HorsesAss.Org

Seattle Times heir apparent Ryan Blethen will replace Jim Vesely as editorial page editor, the paper announced today, and while I guess I should feel disappointed to have been passed over for the job without so much as the courtesy of an interview, I’m not at all surprised, and in fact, I’m actually a little bit pleased.

Ryan’s not the most compelling writer you’ll find in a major newspaper, but I agree with Sandeep that he comes off as quite a bit less ideologically reflexive than his father or the board as a whole, and so I’d say there’s a helluva lot more potential upside from his appointment than there would be from say, Kate Riley. And while some might criticize as nepotism a publisher naming his own son to run the ed board, I think there’s something inherently more honest about this arrangement than we had with Vesely serving as a beard for the Blethen family interests. Gone are the days when the board could proclaim its editorial independence with a straight face.  And that’s a good thing.

So congratulations Ryan on your new position. Now get out there and give me something good to blog about.

“He’s definitely destroyed his working relationship with the council,” Seattle City Council member Jan Drago insisted to Publicola’s Josh Feit when asked about her apparently imminent plans to challenge Mayor Greg Nickels.

“One of my motivations,” she said, “is that he [Mayor Nickels] has destroyed every relationship—with citizens and neighborhoods, with regional leaders, with state leaders … I’m the one who was sent down to lobby in Olympia [for the tunnel]. They’re [Team Nickels] toxic down there.”

It’s a theme I’ve heard repeatedly from politicos, politicians and pundits over the past year or so.  Nickels is arrogant and autocratic, a political tyrant who forces his will on the Council, fires popular agency heads, and who seems intent on creating a political vacuum that sucks the air out of all voices outside the gravitational pull of his immediate orbit. Deserved or not, he has earned a reputation, at least in the eyes of many fellow elected officials and their aides, for not working and playing well with others. And whatever Machiavellian instincts the Mayor lacks are more than made up for by the amoral political machinations of Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis and the rest of his ruthless henchmen.

Or so I’m told.

Quite frankly, there are a lot of political insiders who just can’t stand the Mayor’s style, and more than a few who don’t like the man himself.  Okay, I get it.  But the question remains: is process and personality really an effective platform for mounting a challenge to a scandal-free, two-term incumbent?

Perhaps Mayor Nickels’ style truly is as destructive and divisive as his critics allege, I dunno, but the rub for Drago and the other challengers is that the biggest insider issue in the mayoral race isn’t really an issue at all, at least not from a practical, electoral prospective.  The typical voter neither knows nor cares whether Nickels is buddy-buddy with Nick Licata as long as he’s getting the job done; and as for being “toxic” in Olympia, well, after the recent legislative session I’d be tempted to wear that scorn as a badge of honor.

Does he share our values? Where does he stand on the issues? Has he delivered bread and butter services? What is his political agenda, and can we trust him to successfully implement it? Those are the kind of questions voters ask of incumbent executives.

And the answer?

“You can’t win a race against this mayor based on delivery,” Drago said. “It’s hard for me to conceive of running a campaign based on process and personality if you have a good record. I think that’s the dilemma.”

That was the dead-on political analysis of Drago herself, back on March 2. Huh. Before deciding to challenge the mayor, perhaps she should hire herself as a consultant?

The truth is, Seattle city government has long been at least a tad dysfunctional, and never the idyllic setting for a Norman Rockwell painting. Nor should it be. Democracy is by its very nature a messy endeavor in which conflict is a necessary if painful part of the political dialectic. Does Nickels’ aggressive style piss off council members and other stakeholders? No doubt. But if anything, the problem is not that the Mayor is too mean, but rather that the Council is too nice!

How may times have we heard council members whine about the Mayor’s unilateral style… then vote to approve his proposals by 7 to 2 or better margin? Seattle government isn’t a “strong mayor” system by charter, it’s just appeared that way during the Nickels regime, partially due to his forceful style, and partially due to the endemic weakness of the council members themselves. You want a more effective and politically inclusive city government, and a more responsive mayor, Jan? Then why haven’t you stood up to Nickels while you’ve had a chance?

