With the Iowa Caucuses a few days away, I think this is the furthest in a contested primary that I’m still up in the air. I like Sanders and Clinton quite a bit. While there have been some moments that have been quite a problem, by and large, the process has been good. I think it has forced Hillary Clinton to address economic issues and Black Lives Matter in a way that she might not if she was running in a general. It has moved Sanders in ways I like on guns and reproductive rights. Whoever wins the caucus and ultimately the nomination will be well situated for the general.

Back when Rodney Tom was complaining about the Seattle Sick Leave / Safe Leave and minimum wage laws, I thought it was horrible. If you’re a State Senator, you should at least ostensibly have the interests of the state in mind. And you know, he was promoting terrible policy. But at least I understand if you’re going to try to argue that the Eastside is better than Seattle, you’re going to have to argue with what you have. So claim East King County’s bad labor laws compared to Seattle are an advantage for business, sure if that’s your thing. But if you represent a city that just passed a sick leave / safe leave law, embrace it.

Not so much with Senator Baumgartner. He has prioritized pushing against his own constituents’ being able to take off if they’re sick or having an emergency!

Republican Sen. Mike Baumgartner introduced Tuesday what he’s calling the “Seattle quarantine” bill, which would prevent city councils across the state from placing new worker rules on businesses. As currently written, it would void laws already such as the family and medical leave ordinance which the Spokane Council passed Monday over Mayor David Condon’s veto but Baumgartner conceded Tuesday existing laws would likely have to be grandfathered in later discussions.

You know quarantine. When you force sick people to go to work lest they risk being fired. Quarantine. It’s also an admission that his side can’t win on ideas qua ideas. Can’t have his constituents seeing what good is happening in Seattle.

Quarantine Spokane from Seattle. When Spokane people elect leaders running on a platform of workplace rules like this, and those same people enact that agenda. That’s why they need to be quarantined.

Also, the bill would stop Seattle the same as anywhere else. And if places are grandfathered in, Seattle is still prevented from doing future workplace stuff. So quarantine doesn’t work to describe the thing it’s meant to describe even close to correctly. And don’t get me started on how quarantines generally are supposed to be temporary. All around, solid metaphoring.

“The goal of the bill is not to gut what’s already been done, it’s to prevent future damage,” he said.

Damage like a decent minimum wage and a bit of sick leave or safe leave. That’s damage. Damage of local elected officials saying the minimum set out by the state can be improved on. Is damage.

Baumgartner referred to the Spokane Council as a “mini Me” to the Seattle council, where the minimum wage is being raised to $15 an hour in phases over the next two to five years. “The state cannot afford to have labor laws made city by city by liberal city officials chasing progressive fads,” he said.

Excellent reference. I’m sure all the kids today are making Austin Powers jokes. Or not even jokes so much as half-assed mentions of a character who only appears in the sequels. I’m sure Baumgartner is fun at parties. He probably quotes Monty Python, blurting it — and other ancient pop culture ephemera — out at inappropriate times. I bet this has happened at at least one of his fundraisers:

“This music is kind of loud.”
“Well it goes to 11.”
“Oh, I wasn’t expecting you to make a horribly dated reference for no reason.”
“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
“Yeah…”
“Yeah, Baby!”
“I’m leaving.”
“Running away, eh? You yellow bastards!”
“There’s only one of me and you already made a Monty Python reference. Now I’m leaving for real.”
“Come back here and take what’s coming to ya! I’ll bite your legs off!”

It’s possible I’m reading too much into that Mini-Me thing and have lost the thread. So… back to the larger point. Spokane made a choice. For the record, one that this Seattle resident approves of whole hog. But it was ultimately Spokane elected officials who ran on a platform enacting that platform.

The only way that Seattle had something to do with it is how our (and Sea-Tac’s) example worked so far. If we had become the horrible shit hole that minimum wage opponents claim, we wouldn’t be an example. Also, we, and Spokane can reverse course. If this $15 minimum wage thing doesn’t work out, elected officials can change it. If opponents of the sick leave / safe leave law don’t like it, and can elect people who’ll repeal it, it’ll get repealed. But so far, advocates of these sorts of laws that have generally been reelected, and when they haven’t been, it’s for other reasons.

