HorsesAss.Org

According to today’s Seattle Times, the FBI finally has a plan to combat WA’s epidemic of bank robberies:

Special Agent Larry Carr plans to work with Washington state lawmakers on legislation that would forbid banks from doing business with customers who wear hats and sunglasses while inside the bank.

Carr, who heads the FBI’s bank-robbery division in Seattle, said that most bank robbers cover their heads “with a hat, sunglasses or a hoodie [hooded sweat shirt]” to avoid being identified by surveillance photos. With most bank security cameras positioned in front of and above customers, the disguises are often successful because the cameras capture the bill of a cap or brim of a hat, he said.

Yeah, sure… or, they could just, you know… move the cameras. I mean, cameras can be incredibly tiny these days. You could unobtrusively install one at every teller window — from an angle looking up at the customer — and a would be robber would never know it’s there. And I’m not exactly sure how this new dress code would effectively avoid scenarios like this:

Teller:	Excuse me sir, but bank policy and state law require that you remove your sunglasses and hoodie.
Bank Robber:	Put all your fucking money in this bag, or I’ll blow your head off, bitch!

Personally, I wear sunglasses all the time, summer and winter, rain or shine, and as I get older (and balder) I’m more frequently wearing hats to protect my naked scalp from sun and cold. It’s only polite to remove one’s sunglasses when engaged in conversation, and I try to remember to de-accessorize indoors, but I sometimes forget they’re even on. I doubt my personal eyewear habits would eventually lead me to a brush with the law, but one can easily imagine such uncomfortable situations, like when a devout Muslim woman refuses to remove her head scarf.

Hmm. I wonder if the vehemently anti-gun control folks have any problems with law abiding citizens like me being told we can’t wear hats and tinted glasses in banks? I know my sunglasses aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it strikes me that eroding our civil liberties, even minor ones, should be law enforcement’s last resort.

Maybe some day, when I’m old and curmudgeonly and stuck in the past enough to get a job writing a column for a major daily newspaper, I can be just like the P-I’s Ted Van Dyk…

One of the most difficult things to do, in any part of life, is to make judgments on the basis of facts and principles rather than on our feelings about personalities.

Yeah, and when you’re talking about facts and stuff, it might be a good idea to actually research them, rather than just kinda-sorta drawing from your personal recollection. Take for example Van Dyk’s defense of Tim Eyman, whose initiatives he both criticizes as “arbitrary” and “disruptive”, and lauds as resonating with an angry electorate.

But wait a minute. Why do Eyman’s proposals gain broad public support, even when losing?

Um… in a democracy, isn’t “losing” an election kinda the opposite of “broad public support”…?

It is because they resonate in an electorate just plain fed up with undisciplined and even mischievous state and local spending and taxing decisions. Eyman’s ballot measures become send-a-message blunt instruments for ordinary citizens.

Eyman’s initiatives resonate with voters? Really? Let’s take a look at Eyman’s electoral performance over the past few years and see how Van Dyk’s assumptions hold up:

	2006:	I-917 — YATDCTB ("Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative") Eyman spent nearly $738,000 — most of it Michael Dunmire’s money — yet failed to collect enough signatures to qualify this dog for the ballot.
	2005:	I-900 — Performance Audits Passed with 56% of the vote.  By comparison, the other two winning initiatives that year, the "Indoor Clean Air Act" and the totally unsexy "Commission on Judicial Conduct," pulled in 63 and 68 percent of the vote respectively.
	2004:	I-892 — "Slots for Tots" Failed with only 38% of the vote, the worst of that year’s five statewide measures.  Eyman’s I-864, which would have cut local property tax levies by 25% across the board, failed to qualify for the ballot after five months of canvassing.
	2003:	I-807 — "Super Majority for Tax & Fee Increases" Sounds familiar?  Well without Michael Dunmire’s money, this first incarnation of I-960 failed to qualify for the ballot.

