HorsesAss.Org

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

8PM: Reproductive rights at risk?
When the Seattle Times’ David Postman asked Dino Rossi to explain his support of a court ruling allowing pharmacists to refuse prescriptions due to religious beliefs, Rossi declined an interview, his spokesperson saying “this is not a topic he has been campaigning on.” If NARAL/Pro-Choice Washington executive director Karen Cooper has anything to do it about, reproductive rights will remain a hot issue throughout the 2008 gubernatorial campaign, and Rossi will be forced to answer reporters questions about his very anti-choice positions. Cooper joins me by phone for the hour to take your calls.

9PM: Blogger roundup with Andrew Villeneuve
Andrew Villeneuve from Northwest Progressive Institute joins us in studio for more liberal propaganda.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
I’ll be filling in for Dave Ross this week (except for Christmas Day) 9AM to Noon, spreading my drive-by liberal propaganda to the masses.

The headline says it all: Fatal crash, new DUI record prompt WSP to step up patrol.

This month alone King County has had over 500 DUI arrests and Snohomish County has had 370 DUI arrests.

I wonder which county will end up with more convictions? Here in King County, while the police step up enforcement of the drunk driving laws, King County District Court Judge Peter Nault is working hard to reduce the number of successful prosecutions. Woodinville is fighting back, but it is not clear a victory will really change Judge Nault’s courtroom standards.

Ultimately the voters will have a say about Judge Nault’s fitness to serve. I am not a big fan of judicial elections, but as long as we have them, let’s put ’em to good use.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Megan and Jonathan
The Stranger’s Megan Seling and Jonathan Zwickel join me to say goodbye to the Crocodile Cafe, which closed this week after 17 years of featuring some of Seattle’s biggest bands.

8PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

9PM: TBA
More liberal propaganda.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Yesterday I wrote about three Washington state politicians working to overturn FCC Chairman and all around punk Kevin Martin’s changes to media ownership rules. Here is another Washington state politician who took a strong stand on the issue:

This and some 70 other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.

Also, check out Lee’s (still unsolved) Bird’s Eye View Contest.

You know that old “Did I just say that out loud?” trope, like when Homer Simpson reverses his inner and outer monologues to comic effect? Well, that’s kinda what happened to Ted Van Dyk when he absentmindedly revealed the true objective of “governance reform”:

It would not stop light rail construction in place, but it would limit construction to a line running from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to either Convention Place, Husky Stadium, or Northgate. Future funding would be focused more greatly on express bus, bus rapid transit, and normal bus service; dedicated transit lanes; HOV lanes; tolling; and selective repair and expansion of long neglected local roads and lifeline highways. Citywide trolleys definitely would not be part of the scheme.

See, that’s the sort of honest discussion of governance reform you might hear over foie gras and Chateau Lynch-Bages at the Rainier Club (or some crank and a dead hooker at the Discovery Institute,) but it wasn’t really meant for public consumption. Publicly, the goal sounds laudable — the creation of a four-county, elected, regional transportation commission “better able to make independent, cost-benefit-based proposals for balanced transportation systems” — while privately our region’s power elite have always understood governance to be a scheme for shifting infrastructure dollars from rail to roads.

Well, thanks to Van Dyk and his inability to distinguish between consensus and wishing, it’s gonna be a tad harder for backers to sneak governance reform through the legislature this session. My fellow bloggers are all over the issue (here, here and here) while Josh over at The Stranger has aptly labeled it “the New Prop 1.” Driving a stake through the heart of light rail is the kinda thing muckraking bloggers like me hold grudges over, especially now that the goal of governance reform has been clearly spelled out, so you can bet that politically ambitious legislators would be wise to think twice before blindly signing on to this pro-roads/anti-rail vision of our region’s transportation future.

In fact, what we really need to solve our transportation problems is less regionalism, not more, a thesis I intend to lay out in some detail over the coming days and weeks. Stay tuned.