In the absence of forceful leadership on the Council it has been the Mayor who has largely set the agenda over the past seven years, and for the most part, achieved it. Nickels embraced light rail; we got light rail. He turned his back on the monorail; the monorail died. He fought hard for a Viaduct tunnel, while a new, taxpayer-funded Sonics arena, not so much… and we all know how those two battles turned out. On issue after issue, and levy after levy, the Mayor tends to get his own way. Disagree with him if you want—and I often do—but if you deny him credit for his political acumen you have to acknowledge the incredible weakness of the opposition.

In truth, it’s a combination of the two. Mayor Nickels’ style can seem relatively autocratic and abrasive, but only by the passive-aggressive standards of our frustratingly sclerotic “Seattle Way.” Plunk Nickels down in the midst of a real political machine, like that in Chicago or Philadelphia, and I wonder if he’d survive past sundown before being eaten alive by the Morlocks?

Now some might counter, if Nickels is so strong, why are his polling numbers so weak? But that’s a question for another post… and another opportunity to lambast the mayoral challengers for failing to enunciate a winning message.

But for the moment, anybody expecting a 35% approval rating in April to automatically translate into defeat at the polls in November should heed Drago’s circa March 2nd warning. With few notable exceptions, Mayor Nickels does have a track record of delivering services, and of clearly enunciating and enacting a policy agenda. And like him or not, voters will choose competence over process, if that’s their only choice.

We live in a state where the governor called a special session to restore Tim Eyman’s 1% cap on property taxes, a cap that mindlessly and relentlessly hamstrings local government, no matter the local circumstances. You see, it’s all about local control, except when it’s not.

But college students, most of whom presumably have yet to embark on careers that will make it possible to afford stuff, well, here’s how the governor treats them:

The measure removes the current 7 percent cap on annual tuition increases for Washington state resident undergraduates. The state budget, scheduled to be signed by Gregoire on Tuesday, puts the new tuition cap at 14 percent for each of the next two years.

No special session for you, kids.

Tough choices yadda yadda yadda. Not only was nothing meaningful done about the plethora of special interest tax breaks in this state, they added a 40% tax break for newspapers, apparently so many of them can continue to advocate for the Grover Norquist position of dragging government to the bathtub and drowning it. The only allowable “moderate” position in this state is that things must be destroyed rather than even discuss an income tax or even a temporary measure for education.

Chris Gregoire made a no-taxes pledge, you see, and while it was a foolhardy thing to do, the bidness guys ‘n gals and the newspaper boards are going to make sure that not one red cent is raised to help restore education funding that plummeted due to the Bush Recession.

In the Orwellian world of conservative business lobbying, handouts to corporations are incentives and a very proper use of public resources, while public education, health care and other services that benefit the wider society can be given short shrift. And since the business point of view prevails no matter which party has a majority, or a super-majority, the regular citizen also gets short shrift and comes to have a jaded, cynical view about government not operating in their interest. Hard to imagine why initiative-touting charlatans have done so well here.

We haven’t even seen the full impact on K-12 yet. Should be interesting once parents find out in the fall what’s really happening. You haven’t seen angry until you’ve seen a parent who is expecting certain programs and teachers to be in place, basically because education is virtually the only direct service most of us get from the state government in return for our tax money, and now tuition is soaring out of sight and teachers are going to be laid off.

On the other hand, there’s absolutely no political risk in alienating parents of students. Just ask Terry Bergeson.

I just finished playing soccer at Twin Pond Park in Shoreline. No bears, but lots of rain.

I’ll be back arguing with John Carlson again on The Commentators, filling in for Ken Schram, Thursday, 10AM to 2PM on KOMO 1000.  Just thought some of you might want to know.

The editors at the bankrupt Columbian wrote a staff editorial about performance audits. Which, you know, is fine and all but notice the conventional mindset and needless carping. Why, it’s downright shrill.

Back on Nov. 4, most voters did not send the governor back to Olympia just to be a good Democrat. They returned her to office to be a good governor, party notwithstanding. That kind of independence can be suicidal among legislators, whose intense caucus meetings are led by seniority, where favors are traded like a commodity and entire careers are determined by loyalty litmus tests.

