss because we have been writing a lot about them. As the editorial page editor I believe it is important to be persistent on issues we feel strongly about or that demand a spotlight.

Does anyone say not to cover the legislature or city government?

We have been all over Chopp, a Seattle Democrat, for sitting on a bill to revamp workers’ compensation. Chopp’s resistance to the reform proposal became a serious threat to completing the state’s budget.

The bill is unnecessary to move a budget forward, so it’s anyone insisting that it be part of budget negotiations is holding up the budget. Also, we don’t need to revamp, workers’ comp. And if we did we should probably not do it in a corporate friendly way. But seriously, nobody says don’t try to hold Frank Chopp accountable. We’re just saying what you want him to do is dumb and there are better targets if you actually care about passing the budget.

But as always it’s McGinn who really gets under the Seattle Times’ skin. Ryan, start off with something I’m not sure if it’s a mixed metaphor or horrible pun:

McGinn has become a regular thanks to his tunnel vision on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and numerous other issues. Last week’s McGinn editorial du jour was his hiring of the former advocacy director of the Cascade Bicycle Club. In an editorial we argued that David Hiller is not a great hire for a transportation and external communications gig. More important, though, was the way the announcement of the hiring was handled.

I literally can’t tell if “tunnel vision” is a joke or if he’s just trying to say McGinn is obsessed with one issue. In any event, you can’t have tunnel vision on “numerous other issues.” Tunnel vision means one issue, numerous issues means more than one issue.

Anyway, David Hiller is fucking rad. He helped turn the region more bike friendly. Right now, to take one example out of many, there’s construction on the Burke-Gillman trail in Lake Forest Park that Cascade helped bring about. Yes, he’s said some controversial things. Yes, he can be a lightning rod. Those are things that make an interesting story. The announcement aspect is so boring (not to mention piss poorly handled by the local media) that just thinking about it now, I’ve fallen asleep and am typing in my sleep zzzzzzz.

When the city is facing budget shortfalls, a mayor should know he needs to justify the hiring of a political ally in a well-paying job — even if that $87,500 job fills an existing opening. A clear explanation of Hiller’s hiring is not what the public heard. His job description was vague and the media were provided with a salary higher than the actual number.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*Wakes Up*

*Re-reads this paragraph and decides to keep making fun of it*

Why should he get credit for significant cuts his office’s budget? Don’t you know that one specific hire is more important than the overall picture? (And I’m not even arguing that the amount he cut is right; the city probably should have kept the head tax, and it some of that money stayed in the mayor’s office, that’s fine by me.) Again, you’re allowed to look at the mayor’s office, but when you make dumb arguments, expect to get called on them.

Reporters rightly had questions because of the salary given and the lack of a job description. KOMO-TV was frustrated enough to send a reporter to McGinn’s house the evening Hiller’s hiring was announced. This angered the mayor and his staff. So much so that Aaron Pickus, the mayor’s spokesman, sent an email to the television stations telling them how far away they should stand from the mayor.

Because they have no idea how to contact him during business hours or at any of the multiple public events he does around town, KOMO were forced to go to his house after 9:00. And don’t give me that he’s a public official bullshit. We’re talking about a fairly routine hire.

Any politician with a taxpayer-supported salary should understand that reporters might show up in places they would rather be left alone. There is no Fortress of Solitude in politics.

If this was a major event, I’d agree. If, say, one of McGinn’s deputy mayors had got arrested and McGinn refused to talk about it, I’d be with you. Go to his house and demand answers. For David Hiller being hired, wait until the morning.

Anyway, how about going into super defensive mode and attacking a straw man?