Geov thanks Tim Eyman for I-900, the ballot measure under which the scathing Port of Seattle performance audit was conducted, but I just have to point out that I-900 was largely redundant, a bit overreaching, and merely superseded a long fought for performance audit bill that had just been passed by the legislature the previous spring. Yes, it was by far the least toxic of Eyman’s measures, but it was unnecessary, and thus I don’t think Tim deserves any thanks at all.

My main complaint about the I-900 is that its effectiveness entirely depends on the willingness of the State Auditor to use it, and use it judiciously. Performance audits can be a bitch to comply with, yet require the full cooperation of the target agency if they are to achieve the stated goal of uncovering new efficiencies. If agency employees perceive an audit is being used punitively or politically, it can quickly become a waste of taxpayer money in itself. Under I-900 there is little or no oversight of the Auditor’s office, a failing that could undermine the entire process should the office become heavily politicized. One can easily see a partisan auditor using his power under I-900 to harass public agencies and influence the public debate.

That said, I have long supported performance audits in theory, so much so that I made the trek to Olympia to testify on behalf of the bill that eventually passed. In fact, I would like to see the practice taken even further by routinely subjecting tax “preferences” (you know… tax breaks, exemptions, loopholes, etc.) to the process. If Tim weren’t such a hypocrite, I’d expect him to join me in that quest. I’m not holding my breath.

OK, now that I have your attention, let me point out that it was Eyman’s one genuinely non-toxic initiative, I-900, that gave State Auditor Brian Sonntag the authority and resources to go after the Port of Seattle, resulting in the performance audit released Thursday.

Yes, Goldy is right; the “$97.2 million waste” figure is a shot in the dark (the actual figure is probably much, much higher, because corporate corruption isn’t being counted as “waste” here); performance audits are necessarily subjective; and the news that the Port is an arrogant cesspool of waste and cronyism is no news to anyone who follows local politics. But the latter point vastly underestimates the impact of this report, for two reasons. One, not that many of us weirdos closely follow local politics — not compared to the number of people who will see today’s (and subsequent) headlines.

And secondly, the Port’s abysmal performance is intimately wrapped up in an Old Boy (and Gal) network of privilege and you-scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch-yours winking (and smirking) that also implicates our local media. For far, far too long, every journalist in town has known what the Port of Seattle, with its own independent taxing authority, is doing to taxpayers (hint: it’s not “serving”). To date nobody has mounted the sort of investigative initiative needed to drag the sewage into the light in the way that, say, the P-I has relentlessly gone after the King County Sheriff’s Office. The material is undoubtably there, but it requires a commitment from the management that hasn’t been forthcoming, ever, because at the top our local dailies and TV stations are part of the same local elite. Even if they don’t play golf together with the Port of Seattle and its “friends,” how ever would they face them at the parties?

Editorially, the Times and P-I (especially the Times, not surprisingly) have favored business-backed Port commissioners and candidates and not reform-minded candidates. That and the lack of public education (i.e., media coverage) are a major part of the reason why the Port has been bad news for years, if not decades. They’re not named in Sonntag’s report, but they’re still culpable.

So where now? Sonntag’s report at minimum legitimizes and in all probability forces more media coverage (though look for the damage control efforts to begin soon as well). Sonntag’s report recommends several steps be taken in the state legislature; legislators are already talking about the need for more oversight. Relatively new Port CEO Tay Yoshitani came in last year, replacing the relentlessly corrupt (and well-compensated for it) Mic Dinsmore, promising a changed culture. There’s no time like the present. The same applies for the two newly elected commissioners, the business-backed Bill Bryant (who narrowly ousted reform leader Alec Fisken, a result that probably wouldn’t be repeated now) and Gael Tarleton, who ran as a reform candidate but whose own potential for cronyism has been widely questioned. We’ll be watching.

It’s only a shame that Sonntag’s report was released a few days before Christmas, when news is generally slow and not as many people are paying attention. The Port of Seattle deserves the widest possible scrutiny.

Thanks, Tim.

If anybody wonders why newspaper readership is inexorably moving away from print and online, one need only look at Seattle’s two dailies today for a crystal clear illustration of at least one major factor: the online editions simply appear more informative.