Not so with the governor. Gregoire wandered off the extremists’ playground back in December when she proclaimed a no-tax-increases stance, and then produced a budget to back it up. Blatant heresy, in the minds of many Democrats, we’re sure.

If you thought that in the face of the national economic calamity we should at least pass a few taxes for education, you’re an “extremist.” The default “moderate” position, as always, is basically the Grover Norquist position–taxes are always bad, no matter the circumstances and no matter the need or possible benefit to society.

It’s not like there was a wide-spread debate in this state about whether taxes should be on the table. Sure, there were a few brave op-eds and such, but meaningful discussion about the broken nature of the tax system in this state occurred mainly in places other than newspapers. Funny how that was.

That certain newspapers get their taxes cut 40% and bitch and moan about “left wingers” tells you all you need to know. It’s all about tribalism, and the newspaper boards fancy themselves part of the respectable bidness guys and gals tribe, even if they have to compose their screeds in between appearances in bankruptcy court. Please patronize us some more, that’s a great technique for generating customer loyalty.

I can’t find any editorials on the Seattle Times web site with a publication date more current than May 15, so naturally, I have absolutely nothing to blog about. Who knew shutting me down could be that easy?

UPDATE:
Lacking fodder from my favorite smorg-ed-board, I’ve been reduced to dumpster diving in the op-ed pages of some our region’s smaller papers, finding this tasty tidbit in last week’s TNT, which warns South Sounders to “keep a hand on their pocketbooks” in the face of King County’s rapacious appetite for digging tunnels:

Seattle’s transit taxes, plus federal grants, are covering its Beacon and Capitol Hill tunnels. No problem there. The Legislature has committed to pay $2.8 billion for the underground Alaskan Way replacement. That’s OK, too, as long as the Legislature continues to insist that Seattle – which demanded the tunnel – cover any cost overruns.

Yeah, except, just to be clear, Seattle did not demand that tunnel; in fact voters rejected a tunnel option when it was put to the ballot for an advisory vote.  Had the governor and the rest of the Olympia leadership embraced the much less expensive surface/transit option at the time it was fast building consensus on the ground in Seattle, that is the alternative that would have been chosen, and happily so.

And one other quibble:

[T]here must be an understanding going in that Bellevue itself will have to find either the money or economies needed to pay for a tunnel without delaying or jeopardizing rail expansion into Snohomish County and Federal Way.

The impression given, that extravagances in King County have come at the expense of Snohomish and Pierce County residents is simply false.  For better or worse, thanks to “sub-area equity,” what’s been raised in the South Sound has stayed in the South Sound… which of course is why Sound Transit told Bellevue on Friday that if it wants a tunnel, it’s gonna have to come up with the extra money itself.

Chris Kissel at our sister station, PubliCola, mentioned [see UPDATE 2] that the three challenges the Sounders would face in Dallas were red cards, heat, and arrogance. In the end though, it was a blown offsides call that cost them a win yesterday.

UPDATE: From the comments, here’s another view of the goal that makes it look like Rocha was just barely onside. Either way, the Sounders didn’t look their best yesterday.

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

UPDATE 2: Chris mentions below that while he posted that up, he did not write it himself. It was written by SoundersNerd.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Salem, OR. That was two in a row for our friend in the midwest. This one’s for the pros, good luck!

It took about two seconds this morning for me to determine that I didn’t want to watch whatever Sunday morning politics show that had John Boehner spewing forth about Nancy Pelosi, demanding an investigation or whatever he was saying. Maybe it was Gingrich who wants an investigation, seeing as the media can’t stop quoting a thoroughly discredited and wildly unpopular former House leader.

The Villagers smell a little bit of theater that allows them to get all worked up raising “serious questions” about Pelosi, which is kind of like raising “serious questions” about the locksmith five years after someone kicked the door down. The whole staged attack on Pelosi is asinine beyond belief.

Because the GOP likely ordered deliberate torture, the logical thing to do is investigate Democrats. You know what, I’d be fine with that, as long as everything and everyone gets investigated. Kind of a new Church Committee.