So… um… how exactly do you “gain broad public support, even when losing,” initiatives that never even get far enough to lose? Van Dyk imagines he has his finger on the pulse of Washington voters, but if he did, you’d think he might have noticed that Eyman politically flat-lined years ago. Eyman didn’t even manage to qualify a single anti-tax initiative over the previous four years, let alone pass one, and since 2002 has relied almost exclusively on sugar daddy Michael Dunmire and the gambling industry to finance his paid signature drives. In the interim, voters have overwhelmingly rejected both gas tax and estate tax repeal, while local levies routinely passed throughout the state. Yeah… voters are clearly “just plain fed up.”

Van Dyk goes on to berate the rail portion of the coming Roads & Transit measure, warning it will “snarl traffic and harm the economy,” and yet polls consistently show that light rail is exactly the portion of the measure most popular with voters. What exactly is Van Dyk’s definition of an “ordinary citizen”…? Kemper Freeman Jr.?

With logic like that Van Dyke almost makes Eyman seem sensible. Almost.

UPDATE:
Andrew’s got a more comprehensive Eyman Failure Chart up at Permanent Defense.

Courtesy of SeattleJew.

Is Dino Rossi running for governor? He says not. In fact he looks a reporter straight in the eyes and tells him that his actions as a non-candidate now — traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda — “are very different” from his actions as a declared candidate in 2004… traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda. Yet it’s the exact same policy agenda, and indeed, the exact same stump speech that he delivered as a declared candidate. The only difference is that back in 2004 his campaign was held to all the contribution limits and public disclosure requirements of any other candidate, whereas now he claims his bullshit foundation can launder unlimited contributions in secret, and with impunity.

This is more than just an issue of whether Rossi has found some technical loophole that allows him to skirt our campaign finance and public disclosure laws simply by not officially declaring his candidacy. This about Rossi lying… to the public and to the press. He looks the reporter straight in the eyes and lies. And I hope my friends in the media remember this as the campaign progresses.

Last time around Rossi got a free pass from many in the media, who repeatedly failed to press him when he refused to give direct answers on questions about abortion, stem cell research and other defining issues. Rossi, holding one of the most conservative voting records in the Legislature, was allowed to pass himself off as a moderate. Rossi, a man with a history of running such mean-spirited campaigns that several of his primary opponents refused to endorse him, was allowed to pass himself off as a nice guy. Rossi, a man who lies to reporters, was allowed to pass himself off as honest and credible.

The public has a right to know who is funding Rossi’s non-campaign. And the media has an obligation to relentlessly press Rossi to disclose his contributions.

The Stranger announced its Political Genius awards today, and apparently, I’m not one. That’s okay. I don’t like cake. Besides, how could I possibly hope to compete with such tough competition? Hell, just look at one of the runners-up:

Political consultant Sandeep Kaushik, 60, displayed his first signs of genius in 2005 when he quit The Stranger, where he’d been a political reporter for three years.

King County Executive Ron Sims recognized Kaushik’s smarts and stole him away from us, hiring the dazzling Jim Beam drinker as an election strategist.

Jim Beam? Hah! Sandeep’s moved on to Makers Mark. Shows you what Josh knows.

Kaushik is poised to cap his rise as a political whiz with two major campaigns: He’s advocating for the biggest tax increase in state history, the $17.8 billion Roads and Transit initiative (hoping to expand light rail with 50 new miles of track) and, in a prime-time spot, he’s heading up spin for Darcy Burner, the Democrat who’s trying to knock off GOP Eastside incumbent Congressman Dave Reichert. Kaushik already chased Burner’s Democratic primary rival out of the race.

In 2000, little-known consultant Christian Sinderman emerged as a star by helping get Maria Cantwell elected. Sinderman is now the hottest political guru in the state. If Kaushik sends Burner to Congress, he’ll be the new Sinderman.