Both papers devote their two right columns — fully one third of their available front page real estate — to the same big story: the $97.2 million wasted by the Port of Seattle… or so says a performance audit commissioned by the State Auditor and conducted by an out of state firm. Neither article actually bothers to explain what a “performance audit” is, its intended purpose, or that it’s not by nature as objective or uniformly defined as the more common financial audit. People read the word “audit” and they think of ledgers and spreadsheets and absolute mathematical facts, but more than just an examination of the books, a performance audit is intended to analyze whether an agency is performing its actual task, and recommend procedures to increase efficiency. It’s kinda subjective.

Not that I mean to dismiss the audit or defend the Port, which has in recent years been wracked by scandal, boondoggles, and administrative arrogance, it’s just that the big news isn’t all that much news to even the most casual Port observer, and that headline-friendly $97.2 million figure is more printed in soy-based ink than chiseled in stone. The Port’s problems are well-known and long term, and what both papers neglect to tell readers is that in each of the past two cycles, efforts to elect a reformist majority to the commission have been thwarted when the business community successfully targeted one of the reformist incumbents.

As for the other headlines, the P-I fills up the entire rest of its front page with a dire warning not to inhale buttery flavor, a disturbing and important story, but again, not actually news, while the Times matches by following yesterday’s story about lead in children’s jewelry with a “special report” revealing that few children in WA state are ever tested for lead poisoning. You’d think that with all this focus on lead poisoning, the Times might have mentioned the results of Darcy Burner’s free lead tests? (Hmm. I bet if Rep. Dave Reichert had conducted this innovative public service he would have warranted a headline and a congratulatory editorial touting his bipartisanship.) But no, it’s more important to tell us that Americans like iPods and BBQ, but that beer consumption has fallen 12-percent since 1980… a statistic entirely explained by the fact that I graduated college in 1985.

Read the front page of the dead tree edition of either paper, and you’d think apart from the big story about the Port, it was a pretty slow local news day… but go online and you’ll actually find plenty of hard news stories to accompany your morning cup of joe coffee-flavored steamed milk. Gov. Gregoire will be doing what she does best, suing the powerful on behalf of the people, this time the EPA for denying states the right to set their own auto emissions standards… A groundbreaking wave-energy project has received a first in the nation license to begin construction in Makah Bay… The downtown bus tunnel will remain closed through Monday due to computer problems (did they upgrade to Vista?), snarling holiday traffic… And despite our supposedly crappy congressional representation, the new 2008 federal budget includes an additional $24 million for Puget Sound cleanup, and $88 million for building light rail:

Sound Transit officials said Thursday the money, allocated on a competitive basis and more than initially expected, is a vote of confidence in the rail extension. The allotment also bodes well for Sound Transit’s chances of winning a $750 million grant, which the agency will seek in January, officials said.

(Shhh. Don’t tell Ted Van Dyk.)

It’s all in the P-I and the Times, and more. You just wouldn’t know it glancing at the newsstand.

(Yep…this would be an official Open Thread, too.)

UPDATE (Lee): Rather than add another open thread, I’ll just post a link to this week’s Birds Eye View Contest from here.

Perhaps my absolute favorite thing about Seattle’s congressman is that he excites our retarded comment trolls like nothing else. These are priceless:

Only in a place like Seattle can someone like Baghdad Jim McDermott exist.

Ah yes. Only in Seattle. Whereas, only in Florida do you find a congressmen who desperately wants to fuck young page boys, and trolls for them on the internet. Or, say in Vancouver, where you can find a family values conservative who watches porno with a gay hooker in a Spokane hotel.

McDermott fenced stolen property. Ergo he’s a crook. McDermott lied about fencing stolen property. Ergo he’s a lying liar.

To which HA’s own Lee responds:

“Fencing” requires a profit motive, which was not the case in this incident. Ergo, you’re a fucking retard.

