While Goldy enjoys a warmish day on the East Coast, it’s freezing here. I’ve heard some horror stories about the commute last night, but in general, this isn’t as bad as 2 years ago. Given how much of a surprise it was that it was as bad as it was, the response was pretty good overall.

I took my bike most of the way into work before my boss called and said not to come in. Most of the roads seemed well plowed this morning, and it was more slush than snow. Light rail is still going fine. If 2 years ago was snowpocalypse, then this year is more snowpoc-eh-lypse.

By happy coincidence, the new Speaker of the House and much of the Republican leadership of the House represent districts in swing states. And while their districts likely will remain safe after redistricting, I hope the Democrats spend the time recruiting candidates and spend the money running ads against Republican leadership.

This accomplishes a few things: first it pushes them to moderate their stances. If they know there will be a serious challenge from people to their left, they’ll have to think before kowtowing to the teaparty activists in their midst. So perhaps we’ll see awful legislation turned slightly less awful if the people charged with passing it through the House fear for their own seats.

It also means we can play offense in states that Obama is going to need to carry. Every crazy bill passed through the House gets a nice ad in Ohio and Virginia calling it out, and lays blame on Boehner and Cantor. We get to have a conversation about the awful things the republicans do in areas of those states that perhaps don’t often have those conversations. This will help Obama win in Ohio by having a conversation, by getting media for the Democrat’s position, and if the downticket races look competitive recruit volunteers.

Best (although least likely) of all, we might pick up some seats. Yes, Boehner got 2/3 of the vote last year. But every district in the country gets redistricted, so last cycle’s results are only so telling. And Democrats haven’t given these districts a test in a long time, so it’s not as out there as you might think.

One of the best feelings in politics comes after a close win where you put in a lot of effort. So when I look at the results in the Senate race, I’m proud to have made a difference. Those phone calls, that getting people to commit to vote, that push for more volunteers. It made people fill out their ballots. We rocked turnout in King County.

You could see the effort put into the ground for Senator Murray at the coordinated campaign. Many times, I was put in a corner on a cell phone to make calls because there were so many people they’d exhausted all the lines and all the good seats. And despite overwork and a lack of sleep, an upbeat staff always had work for me. I’ve volunteered for a lot of campaigns since before I could vote, and this was one of the ones I most looked forward to going to every time.

In a close election everything was important, and Patty’s commitment to her volunteers certainly helped. It’s also nice to have a candidate you support, rather than just a candidate who is better than that other one. One of my favorite calls was from someone who said he was, “so glad you aren’t another Karl Rove robocall” who on top of convincing to turn in his ballot, I convinced to come volunteer.

I’m so proud to have been a small part of that effort that helped push Patty over the top. I know a few other people who I saw there are readers of this blog, so thanks Stephen and thanks Ivan for showing up and thanks to all the other volunteers I had conversations with between calls. Thanks Carly, the volunteer coordinator for my district who was always a pleasure to talk to, and all the other staff. Thanks most especially to Patty Murray for being a candidate worth my time, and for making my effort worthwhile with a well run campaign.

I’m pretty sure that I have the exact same right to sign off on things on behalf of the city as Richard Conlin does. Neither of us are members of the city’s executive branch of government. Unlike Conlin, I don’t want a tunnel. Although nobody has asked for my signature on anything, I’m certainly willing to provide it:

So, on behalf of the city, I’ll sign onto any bike path anybody is proposing. Finally complete the Burke Gillman? Don’t mind if I do! A road diet on all roads over 4 lanes? Provide bike lanes and you’ve got me — on behalf of the city — on board.

Hell anybody can do it! Got a project you’d like completed, just sign off on behalf of the city. Feel your neighborhood is being deprived of sidewalks, parks, or other amenities? Just sign off on behalf of the city, and presto!