No doubt Sandeep’s political instincts and media connections are fast making him a political powerhouse — as Postman well knows, Josh pretty much writes whatever Sandeep tells him to write. So why did Sandeep have Josh write him a measly runner-up citation instead of the big award?

Well really, who deserves to take home the cake more than Cary Moon, the woman who somehow took the idea of a surface alternative to the Alaska Way Viaduct from lunatic fringe to political consensus?

Moon’s political genius is her ability to see the long-term picture; when others laughed at her for supporting what many called a ridiculous, long-shot option (“But where will all the cars go?”), Moon ignored them. While leaders bickered over whether to replace the viaduct with a larger viaduct or expensive tunnel, Moon quietly bided her time, consciously threading the needle between the two opposing positions. Over time, she gained the confidence of opinion leaders such as Council Member Peter Steinbrueck, an environmental advocate who saw the surface/transit option as a way to save billions and improve the climate in the bargain.

Then came last March’s vote against both waterfront freeway options. That “no/no” vote wasn’t just a defeat for the mayor’s tunnel and the governor’s bigger, uglier new viaduct. It was also a major victory for Moon and others who supported the surface/transit option, which emerged as the most affordable, environmentally sustainable option, and the officially “preferred” option of both the mayor and the city council and all the current council candidates.

Of course, there could be one more reason for Cary’s triumph over Sandeep:

April 19, 2001, Washington DC – Wanted terrorist Timothy McVeigh released another video today from his hideout in the wilderness of northern Canada. The video promised more attacks from Christian Identity terror cells throughout the United States. In the six years since 4/19, there have been no attacks like the original bombing in Oklahoma City, but Clinton Administration officials warned Americans once again to be vigilant. But people have grown increasingly skeptical of the once popular president, ever since the threats that postponed the 2000 Election are believed by many to have been just a political stunt to maintain power.

Clinton’s approval ratings reached another record low recently as he continues to defend his record. He’s touted success in fighting the militias in Montana and Michigan, and claims that his landmark Secular Conformity Act, enacted in 1996 to give him more powers to spy on Americans without oversight, is working. “These tools were necessary in order to prevent another 4/19. Next time it could be a mushroom cloud in downtown Chicago,” the President said in recent remarks to a convention of atheists.

The stress on the President has been enormous as he feels the nation simply doesn’t understand the kind of unique threat the United States faces from domestic terrorism. In the wake of 4/19, President Clinton declared the threat from Christian Identity followers to be a “unique threat, one that America has never had to deal with before.” During the 1996 election, he derided those who disagreed with his “war on terror” as irresponsible apologists for the militias. Since his re-election, the National Guard has rounded up thousands of “enemy combatants” in 12 different states, most of whom are held indefinitely without access to an attorney, one of the powers given to the President at the beginning of his second term. Hundreds of church groups have had their assets frozen for having links to Christian Identity members.

In eastern Montana, however, Christian Identity militias have taken over many towns and the violence in Billings has reached record levels as the National Guard struggles to keep the peace. President Clinton sees all of this as success in the overall war. His main Homeland Security official will be testifying in Congress this week about how former anti-government militia members in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are now starting to turn against the more radical fundamentalists.

The opposition in Congress has been too weak and ineffective for most Republican voters. The main voices speaking out, Congressmen Bob Barr (R-GA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), feel that America has been fooled by the President into believing the threat from McVeigh and his Christian Identity followers is worse than it really was, and that his decision to send in the National Guard to forcibly disarm them is just expanding their ranks. The President’s strongest supporters, such as California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, dismiss that as the rantings of unhinged and unpatriotic lunatics. Anchors on Hound News have been referring to Barr as “Billings Bob,” and plan to have another interview with the head General in charge of defeating the Christian extremists right after his Congressional testimony. The General has come under intense fire from conservative groups for his methodology in concluding that the violence is down from last year.