Goodness, gracious. Just look at what we’ll miss when McDermott retires.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank Congressman McDermott for perhaps his greatest accomplishment in public life: the creation of Washington Basic Health. WBH has allowed the working poor to get health care and avoid medical bankruptcy. Once derided as “socialized medicine” by Republicans who can’t do math, WBH is now embraced by other states as the model for public health care delivery. It should be noted that WBH does something liberals love (providing health care to those who can’t get it otherwise) by doing it in ways conservatives admire (allowing companies to compete, thus creating an incentive to keep costs down). While I hope that universal health care is on it’s way from Washington, it’s good to know that Dr. McD made it happen here in WA state.

I haven’t seen the internal memo confirming it yet, but according BlatherWatch, former NPR host/reporter/producer Luke Burbank will take over the weeknight 7 to 10 PM slot on 710-KIRO, starting January 7. Of course, I would have preferred getting the slot myself, but I can’t really argue with the logic; I think it makes sense having a young (yet experienced) host with NPR sensibilities in that slot if KIRO wants to expand its audience in this market.

As for me, I’ll be getting a little taste of a full-time gig, filling in next week for Dave Ross, from 9AM to Noon. (Except for Christmas Day, when they’ll be playing Christmas music all day.) Tune in and hear me deliver drive time propaganda to the masses.

Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pushed ahead with his plans to change the FCC’s media consolidation rules—over objection of the masses at public hearings like the recent one in Seattle.

Martin’s move comes on the heels of Congressional hearings where lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, took Martin to the woodshed over the plan itself, over his rush to move forward with it, over a tin ear that cannot hear the voice of the people, for his process seemingly designed to suppress public opinion (like announcing the Seattle hearings five days in advance), and because he published an op-ed piece written (and probably submitted) before the Seattle hearing. “My folks in Seattle believe that they were treated like a bunch of chumps“, scolded Rep. Jay Inslee.

The objections of the people and Congress were for naught:

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to loosen media ownership restrictions in the 20 biggest U.S. cities, despite objections from consumer groups and a threat by some U.S. senators to revoke the action.

The FCC voted 3-2, along party lines, to ease the 32-year-old ban on ownership of a newspaper and broadcast outlet in a single market.

Perhaps Martin felt safe in giving us—the people—the finger, but when you give Congress the finger you might just find a foot planted in your crotch. Readers don’t generally expect many positive references to Rep. Dave Reichert here at HA but, considering this issue resulted in Goldy writing a post titled I heart Frank Blethen, that I am about to cite Reichert’s web site shows you just how powerful and bipartisan this issue really is.

That’s right…Reichert is one of the good guys in this battle. As a gesture of gratitude (or maybe something more like a Pavlovian reward) I’ll quote this fabulous press release from Reichert:

Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) joined Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) today in introducing the Media Ownership Act, legislation that will counter the damaging rule handed down by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow consolidation of media companies. The legislation would prevent the FCC’s hurried rule from becoming law by requiring more time for public comment and changing the timeframe for proposed revisions to be published. It would also go into effect retroactively, back to October 1, 2007.

“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free. I’m pleased to join with Jay Inslee to counter the damage that this ruling could bring. I’m not only disappointed in their ruling today, but also the process in which it came about. Last month when the FCC held one of the rushed public hearings in Seattle, I spoke out, calling for retention of the current rules. Relaxing restrictions does not serve our citizens, and would lead to the detriment of localism and diversity that we still enjoy. We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”

Specifically, the legislation would:

• Require the FCC to publish any proposed revisions to its media ownership rules at least 90 days prior to a vote.
• Require at least 60 days for public comment and the FCC must respond to these comments within 30 days.
• Require the FCC to complete a separate proceeding to evaluate the effects of consolidation on broadcast localism before any vote.
• Require the establishment of an independent panel on female and minority ownership. The panel would provide data and offer recommendations to the FCC on how to increase female and minority ownership. The FCC must receive and act on these recommendations prior to voting on any proposed ownership rules.
• The bill applies to any attempt to alter rules made by the FCC after October 1, 2007.

Sen. Maria Cantwell is already cosponsoring similar legislation in the Senate.