It should be live on the major networks so Americans can get re-acquainted with basic concepts of law and human rights. Then we can all argue over what to do, like prosecute people, institute reforms, etc. And of course there would need to be evidence presented, unlike the Sunday shows.

I wonder what Dick Cheney thinks of all this?

Goldy promised the attorney who was demanding that we take down a post ridiculing her that he wouldn’t reveal her identity. I did not make that same promise.

The Seattle Times congratulates former Seattle police chief and new Obama “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske for ending the use of the phrase, “war on drugs.” The Times is right, “words do matter,” (though you wouldn’t think so from some of their other editorials), but rather than just rebranding our failed experiment with prohibition, isn’t it time to have a serious conversation about ending it entirely?

For example, take marijuana.  Seriously, go ahead and take it.  I don’t care, and neither should the government.

All the D.A.R.E program scare rhetoric aside, marijuana is a relatively innocuous substance that’s proven no more dangerous and no more a “gateway drug” than alcohol. A majority of Americans have used marijuana at some time in their lives, and an overwhelming majority of them have used it responsibly. It is easily grown in backyard gardens and on indoor window sills, yet our prisons are bursting at the seams, at great taxpayer expense, with petty users and small time dealers. Meanwhile, the U.S./Mexican border has been turned into a bloody war zone as violent drug gangs fight to the death over control of this lucrative, multi-billion dollar black market.

Where’s the sense in that?

With the Obama administration signaling its intent to back off enforcement conflicts with state medical marijuana laws, California’s dispensaries are set to evolve into an informal, quasi-legal marketplace, but if we’re going to repeal prohibition, the best course would be to do it honestly and do it right.  And fortunately, we already have here in Washington state not only a model for the legalization of a potentially dangerous intoxicant, but an established system in place for regulating, selling, and perhaps most importantly, taxing the hell out of it.

Of course, I’m talking about Washington’s oft-reviled State Store system.

Other states may be further along the political path toward de facto legalization, but no other state, with the exception of my native Pennsylvania, has a more robust system already in place for effectively executing it. Washington already heavily regulates the in-state manufacture of wine, beer and distilled spirits, and maintains an extensive statewide network of retail stores and distribution centers for the sole purpose of operating its exclusive monopoly on the retail sale of liquor. A similar monopoly on the legal sale of marijuana would not only be easily implemented, but highly profitable for taxpayers and state farmers alike.

At an estimated street value of over $1 billion a year, marijuana is already Washington’s number two cash crop, second only to apples, and consistently ranking us among the top five pot-producing states.  By legalizing and regulating a crop that is already being grown, the state could impose standards of consistency and quality on the product, and by setting prices as the only legal buyer for the crop, farmers could be assured a stable, legal income for their efforts.

And considering the existing federal ban on marijuana, and the federal government’s constitutional authority over interstate commerce, Washington’s State Stores, by necessity, would initially only be able to buy and sell state-grown product, thus nurturing a nascent hemp industry that would eventually produce a valuable export commodity once the ban is lifted nationally, perhaps even dominating the market.

As for retail and consumption, the same restrictions that apply to the sale and use of liquor would apply to the sale and use of marijuana, with the state likely maintaining prices at or near current street levels. The result would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year in additional state revenues, plus hundreds of millions of dollars in savings from law enforcement and incarceration (not to mention the elimination of the incalculable human suffering caused by our current prohibition.) Distribution to minors, for profit or otherwise, would be strictly prohibited and harshly punished, as would driving under the influence of marijuana. And just as consumers may already legally make their own beer and wine for their own consumption, the current guidelines on medical marijuana could be easily adapted to apply to all home growers.

And the societal impact? Most studies I’ve seen suggest that marijuana use would indeed rise slightly if legalized, and thus we should likely expect an increase in marijuana abuse, and the personal and social costs associated. (Marijuana is not an addictive substance like, say, nicotine or heroin or even alcohol, but it can constitute an addictive behavior like problem gambling.) Thus a sizable portion of state profits from the production and sale of marijuana should be dedicated toward prevention and treatment programs for marijuana, alcohol, drugs and other addictive substances and behaviors.  In the end, the revenue earned from legalizing marijuana could be used to curtail the abuse of other more dangerous substances.