I spent last Sunday afternoon making phone calls for Patty Murray; there’s nothing like one on one contact with other people to get that feeling like you make a difference, and I’ll be back plenty more times over the course of the next couple months. I’d encourage HA readers to volunteer for candidates. Here are the federal candidates’ volunteer pages (except Jim McDermott, who I couldn’t find a place to volunteer on his page, hope he can pull out the election despite that).

* Patty Murray

* Suzan DelBene

* Denny Heck

* Jay Clough

* Rick Larsen

* Adam Smith

* Jay Inslee

* Norm Dicks

And the State Democratic Party can help you find more.

I’m glad this article in Saturday’s New York Times got written.

Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.

Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.

Interesting stuff. While I don’t think it’s the strongest reason to support the rights of Muslims to build cultural centers with prayer rooms, it is certainly worth noting.

So, while I don’t want to be too nit picky, there’s one word in a paragraph toward the end of the piece that really gets my goat.

Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker and a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said in a Fox News interview that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to equate those proposing the Islamic center with Nazis.

Really? The style guide precludes you from just saying “drew criticism for equating the Islamic center with the Nazis”? You couldn’t make a declarative statement? That metaphor was too layered and complex?

When I see bad, or for that matter good, polls I can’t be too worked up. Of course I prefer the Democrat up, and up by a lot. And of course I’d prefer the generic ballot look better. But I’m not staring into the abyss, because the Democrats aren’t in the same place as the Mariners.

Believe me, as a Mariners fan, I’ve slogged through some terrible seasons without being able to change anything. A few years ago at the end of a bear of a season when Seattle and Texas were long eliminated, I was sitting in the first row of an outfield seat. Right in front of me, a Mariner’s popup came near the warning track, and the Ranger’s right fielder went into a dive for the ball. “I got it, I got it!” I yelled, and the Ranger dropped the ball. While I like to think I made him drop it, the truth is he probably just bobbled it because he was an AAA call up without much Major League experience. That’s the closest I’ve come to changing anything on the field.

But it’s often said that politics isn’t a spectator sport. And this year as every year, I’m not going to just sit and watch. I’ve worked the phones, donated, and knocked on doors for candidates I believe in, and will continue through November.

And that’s where the next few months for the D’s can be a lot better than the next few months for the M’s. There are enough fine candidates that we can all make a difference. I don’t know what the polls show for DelBene, but I’ll be making calls and knocking on doors for her. Same with Patty Murray (the poll Goldy cited earlier aside). Those of you who live south of here can do the same for Heck.

If you aren’t inspired by those people, there are plenty of state and local races and initiative campaigns. If you don’t like to talk to strangers about politics, they can all use money. They can all use letters to the editor. They can all use you mentioning them on Facebook and Twitter. They can all use you talking to friends and putting up yard signs. All of those things will change the facts, and matter more than what you see in polls.

With all but the toughest census work done, we’ll soon start the process of redistricting. And I’d like to make a small suggestion when we start to redistrict here in Washington: For goodness sake, name the districts, don’t number them.

Watching the British elections recently, I was struck at how you can get a sense of where the constituencies are just based on names like Wimbledon, Exeter, or Belfast East. Names get right to the point and are clearer than numbers. In fact, when the newspapers do use the number of state or federal districts here, they are so unhelpful that they often times have to add a location anyway. (Occasionally with misleading results. When reading about my old district, I sometimes hear that Ruth Kagi represents Shoreline, Darlene Fairley represents Lake Forest Park, and Maralyn Chase represents Edmonds despite the fact that they represent the same district.)

Naming the districts would be easy enough to do here. Instead of discussing the 32nd District that has no inherent meaning, why not a name like North King County and Edmonds? Jim McDermott would represent Seattle and Vashon, not the number 7.

I understand that the boundaries of the districts will matter more over the next decade than their names, but naming the districts just makes more sense than the current system.

For some time now, Goldy and I have been harping on how The Seattle Times, especially their ed board, is out of step with Seattle. Their endorsements don’t sway people and they don’t feel the same way as most city dwellers on many issues. They represent a conservative, old guard elite that simply doesn’t have the truck that it once did in Seattle. But perhaps we’ve been wrong.