The main question being asked today is how it’s been 6 years since the bombing and yet McVeigh still remains free to make videos to send to his followers. Blaming his accidental release after a traffic stop in 1996 on “bad communication with the FBI”, Clinton later seemed disinterested about whether McVeigh would ever be caught. He claims to be working with Canadian authorities to locate McVeigh, but no one seems to know where he’s at. The new ‘4/19 Truth’ movement, led by transsexual author Ann Coulter, now has millions of followers nationwide who believe that Clinton himself planned and carried out the attacks.

Democrats seemed eager to use the latest tape as proof that the nation was still facing an existential threat from terrorism and once again accused groups like the ACLU and the NRA of helping the terrorists. The President’s supporters on talk radio also sought to defend the President. Host James Carville noted how similar McVeigh’s message was to those of Clinton’s main critics, especially his strong defense of the right to bear arms and his opposition to abortion.

Meanwhile, a number of retired CIA and State Department officials warned that this focus on homegrown militias was distracting us from even more dangerous threats from overseas. Former Clinton Administration official Richard Clarke, who was pushed out after strong disagreements with the White House in early 1996, said, “How are we ever going to defeat international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda if we can’t even defeat these kinds of groups here? We’ve continually expressed to Clinton’s folks that defeating terrorism is a matter of law enforcement and not a war. They just don’t listen. God help us if we try to do this in the Middle East.”

As I wrote earlier, opponents of the “Roads and Transit” package have been lying like crazy about light rail. What’s more, they’ve been doing it illegally.

You see, they’ve been campaigning against the measure without filing as a campaign. From the complaint:

Since May 2007, individuals and organizations have made expenditures in opposition to the Regional Transportation Improvement District/Sound Transit 2 ballot measure, commonly referred to as the “Roads and Transit measure.” These individuals and organizations have not formed a ballot/political committee and have failed to file a C1 form with the Public Disclosure Commission as well as other required regular reports required under Washington State law (RCW 42.17.040).

I’m a rookie at this stuff, so I may get some things wrong, but no one in the traditional media has focused in on this stuff. Not only are these guys lying, but they’re doing it in a way that is a flagrant abuse of our campaign laws.

Monday night I went to the Sierra Club’s No on Prop. 1 kickoff. It was less like most campaign events. It was held in Mike O’Brien’s back yard. (Read this interview with Mike)

I took part in a breakout session with several Sierra Club activists. Our facilitator gave us some copy to read, and we took turns reciting the language. One of the gals, who wasn’t as die-hard against the package, asked the facilitator:

“This paper talks about RTID, which is bad. But the title of the ballot measure is Roads and Transit. Shouldn’t we refer to it as “Roads and Transit” instead?”

The Sierra Club official quickly corrected her.

“No. Don’t mention the transit. Mention global warming. Talk about RTID.”

I respect the Sierra Club guys. I don’t disagree with them on most of the facts, it’s their political judgment I question. Most of the people I talked to are convinced that if the Roads and Transit package fails, our elected officials will learn their lesson and give us a transit-only package in ’08.

In an election year.

With Gov. Gregoire on the ballot.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

I find it much more likely that if this package fails, Gov. Gregoire will take care of business. Her business. And that’s SR-520, not Sound Transit. Olympia politicians don’t care about rail, only roads. They’re waiting for an excuse to enact “governance reform,” which will “reform” Sound Transit, alright.

Right out of existence, come next year, if this package goes down.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Our host Nick Beaudreot asks that you bring a pin or bumper sticker to help “redecorate” the Republican Street sign kindly donated by Mayor Greg Nickels. If so, Nick might just buy you a pint. If your sticker is pre-1992, it might be worth an entire pitcher.

Other than that, the hot topic for tonight might be about some ad that some organization took out making predictions about some guy. Or it might be about whether the deadly, costly, and colossal fuck-up the Iraq invasion has been so far, will suddenly get all better now that many neighborhoods have undergone ethnic “tidying up.”