Rather than quarantine yourself from a large part of the state — one with outsized economic and cultural influence — you can embrace it. We’re doing great things, and in many ways it’s transferable to the rest of the state. I guess, if your economic ideas are more dated than your movie references, maybe Seattle is a problem. But if you actually look at what’s happening with the $15 minimum wage and the sick leave / safe leave laws, you can see why other places might want to imitate it.

One thing I didn’t include in Monday’s piece on Spokane’s sick leave/safe leave law was this amazing paragraph in the Spokesman-Review’s write up.

Condon said his veto stemmed from his opinion that such employment requirements should be mandated by state government, not a local municipality. He added that he would not lobby for such a change in state law.

When politicians say they oppose doing a thing at whatever level, it’s usually not a spirited defense of doing that thing at another level. Mayor Condon clearly opposes the sick leave/safe leave law. He could have opposed it on its merits (such as they are) rather than complain that the state should do it. And if he thinks the state should do it, he could push that.

Spokane is moving toward having its version of a sick leave/ safe leave law. It would be require employers with fewer than 10 people to have 3 days of sick leave and employers that are larger than that to have 5 days. While Mayor David Condon has vetoed it, it did pass 6 to 1. So it’ll likely still pass the council.

I have to say, I’m really glad that they’re passing something, but this makes me pretty nervous:

Calling the law “arbitrary,” Condon said his decision to veto also came from a lack of clarity on how the city would enforce the new requirements, or how much it would cost the city. He suggested he prefers incentives to requirements.

“I’m more of a carrot than a stick type of person,” Condon said.

Here in Seattle, we’ve had a tough enough time enforcing our sick leave/safe leave law with mayors who ostensibly support it. I hope he’ll enforce it when it does become law, but if you want to contact him and make sure, you can do that here. If you want to contact the city council and ask them to override the veto, you an do that here.

Also, just like in Seattle, this is a sick leave/ safe leave law, not just a sick leave law. News reports I’ve been reading about this don’t mention it, and they really should.* I couldn’t figure out exactly what qualifies people for safe leave on Spokane’s website, but all their material is pretty clear that it’s a part of the law. If anyone has more details, I’d love to know them.

[Read more…]

Over the weekend, I took a ride on the new streetcar! Here are some random thoughts I had while riding it.

• It seems like similar cars to the ones in South Lake Union.
• Still, I was super excited riding it. It felt very much like it will be integrated into the city in a way that the line in South Lake Union hasn’t been.
• Unlike when the light rail opened, all of the stops are places that are easy enough to get to, as a downtown resident who walks and bikes most trips. It still was pretty cool seeing familiar places through a streetcar window.
• The next stop projection at the front was a nice touch. It was several stops ahead rather than just the one. Might make it easier for tourists or other people unfamiliar with the area. I’d like to see that on ST trains and maybe on buses going forward.
• Traffic was an issue. A car tried to get too far forward in a turn when we were coming and the streetcar had to break pretty hard. It was the sort of thing a bus could maneuver around, but we had to stop while the driver sorted themselves out. It’ll probably be worse in rush hour. Still, once people are used to the light rail, maybe they’ll drive better. Or, that’s not how Seattle drivers work traditionally. We’ll see.
• Maybe it’s the fact that I lived in London and have fond memories of hopping off and on the circle line more or less at random, but when I look at the map, I feel like we could eventually make the streetcar a big circle. It seems like there would be some engineering challenges crossing I-5 in the Northern part of the map, and I don’t know about the parts that are single track. But it seems like a long-term goal for the streetcars.

I had to get up early on Wednesday, and I’m still messed up today. Really feeling the lack of sleep, even an hour or so, is kind of an adult thing. I’m sure when I was a teenager and didn’t get home until super late, I’m sure it screwed me up just as bad. But I think I just pushed past it. I’m actually feeling it now. A couple days later.

Oh hey, another day another pointless shooting in a movie theater.

A woman was shot Thursday night at a movie theater at The Landing in Renton, according to police.