So stay with me a little bit. The Seattle Times certainly disagrees with city residents on taxes, sure. While city residents understand that things cost money, and are generally willing to pay for them (roads and stadiums aside), The Seattle Times seems to think any tax increase for any reason is always bad. And they want more roads. And for Seattle to pay for those roads, even state roads that Seattle is at best ambivalent about.

And even when they say they want something lefty like health care, they change their mind when that lefty thing might actually pass.

And on candidates, oh my. The Seattle Times thinks all candidates for all offices should abide by the above crazy. So they often pick candidates very different from who Seattle picks.

But it isn’t just politically: the ed board is (aside from Ryan Blethen) quite old in a youthful city. How many columns and posts by Bruce Ramsey mention something Carter did that he didn’t like, as if it relates to the experience of most people in Seattle today? They have an attitude of respect for conservative institutions, giving the likes of Bruce Chapman a fair hearing while the typical Seattle resident doesn’t care that you were in the Reagan administration. The adoration of bland institutions is downright strange. They’ve written multiple anti Google rants in a tech friendly city. Finally, they’ve, mostly (all?) people who grew up here despite the large number of people who’ve come here more recently either from other countries or other parts of America.

So the point is, Goldy, The Seattle Times was here long before the current iteration of Seattle politically and culturally. But The Seattle Times isn’t out of step with Seattle: if anything, Seattle is out of step with The Seattle Times.

I know I’m the last person who the Seattle Times would want to consult on how to save their dying paper. But despite myself, I feel a certain affinity for newspapers. I still read the dead tree version of New York Times, and although I make fun of the Seattle Times stupid ed page, I’m glad they’re around.

While I often have real problems with their editorial stance, and I don’t understand why they still have stale columns from national writers, I do think they are an important piece of what gets reported in Western Washington. So let’s start there. The Seattle Times shouldn’t run syndicated columns who we’ve seen the day before in their own paper, and who we can read for free online. I don’t know that it saves them much money, but it makes them more of a local paper.

So what to replace those columns with? Some days, I say dissenting opinions. Especially on candidate endorsements where Ryan Blethen says it’s important to have a conversation, there should be editorials in favor of each candidate (and let us know who wrote what). There would still be an endorsement, but the Times would acknowledge that there’s another side.

But mostly, just use the freed up newspaper space for more, you know, news. I’d say don’t run any opinion some days. Nobody cares what the paper thinks on any given issue except for people who already had an opinion about that issue, and nobody under 60 cares what Bruce Ramsey or Joni Balter think about anything. Make a couple days a week opinion free days, and give the space now for Ed and Op-Ed to in-depth reports on upcoming races, or investigative pieces, or important issues. Imagine picking up the Times in the 5 weeks leading up to an election and reading great pieces on each city council race. Imagine a full 2 pages given to an important issue. Imagine knowing every Saturday that there will be a well researched, well edited, well written long form piece instead of another vapid editorial.

And speaking of well written, give your writers license to write. The staid, boring style of reporting is often not worth reading. Of course as a fowl mouthed blogger that partly means swearing when it’s relevant: sometimes people say “Shit” in congressional hearings. And they say “Fuck” on the Gotti tapes. They don’t say “S***” or “F***” and when I read that sort of nonsense in their pages, or too clever by half word play that makes me have no idea what was said, it makes me not care if the Times goes under: while I know they’ll never swear as much as me, not having blanket censorship makes it a better read.

Because more than anything, I want a good read. I want to smile at a turn of phrase in the news coverage. I want to be wowed by the transition between ideas in the opinion pieces, and I want passion in the sports section.

But really, I’d settle for not complete shit in the sports section. I seriously can’t think off the top of my head of any Seattle Times sports writers. As much as I wonder if Art Thiel is fucking insane when I read him, or assume George Vecsey is writing with a quill pen when I read him, he’s so old fashioned, they are fun to read.