I know this might sound to some like a radical proposal, but our current prohibition on marijuana simply isn’t working, and its widespread illicit use only serves to undermine respect for the law by normalizing its violation. Meanwhile, the State Store system we created after the repeal of alcohol prohibition leaves us uniquely positioned to take the lead in responsibly moving toward marijuana repeal as well. And even if the feds attempt to block such a dramatic shift in marijuana policy, either through the courts or through direct conflict with state agencies, our effort to create a viable model for full legalization would at the very least spark a real national conversation on the pros and cons of our current failed, national policy.

And that’s a conversation that’s long past due.

Bill Maher offers some New Rules:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMV8-vke3Wo[/youtube]

(And there are nearly seventy other media clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

It’s not really news, because we all knew it was coming, but President Obama officially nominated Seattle attorney Jenny Durkan today, to serve as the next US Attorney for Western Washington.  For those who forgot, Durkan’s the attorney who kicked the Republican’s ass during the 2005 trial over Dino Rossi’s contest of the 2004 gubernatorial election results.

Hmm… I wonder if she can fix my ticket?

UPDATE:
Sandeep’s got more on the nomination over at Publicola.

In theory, I’m not opposed to the installation of red light cameras. We have some pretty dangerous intersections down in my South Seattle neighborhood, and anecdotally, I’m pretty sure drivers started erring on the side of caution when a red light camera was installed at Rainier and Orca.  But I was pretty damn surprised to find a notice of infraction in my mail, as I tend to be a cautious driver.

The top photo shows my car in the foreground, edging into a cross walk at yellow light.  The second photo shows a red light with the tail of my car just barely in the right hand edge of the frame, after having made a right turn.  Interestingly, while the top photo clearly shows a yellow light, the text at the top indicates that the light has already been red for 0.1 seconds, suggesting some sort of timing problem with equipment.

The infraction notice states:

“The photographs and video recording taken together show that … the vehicle operator was facing a steady circular red signal when the operator failed to stop the vehicle at clearly marked stop line or other stopping point described in the ordinance.”

I haven’t been able to view the video on the web site yet, as it doesn’t seem to work on my Mac, so I’m not sure at what point the light turned from yellow to red, though legally, I’m not sure if it matters.  It’s hard to believe that an officer would ever have pulled me over for taking a right on a stale yellow… but then I’m a guy whose only two previous traffic tickets in thirty years of driving were for going 61 in a 55 on the New Jersey Turnpike, and for going 38 in a 30 at 5am on an empty Rainier Ave., on the way to the airport to fly home for my father’s funeral… so shit like this tends to stick to me.

In any case, I’d love the advice of folks more expert at these issues. Is this really hard evidence of a violation?  And if not, should I request a mitigation hearing or a hearing to contest the infraction? (The infraction notice does a crappy job of explaining the difference.)

UPDATE:
I finally got to see the video and it clearly shows the light yellow at the time I enter the intersection, but turning red while my car is still in it making a right turn.  So from what I understand, I guess technically, that’s a violation, if only by a split second.

Again, I’m not opposed to Red Light Cameras, as I believe they’ve proven to be effective traffic safety tools, but I hope city officials understand how frustrating they can be.  Drivers make judgment calls all the time, whether to stop or continue at a yellow light based on speed, road conditions, other vehicles, etc—for example, continuing through a stale yellow on an icy street can be safer than applying the breaks.

Likewise, officers make subjective calls all the time as to whether to pull a vehicle over, or issue a warning instead of a ticket.  Viewing the video, I was not driving unsafely.  There were no pedestrians near the crosswalk, I was driving at a safe speed (ironically, had I sped up, I would have avoided the ticket), and I didn’t interfere with the cars that had the left arrow. As I wrote previously, I doubt an officer at the scene would have pulled me over.

And that’s part of the frustration about the cameras… there’s nothing subjective about them.  Being a half-second too slow just cost me $124.00, and didn’t make the streets any safer.  So while I disagree with those who characterize red light cameras as cynical revenue tools, from personal experience, I certainly can empathize with the sentiment.