Martin is a punk, and an arrogant punk at that. Kudos to Rep. Reichert, Rep. Inslee and Sen. Cantwell for listening to the people and giving Martin a good swift kick in the nuts.

Well, as long as Will has brought it up here on HA, I thought I’d chime in and say that it is most definitely NOT time for Rep. Jim McDermott to retire. Seattle is fortunate to have the luxury of sending somebody like McDermott to Congress, a bomb-thrower who speaks his mind and gives the other guys conniptions (and yes, “the other guys” are sometimes his fellow Democrats.) There is as much a need for congressmen like McDermott as there is for congressmen like Rep. Norm Dicks, and for his part, McDermott plays his role well.

Joel Connelly abuses “McDermott’s ‘amen corner'” for brooking no criticism of their congressman, but it sure seems equally fashionable these days in both conservative and liberal circles to take a one-sided look at McDermott’s record. Take for example Joel’s “blame where credit is due” depiction of McDermott’s stance on the Iraq war:

It harkens back to 2002. McDermott went on network TV from Baghdad to say Bush would lie to get us into a war. The truth of the charge will be debated for years.

But it exposed Democrats to political attack and sent party leaders running — literally to the Oval Office — to show their patriotism.

That’s right, the Iraq War was apparently all McDermott’s fault for displaying the poor judgment to go on national television and warn the American people about the truth. According to Joel, it wasn’t the Bush administration’s fault for lying us into war, nor McDermott’s colleagues’ fault for cowardly caving in to the White House — McDermott is to blame. Hell, antics aside, Joel can’t even give McDermott credit for being right. (And he was.)

Then there’s the abuse heaped on McDermott for refusing to settle Rep. John Boehner’s lawsuit. Um… if Joel had found himself in possession of a tape exposing the Republican leadership defying a House Ethics Committee mandate not to conspire against any ruling regarding Speaker Newt Gingrich… I’m guessing he would have run with it, despite the fact that it was likely taped illegally. And I’m guessing Joel would have escaped without any civil or criminal charges, just as the New York Times and Washington Post went unpunished for publishing the tape after McDermott subsequently leaked it to them. Hell, I can’t help but wonder how much more supportive the editorial pages of the Times and P-I might have been, had McDermott leaked the tapes to them instead of to their big city competitors?

The fact is, the Republican leadership was caught with their pants down, and it ultimately led to Gingrich’s resignation. McDermott deserves thanks for that, not criticism, and perhaps, maybe, a little appreciation for once again taking a principled stand in defense of his right to speak the truth, regardless of the political or financial consequences. Countless congressmen go to D.C. for a decade or two and use the influence of their office to come home multi-millionaires. McDermott comes home $800,000 in debt for refusing to back down on what he believed to be his First Amendment rights, and for this he gets roundly lambasted in the local press? What is wrong with this picture?

No doubt McDermott is not the perfect congressman, but then, who is? A little bit of pork, a little more eloquence, perhaps a dollop of political savvy would all serve McDermott and his district well. But then, a Congress composed entirely of Norm Dicks’s or Jay Inslees or Adam Smiths would be a disaster. Guys like McDermott give guys like Smith the room to be, well, Adam Smith. Flaws and all, I have always been proud to call Jim McDermott my representative.

All that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if McDermott is considering retirement, and if you’re reading this Jim, don’t listen to Joel: now is not the time. 2008 is a busy and important year, what with the White House, the governor’s mansion and WA-08 all up for grabs, and we sure as hell don’t need the drama of the inevitable 12-way primary race to replace you sucking up all our media and financial resources. If you want out, spend the next year working to elect more and better Democrats, enjoy one final term in an expanded majority, and then let the battle for your seat-for-life play itself out in 2010 when the only other high-profile race on the ballot will be another lopsided victory by Sen. Patty Murray.

Besides… I’m just not ready to run.

Sometimes, we really don’t have our heads screwed on straight:

Jackie Brooks has smoked for a half-century and figures she consumes a pack a day inside her Auburn apartment.

The 74-year-old doesn’t want to quit and says she has a right to smoke in her own home.