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Yesterday Joel Connelly gave The Stranger a little heat for their coverage of the Seattle City Council race between incumbent David Della and challenger Tim Burgess. I didn’t really understand Joel’s First Amendment argument, but I suppose I kinda-sorta got his outrage at political purity, even if I disagree with it.

Should Burgess’ less than firmly pro-choice history, and past record of working for vehemently anti-choice groups disqualify him from serving on the city council? Joel says no. The Stranger apparently says yes. Well now WA’s leading advocate for reproductive rights comes in on the side of The Stranger, endorsing Della over Burgess.

“Typically we don’t make endorsements in Seattle City Council races because, in the past, all candidates were clearly pro-choice,” explained Karen Cooper, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “But questions and concerns arose over this specific race after we learned of Tim Burgess’s longtime association with Concerned Women for America, a virulently anti-choice, anti-woman organization,” Cooper added.

I talked with Cooper this afternoon, and she went even further than the press release, describing Concerned Women for America as “a hate group.”

The couple of times I’ve met Burgess I liked him. He seems like a reasonable, competent guy. But in the end we tend to vote for people who reflect our values, and when we don’t we’re bound to be disappointed.

Should Burgess’ years of working for Concerned Women for America absolutely disqualify him from office in this very blue city? I suppose not… at least not absolutely. But voters have a right to know the candidate’s entire biography, and our local media has a responsibility to report it. My guess is that if voters understood about Burgess what The Stranger and NARAL Pro-Choice WA understand about Burgess, he wouldn’t stand a chance in November. Perhaps that’s unfair to Burgess. But to keep that information from the public would be unfair to voters, and counter to the Democratic process.

So Geov has a weekly thing on HorsesAss.org that’s better than this one. I could step up and write a better Bullshit post. Or I could just stick to the same old, same old. I chose number two, but that’s probably why he has a long running radio show on KEXP (and even before it was KEXP), and I’m just a guy who swears on the Internet. Anyway, here’s your bullshit:

* President Bush said that he might reduce troop levels in Iraq. And when he says something you know it’s true.

* And as long as I’m stepping on Geov’s toes and talking about Iraq, Riverbend has left. It’s senseless and tragic, and I would hope the people who made stupid accusations against her would re-consider what they’ve been doing. But perhaps a tiny bit of human decency would be asking too much.

* Just in case you were wondering who’s to blame for the Larry Craig mess, it’s the state of Minnesota. And Michael Medved thinks the real tragedy in all this is that Michael Medved hasn’t thought enough about burly men in uniform.

* And finally for national bullshit, it may be safe to say that supply side economics are bullshit.

Locally:

* Seriously, what was the Trib thinking?

* Gary Randal sees a clear line between hate crimes legislation and forcing the Church not to mention Jesus.

* Lou Guzzo wants more booing the National Anthem.

* “Doc” Hastings is upset that MoveOn was able to read things that General Peteraeus has written in the past. And that they were willing to make some obvious predictions.

This is an open thread

There are actually ten different versions of this ad, each targeted to specific geographic communities. This is the kind of smart campaign that helped defeat I-912, by informing voters what the money raised specifically does for them. Makes it a lot harder to defeat the measure with broad generalities. And you know… lies.

There are pretty much two sides to the growth/density argument in Seattle. On one side is Knute Berger mentality, which says that “density will murder your children in their beds.” Then their’s my side, which says that growth isn’t a bad thing, and that it can be good for the city. I live near downtown. I like growth. When new buildings go up, it usually means more urban goodness. (“Grocery store! Indian food! Basketball court!”)

Of course, whenever a building goes up, that means some greedy developer stomped on a basketful of kittens made money off the whole thing. This is not always an evil thing.

I agree with Geov that the mayor is pouring it on a bit thick. His new plan isn’t going to save us. (But Al Gore can!) Perhaps the mayor’s enviromental record isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But a rule change to allow for some cheaper housing to be built in what is already a heavily urbanized area can’t be that bad.