One of the criticisms I often hear is that it is unfair for us to beat up on public figures. It would be if they didn’t have multiple outlets to voice their displeasure with us or support their cause. We are quick to offer up oped and letter space to the people we take to task. If a politician is frustrated with our stance they are free to complain about it to reporters, to us, or to unions or to business chambers.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody has ever said it’s unfair for any newspaper to beat up on public figures. They may say your take is unfair. That you’re focusing on some public officials over others. Maybe someone has compared it to the embarrassingly fawning coverage Boeing and Microsoft get. Anyway, Ryan Blethen thinks he’s very brave for doing his fucking job. Poorly.

At a recent Drinking Liberally, Goldy and I were discussing what the comment threads have become. I think regular open threads have kept most of the things that would otherwise be off topic out of the other threads (although not completely). And while the threads have always been pretty loose, since the 3 regulars are all part time, the enforcement of the comment policy has gone somewhat downhill.

So the question is: do we need a new comment policy now that Goldy isn’t posting, do we need better technology, or is it working fine now? Goldy said he would be willing to work on something with registration, but I’m not sure that he has the time, and I don’t know exactly what it would look like. I can step up enforcement somewhat, but between 8:30 and 4:30 (give or take depending on the day) on weekdays, that’s not going to happen, and I can’t really force the other posters to do anything.

I couldn’t find it on the legislature’s web page, but Planned Parenthood Votes says the family planning bill that I wrote about yesterday passed the House Ways and Means Committee. I’m not sure what the prospects are for it passing, but Planned Parenthood has a handy tool to contact your legislator.

I know it’s not on the tunnel itself, but on the process. Still, Seattle will get to have at least a proxy vote on the tunnel.

Acknowledging that the issue before the voters is limited to whether the city council has the right to accept the agreements by notice, and that it “does not resolve the issue of whether or not there is going to be a bored tunnel,” Middaugh said that nonetheless, “The overriding goal is to make sure that the voices of the people are heard when a policy decision is made.”

“The people of the city of Seattle have the right to be involved in that process.”

However, Middaugh said, “No matter what happens today, this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not.”

The section of the ordinance Middaugh said can go on the ballot, known as Section 6, delegates authority to the city council to issue a notice to proceed on the tunnel after the final environmental impact statement is adopted.

It should be a good campaign. And, of course as good a reason as any to lift the cost overrun provision. Also, hint hint.

Joni Balter has a column ostensibly arguing against the proposed Seattle mandatory sick leave (h/t).

But the idea of city government mandating paid sick leave, especially while small businesses try to recover from severe economic woes, is overbearing and tone deaf. If anyone is going to lead us out of the recession, it’s small businesses. This is the last thing they need.

Totally, let’s blindly trust business to do the right thing. For the economy’s sake. Also, there’s probably a public health concern here. Both with other employees and with the people those sick employees have to interact with (do you really want your waiter to have strep throat and no sick leave?). But anyway, it’s been done in several cities, how can we learn from their example? Did it hurt businesses? Were there measurable public health differences? Other consequences?

City Councilmember Nick Licata, who is proposing the idea, says San Francisco did something similar and did not experience a negative economic impact.

OK fine. Now, Joni, instead of addressing that please complain about the existence of San Francisco for like 3/4 of your opinion piece about sick leave?

Another proponent of the plan said, in essence, San Francisco is doing this, why shouldn’t we?

Good start, keep going!

For years, San Francisco has been the punch line for goofy liberalism. Citizens and government there do a lot of off-the-wall things Seattle need not emulate. This city decided to officially expand the name of pet owners to include pet guardians. More respectful, you know. In fact, Seattle should ban the argument that San Francisco is taking certain action and therefore Seattle should follow suit.

So your argument against mandatory sick leave in Seattle is that San Francisco calls pet owners “guardians.” Of course. Surely something about Happy Meals will seal the mandatory sick leave deal.

San Francisco has also effectively banned Happy Meals, or at least the toy given with meals that exceed set levels of calories, sugar and fat. I did not feed my children Happy Meals. I am as concerned as the next person about childhood obesity and junk food.

But come on. Where are the parents? Don’t they have work to do?