Not anymore. The King County Housing Authority is banning smoking in all units at Plaza 17, the 70-unit apartment complex where Brooks has lived for 14 years.

Back when I was on the losing end of the I-901 fight, I at least had some acknowledgement that there were some legitimate points to be made for restricting smoking in public. Not so much because it’s cancerous, but because of its more immediate health effects. People who have asthma or some other respiratory problem shouldn’t have to be surrounded by cigarette smoke against their wishes when the health effects are clear and undeniable. Banning this activity in enclosed public places is just common sense. It obviously gets murkier when you’re talking about restaurants and bars as these are places that people can essentially choose not to go to, and I didn’t think it was the place for the state to tell business owners what environment they should provide. The one counter-argument that I found somewhat compelling was that certain classes of workers (servers, musicians) should be protected by the state, but did that require a ban which didn’t even allow for local municipalities to license certain places as exceptions? I still don’t think so.

But those are separate arguments from this one. Banning smoking in private residences just goes way too far.

The reality behind a lot of these bans is that they really are attempts to enforce a rigid public health morality. I’ve heard enough interesting propaganda on the effects of currently illegal drugs to be very skeptical of the current Surgeon General when he says that there’s no risk-free level of second-hand smoke (which is cited by the Times article as the KCHA’s reasoning for the ban). That’s silly. Obviously, there’s varying risk relative to exposure and below a certain level of exposure, you’re not at risk.

We see the same thing with the reports of marijuana smoke having more toxins and carcinogens than tobacco, but studies meant to demonstrate an actual link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer find no correlation. This is because, as Jacob Sullum writes, the dose makes the poison. Just being able to smell cigarette smoke through an open window is obviously not at a dangerous level. Is it annoying? Perhaps. But you’re not gonna get cancer from it and it’s not going to trigger any other health problems. The end of the article makes it fairly obvious what’s driving this:

Alice Bruce, 71, Brooks’ neighbor across the hall for a dozen years, has heart problems and is glad the authority is banning smoking in her building. She believes years of exposure to secondhand smoke from family members contributed to her cardiac arrest more than a decade ago, and she’s still concerned about secondhand smoke.

“I’ll be sorry to see her go,” Bruce said of her neighbor. “I think the world of Jackie. I still do. I just don’t agree with her smoking because of the experiences I had with my own family and smoking.”

I’m in no position to know whether Bruce is correct in her belief that second-hand smoke has led to her health problems, but even by her own words, that’s not the reason she supports the ban. She “just [doesn’t] agree with her smoking”. It has nothing to do with her own health. Someone smoking in the apartment across the hall is obviously not directly affecting her. This is a case where people are successfully goading a government agency to impose a particular public health morality. And even though forcing these old smokers out of their homes may be popular, it’s still the wrong thing to do.

Joel Connelly, who’s no fan of Rep. Jim McDermott, lays out the blueprint for McD’s exit from congress:

A possible arrangement: McDermott’s legal bills are paid off. Something gets named after him. And a new posting, possibly meaningful, allows the globetrotting congressman to pursue his interests in HIV/AIDS and South Asia.

Discretion is vital. McDermott’s “amen corner” will entertain no criticism of our quixotic man of principle in Congress. And Seattle needs re-education on potential benefits of having an effective liberal doing its business in Washington, D.C.

I’m pretty much done with Rep. McDermott, and wouldn’t mind seeing him go sooner rather than later. As long as he was on the block for the whole “tape” thing, I didn’t feel it was right to do a hatchet job on him. Now that he’s going to have to pay the 800k, things change somewhat.

But still! Dump McDermott? No. Why not demand Richard McIver’s resignation?

The night Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver was arrested for allegedly grabbing his wife by the neck in a drunken tirade, he yelled at her about not keeping the house clean and opened the door to officers in his bathrobe, wobbling, reeking of alcohol, slurring his words, and acting confused and slightly belligerent.

McIver likely will not stand trial for these alleged actions. Still, why tolerate this? I know I know, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. But for me, it’s not even close.