Crews responded to the scene after reports of a shooting after 8 p.m.

She was taken to Harborview Medical Center but her condition is unknown. Police are searching for the shooter: one male.

I hope the best for her physically and psychologically. And I hope everyone at the theater who had to witness that shit gets the help they need.

But also, just a note to anyone thinking of getting drunk with a gun and shooting a theater. Or shooting a theater without getting drunk: Just don’t. Just fucking don’t. Leave your gun before you start drinking. Don’t shoot people. Whatever reason is going through your mind, whatever justification you’re making, don’t shoot people. Don’t shoot anyone. I’m so sick and tired of this.

You would think that despite all the very real differences between Democrats and Republicans that the legislature could come together and figure out getting rape kits tested. But it turns out that testing rape kits isn’t free. And while real progress was made last session, it’s still not there and we still need to pay for them.

So the new bill going through the legislature is mostly to the good. But Seattlish explains why an admissions tax on strip clubs is not the best way to pay for rape kits.

I had a thought in the last few minutes of yesterday’s game that I’ve had a few times when a team is down 9 or 10 points with a few minutes left and driving. I wonder if it might make more sense to just kick the field goal as soon as you get within the kicker’s range. Like 2nd and 5 but you made it to somewhere that you trust the kicker, just bring him on.

My thinking is that you save however much time you would have taken if you get closer but still get the field goal. So if you can get the ball back, you have more time, and you know it’s 4 down territory the whole way.

The downsides are: (a) When there are 10 points: 2 touchdowns wins but a touchdown and a field goal only sends it to overtime. So maybe it only works on 9 points.(b) It maybe sends a message to your offense that you don’t trust them. I don’t think that’s true. Maybe tell them you’re going to go for 2 if they score if that will make a difference. (c) Something something momentum. Every football announcer talks about momentum like it’s a thing so 7 points is momentumier than 3. But I don’t buy momentum as a thing. (d) The other team only needs to get a field goal to put it away. Maybe, but the point here is that you trust your defense. If the other team can get to field goal range, they’ve probably eaten enough clock that the game would be over if you’d dilly dallied around for a few minutes before kicking the field goal.

I’m sure there are others downsides that I haven’t thought of. Generally the coaches who live and breathe this stuff know more than some jerk who has seen like half of the games. But the open threads are fast becoming a random thoughts column, so here’s another one.

Despite the latest setbacks (and the fact that I was originally anti-tunnel) I still think we have an obligation to press on with the bad idea. There was a vote and that still matters.

That said, the safety doesn’t seem all that assured. Maybe we should close the Viaduct before the tunnel gets to under it. That sounds bad for already bad traffic, but then again so does pretty much everything about this project from jump.

The Viaduct is always a downer to write about so feel under no obligation in an open thread. Talk about whatever!

If the people who supported charter schools still want it in the wake of the recent state supreme court rulings, they might do well to find a new source of revenue. Maybe an income tax! Definitely an income tax! OK, maybe some other tax that can be dedicated to charters.

But that’s tough when charter school supporters are writing press releases about how they’re going to take money out of the Washington Opportunity Pathways account to pay for it. I’m not going to quote the whole thing, but I wanted to highlight a few things:

The legislation, sponsored in the Senate by Litzow and Sens. Joe Fain, R-Auburn, Mark Mullet, D-Issaquah and Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, makes a series of updates which include directing charter school funding to come from the state’s Opportunity Pathways Account, which contains state lottery revenues not restricted to common schools.

I emailed Litzow’s office on Sunday asking about what in the fund the bill would cut to make room for charters and he didn’t respond (in the same email, I also asked about the demographics of charter schools and we’ll get to that in a bit). It seems pretty obvious to me that if you want to pay for charters with an existing pot of money that you’ll have less money in that pot to pay for the things it’s paying for now. So I wanted to know if the plan is to take all of the money from one thing or to partial it out a bit from each.