So those are my suggestions that I know will never actually be implemented. They’d make the paper more fun to read, and maybe save it in the end.

As in the last fundraiser, this post isn’t pre-approved by Goldy. I’m proud to write here, and I’m proud to give money every fundraiser (and last year when he said there would be a fundraiser that never materialized). It isn’t the only blog I’ve donated money to, but it’s by far the one I’ve donated the most to. Here’s why:

Even with my poor contribution bringing the quality down, HA is one of the best written blogs around. It’s fearless, fun, wonkish and whimsical. Sometimes all in the same day. Sometimes all in the same post. That’s a lot of work for just about every non open thread post, and there’s work keeping up the quality of the blog over several years. We’ve seen plenty of bloggers on the left and on the right bow out in the years that Goldy has been writing here. I value good writing, and contribute accordingly.

And while it’s true that there is good writing elsewhere on the web, another thing I value about HA is the impact it has here in Washington and in the Seattle/King County area. From Brownie to scaring the AG’s office and the proposed Chihuly museum, Goldy has been moving the narrative nationally — but mostly locally — for years. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he doesn’t. This blog has helped push the dialogue and frame the issues better than most elected officials and pundits in the area.

And having seen only a fraction of the work involved, I know that doesn’t come easily. As a poster here, I’ve been privy to various conversations and email exchanges about how to improve the site. And the back end is a lot of work: Despite being one of the least policed comment threads among blogs, just adhering to the minimum standards takes a good deal of work. There’s a whole host of coding and back end work that you (hopefully) never see, but that keep the blog running well.

Finally, we need an alternative to the mainstream media in general. There are things that the Seattle Times does well, including investigative reporting and, um, being on paper. But their editorials are biased toward the powerful, their print edition is tiny, and their online presence is a joke. The rest of the daily papers and TV news in the state are generally worse. While Goldy and the rest of the crew here do a pretty good job holding the Times’ feet to the fire, the best is when we cover stories where the Times and others drop the ball.

This kind of new media, even done right, may not be as expensive as the old was to create, but it’s by no means free. So please join me in giving to Goldy and keeping HA running.

Goldy has already had a few posts about the immigration rally, and there is other good information elsewhere. But at these sort of things, I always like to see what people are writing on their signs. So here’s the text of some of the signs.

First, a quick note: This isn’t meant to be comprehensive, and sometimes there were more than one sign that said similar things, so I only included one. I tended toward handwritten signs, but some of these were mass produced. Also, some things work fine as signs, but are tough to put onto a blog post. Most signs were in all caps, but to make it easier to read here, I’ve added capitalization and sometimes punctuation to try to stay faithful to the message.

– Immigrant rights are human rights
– I’m related to immigrants and I VOTE
– United we dream
– Skagit Immigrant Rights Council
– Immigration Reform Now
– We are one America
– Mr. President where’s the love? Immigration Reform Now
– We pay taxes. Soc. Sec for years. Where are our benefits?
– You must befriend and be in solidarity with the immigrants. For you were once Immigrants. Deuteronomy 10:19 El Camino De Emaus Lutheran Church
– You shall not mistreat or oppress the immigrants for you were once immigrants. Exodus 22:21 El Camino De Emaus Lutheran Church
– We need immigration reform now
– Let Washington State lead the way on immigration reform
– $1.5 Trillion to the U.S. Economy
– Rep Doc Hastings support our rural communities sponsor immigration reform
– We are not criminals
– College students fighting for equality and opportunity
– Act now
– The time is now
– Microsoft engineers 4 immigration reform
– This is part of our country. We need freedom. No more deportations
– One America, justice for all

Easter, 1916
by William Butler Yeats

I

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

II

That woman’s days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terribly beauty is born.

III

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashed within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone’s in the midst of all.

IV

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven’s part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse –
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Tim Burgess is pushing a measure to outlaw panhandling near ATM’s, or parking meters. One of the reasons he says that people from the rest of the city and elsewhere are afraid to come downtown. “The visitors do not feel comfortable walking from their hotels, to the market, or catching the bus without being approached by many different panhandlers and street people along their route.” That may be, but I doubt that people asking for change near parking meters (aka, everywhere downtown) is really among the top concerns of downtown residents.