Because you need to hit certain nutritional requirements before you can add toys in with food in San Francisco restaurants, Seattle shouldn’t have mandatory sick leave. It makes perfect sense. Why didn’t I see it before?

Seattle doesn’t have to copy every bad decision San Francisco concocts. Indeed, Seattle should eschew that old saw, “San Francisco is doing it, why shouldn’t we?”

I like that the first time Balter used that phrase in the column, it was paraphrasing and by the end it’s in quotes. Either she forgot that she’s the one who made it up or she’s quoting herself. And it’s an old saw even though she made it up like 15 paragraphs ago (I skipped a lot of random SF nonsense for lack of jokes, you’re welcome).

NARAL Pro Choice Washington is pushing a bill in the special session to expand family planning services to 250% of the poverty line (it’s currently 200%). I’d like it to be for 100% of Washingtonians who want it, but this is a step in the right direction. It passed the state senate earlier this week, and has a hearing in the state house tomorrow. From their press release:

“This legislation is critical for women’s health,” said Lauren Simonds, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “In our current budget environment, expanding low-income women’s access to family planning care is a no-brainer. SB 5912 will save the state money, starting in the same biennium.”

“NARAL Pro-Choice Washington would like to thank the 30 senators from both parties who stood up for women and families and voted for this legislation,” she added.

Family planning funding is a smart investment. By increasing eligibility in the Take Charge program, the Medicaid Purchasing Administration’s most conservative estimate indicates net savings of at least $3.5 million over the coming biennium.

It has a hearing scheduled for the Ways and Means Committee tomorrow morning. You might want to see if you have a representative on the committee, and give them an email if you do. In this horrible budget cycle, there’s a chance for something positive.

– “a refresher course in the difference between consensual sex and assault”

– RIP, Harmon Killebrew.

– “And holy crap I literally made none of that up.”

– I usually don’t do videos in open threads (I just forward to Darryl). But I don’t think you’ll want to wait until Friday night to see Dorothy Parvaz talk about her detention. Thank goodness she’s been released.

– Sounds like a scam.

– See you on the streets for Bike to Work Day, and I’ll probably go to the after party!

With the weather finally turning nice and more people commuting by bike, I thought it would be a good time to discuss biking through the red lights. I do it occasionally, but under pretty specific circumstances. Some people, God love them, don’t blow through any reds, and some people seem to barely notice that there are conditions (let alone the red itself) that might warrant not going right now.

First off, if you don’t want to ever blow a red, that’s awesome. It can be dangerous. It can mess with pedestrians. Even if it is safe, it’s still illegal. In a city that doesn’t jay walk much, I can understand the urge to sit at those lights. Also, one of my favorite things about riding a bike in the city is the interactions you get with other bicyclists while waiting for the light to change. They’re usually short conversations that don’t get much beyond “where are you going?” but it’s still fun to talk to like minded people for a minute or two, and you’ll miss a lot of it if you go through the light.

That said, I blow red lights occasionally. I also jay walk in much the same way: be safe and don’t be an asshole. So the main question is not when do circumstances warrant it, but when don’t they: Don’t ever go through a red if there’s traffic.* Assume they can’t see you. Even if they can see you, they quite reasonably aren’t expecting you to blow the light when they have the right of way. But even if you can reasonably guess how fast the next car is coming, and that you can make it, don’t blow the light. If traffic is coming in that circumstance, there’s still a good chance that you’ll force them to hit the breaks or slow down by taking their foot off the gas. If they have the right of way, they shouldn’t have to do that. Bicyclists demand that cars share the road; we ought to extend the same kindness to drivers.

Even when there aren’t cars around, you still have an obligation to be safe and not an asshole to pedestrians and other bicyclists. If there’s a reasonable chance you might hit them, just stay put until everyone is clear. If the pedestrian at the curb is looking like she might cross, but you’re not sure, stay put. Hell, get off your bike, so they know you aren’t going until they’re done.

After that, I say go for it.

[Read more…]