For reference, here’s a list of the programs the Washington Opportunities Pathways fund goes to now:

• State Need Grant
• College Bound Scholarship
• State Work Study
• Passport to College Program for Foster Youth
• American Indian Endowed Scholarship
• Health Professional Loan Repayment & Scholarship Programs
• Federal/State Loan Repayment Program (FSLRP)
• Health Professional Loan Repayment Program
• John R. Justice Loan Repayment
• Aerospace Loan Program
• Alternative Routes to Teaching

You can get more info about any of those programs at the link above. There is a pretty big disparity in how much money goes to each thing, and the press release doesn’t say how much the charter schools cost. But any dollar you add to charters under the plan has to come from one, some, or all of them. It seems like taking any money out of any of those is going to be taking money away from education at a time when we need more money in education. Maybe charters are better than some or any of them. But supporters make it seem like they found a new pot of money instead of using a pot of money that’s already allocated.

The press release also talks about low income and minority children: The title of the release says it will help “address education inequality” and it quotes Senator Pettigrew (who I generally like) as such:

“The opportunity to get a great education should be available to everyone, regardless of their zip code or the color of their skin. But many students, especially students of color, are not getting the education they deserve in our current system,”

I agree! That is important! It’s so important it’s why we have have public education in the first place. But the press release just takes at face value that the charters do a better job educating minorities. It certainly doesn’t provide any evidence that they’re better than public schools at this. The press release didn’t mention how they would ensure that charters would serve minorities going forward. Or for that matter even track if it does.

I asked what the demographics of the current charters are versus the state as a whole and versus the districts where charters were set up. Since the legislation doesn’t propose changes to the charter system as far as I could tell, that seems like a fair proxy for how they work at that goal at least initially. But again the email wasn’t answered.

The legislature started Monday, and I haven’t done a what are you hoping to see post. So here it is: Ideally they’ll fix McCleary without crushing social services. As long as I’m dreaming, I’d like to see the Reproductive Health Act, or whatever they’re calling it now, pass.

I’m afraid that even with a Democratic governor and one house of the legislature controlled by Democrats, I’ll be mostly defense. So I’m a bit worried that some charter school measure will pass (constitutionality of the initiative be damned). I’m a bit more worried that we’ll have massive cuts to pay for McCleary. I’m a bit worried that there will be smaller cuts to social services and we won’t even get significant education funding.

So that’s me, how about y’all?

The local sports club seems to have pulled off a victory in the cold Minnesota winter. It wasn’t pretty and frankly there was as much luck as anything else with the last play. Still, it was well fought and well won.

One thing I didn’t like was there seemed to be a lot of complaining about the refereeing. I’m not saying that they got it right with that last minute pass interference penalty. It’s just that that when you lose because of the refs, complaining is almost always covering for bad play. And always always poor sportsmanship. And when you complain about it after a win, it’s just pathetic.

We should have a lot more access to our local governments. Most of the public records stuff could probably be done automatically. But it’ll take a fair amount of time and money to make it happen. It seems like a state mandate and state money (if we ever have it) either from the legislature or an initiative would be able to to do that in a more systematic way. Not just someone overwhelming public records requests.

Every time President Obama makes the slightest moves toward gun safety, the right does two things. They claim that President Obama /liberals in general /the government is about to take away your guns (not linking to any terrible people, but if inexplicably you need some evidence that they’re out there), and also they buy a lot of guns. At this point the gun buying at the first tiny hint of any minor restrictions is such a cliche, that Wall Street now bets on gun manufacturers (h/t).

But if you think about it for a minute, if you actually thought your guns were about to go away, you wouldn’t spend hundreds of dollars or more on getting guns. It would be like spending money on Budweiser futures in that interim period between when the 18th amendment was passed and when it was implemented.

So either we all know President Obama isn’t taking your guns, or markets don’t work. Despite having lived through the .com bust and the housing bubble, I still don’t think that investors would be putting their money into a business that’s about to go away. That leaves people don’t think Obama is taking their guns.

Given what the president — and what governors including Inslee — have proposed, perhaps people are buying more guns now because they don’t think they’ll meet the criteria to buy them in a bit. That seems more economically rational. If you think he’s going to tighten the background checks in the future, better get your gun while you can. If you’ve got a history of domestic violence or have already set up a trust, you’re maybe hoping to slip in before that.