In the couple years I’ve lived downtown, I’ve seen countless things worse than yellie beggars who are pretty much anywhere on the street. And while much of it is already illegal, I think the city should probably deal with open drug dealing, and use, prostitution, late night noise, and drunks spilling out of clubs yelling “Wooooooooooooooooo” and getting into fights from before midnight to well past closing time on a Friday or Saturday night. (Just to be clear, I love living downtown, but there are problems.) Talking to other Belltown residents about the proposed law, the reaction has usually been somewhere between “it’s a war on homelessness” to “I guess it’s worth trying.” Personally, I’m against it, but not terribly so, but I haven’t heard anyone say that dealing with beggars is a high priority.

So while I applaud Burgess for at least trying, I still don’t feel represented on the council. I know, I know everybody represents me, and if I want something done, let someone on the relevant committee know. But I’m relatively well informed, and I have no idea who sits on what committee, or who among all of my supposed representatives on the city council would be receptive to downtown issues. I’d really prefer to have my council member, rather than having to guess who might be the most helpful when none of them seem to be.

There’s something about old media trying to do new media. Sometimes it works wonderfully, but usually it comes off as an editor heard about one of those “blogs” or “twitters” and asked the tech guy to set one up. The Seattle Times’ Ed Page blog falls into the later category. Infrequently updated, clearly not edited, and as biased toward the status quo as anything in print, the Ed cetera blog manages to combine the worst parts of blogs and newspapers in one convenient package.

They have a weekly feature, Civil Disagreements, where Lynne Varner representing as far left as the Times allows and Bruce Ramsey representing curmudgeonly libertarian basically agree on an issue and argue about the details. This week’s issue is the debt. Varner comes out strong saying yay for a toothless commission, I hope it recommends working the elderly to death:

The panel is expected to come up with a deficit reduction plan by Dec. 1. But the part of this commission’s charge I like best is their promise to recalibrate American expectations around money and social benefits. For example, one suggestion is to raise the age people can collect Social Security and slow the growth of those benefits. Another is raising taxes on a larger portion of the populace, those making under $200,000. It will be interesting to see what this group comes up with.

Work harder grandma! And tax increases targeted to lower income people. (I think that’s what she’s getting at, but “those making under $200,000” is a strange construction, I assume she means everyone making under $200,000.) You know liberalism. I’d prefer a 50% top marginal rate, but start it at incomes above $30 Million. These are made up numbers, of course, but something out of the range of normal Americans, or even their crazy expectations.

Shockingly Bruce Ramsey is less wrong. After pointing out that the toothless commission would probably be toothless, he says that it’s important to cut the deficit the right way. Although, it’s not a great solution either.

As for the ideas menationed [sic]: sure, some of them make sense. I’m a small-government guy, so I like spending cuts lots more than tax increases. If we keep the present Social Security system, it has to be balanced. And the best ways to do that are to allow the tax cap to rise faster and make the benefits formula less generous over time. I am not so high on raising the retirement age. It might work for desk jockeys like you and me, but blue collar workers are done by 67, and many of them well before that. You can’t expect an ironworker, a sheet metal worker, a pipefitter, etc, to work to age 70 in order to get full benefits. Anyway, if we’re going to cut payments from the government, let’s cut them to people who don’t work, not to people who worked a lifetime.

I’m not sure what exactly “it has to be balanced” means; Social Security is the largest part of the budget that isn’t swimming in red ink, it seems strange to focus on it. There is also no mention from either of them, why the deficit is more important than, say, job creation, or even desirable in a recession. Of course neither of them say if we want to balance the budget, we’re going to need to tax the people with the most money, shrink the military significantly (yes including Boeing’s contracts) and take concrete steps to grow the economy that probably include government spending in the short term.