Here’s what Erica C. Barnett thought about the mayor’s previous plan, mentioned by Geov:

Subsidizing middle-income housing makes sense, particularly for families. The larger the apartment, the larger the differential between “affordable” and market rate. For example, in one project being built in the University District under the current program, full-price one-bedrooms go for $1096, and apartments for those making 70 percent of median income go for $954—a $142 break. The break on two-bedrooms is much larger: $1,112 for a subsidized unit, versus $1,386 for an unsubsidized unit—a cut of $274.

I’m not disagreeing with Josh that the mayor’s plan doesn’t solve the problem of affordable housing for very low-income people. But it never has been aimed at low-income people (unlike other city programs, such as the housing levy), and Nickels isn’t making any pretense that it is. In fact, the mayor sent out a press release saying as much, stating that the program is aimed at “middle-income wage earners … priced out of the market with few places to turn.” The city should do more to fund low-income housing, but we have a middle-class housing crisis, too; my rent, for example, costs me almost half my monthly income, substantially more than the 30 percent that housing folks agree is “affordable.”

Ever read a comment by one of the trolls in HA’s threads, and wonder if the author is brain damaged? Well, apparently….

The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.

In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.

The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.

“Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there’s a detour and you need to override your autopilot,” said NYU psychologist David Amodio. “Most people function just fine. But there’s a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course.”

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

Of course the study evoked outrage from conservative pundits… what do you expect from folks who are so rigid, closed-minded, fearful, aggressive, and less tolerant of ambiguity and new experiences? But not to worry, just like with evolution and climate change, conservatives have the perfect answer to science that challenges their rigid ideology… they reject it.

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmm. I could readily accept that conclusion.

UPDATE:
I’ve already received a couple angry emails, and I apologize. It was at the very least insensitive if not downright hurtful, and certainly inappropriate of me to make fun of people who suffer from organic brain disorders like conservatism. And so I’d like to shift gears and ask your help in coming up with a more appropriate label for this debilitating disease, that both honors the humanity of its sufferers and recognizes the love and joy that they can bring into our lives, despite their crippling disability.

In the comment threads, SeattleJew has suggested Conservative Brain Defect (CBD), though I believe Conservative Brain Disorder might be more value neutral. I’ve also suggested that we might just refer to conservatives as the “cognitively challenged.” Or perhaps maybe “differently ideological abled”…? “Hannitycapped”…? “Poliplegic”…?

Please add your suggestions in the comment thread and we’ll conduct a poll later this week.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has spent a busy summer trying to line developers’ pockets, most notably with a proposal in June to expand property tax exemptions for builders for median income condos and (if any remain by 2008) apartments. But Hizzoner topped himself in the dog days late last month with a quiet proposal to gut permitting and environmental review requirements for new projects — a new pinnacle of cynicism not just because it’s another giveaway to developers that encourages the teardowns of what’s left of this city’s semi-affordable housing stock, but because of how he sold it.

From the mayor’s press release, entitled — I kid you not — “Mayor Nickels proposes ways to encourage smart growth: Changing SEPA thresholds to meet today’s climate change challenges:

Mayor Greg Nickels has submitted legislation to the City Council this week that will encourage environmentally friendly growth in Seattle neighborhoods, promote housing affordability and reform out-of-date land use regulations. “Every decision facing us today has a direct impact on climate change and our planet,” said Nickels…

The mayor’s proposal will change the threshold for SEPA review for downtown residential zones from 20 to 80 units, from four to six units in low-rise duplex/triplex projects; from 20 to 30 units in designated urban villages and urban centers. Thresholds will remain the same for industrial projects. Under the new thresholds, all parking will increase from 20 to 40 stalls.

Larger projects will be subject to the SEPA thresholds based on the size and location of a proposed project. The proposed changes will help to streamline permit review for new development, and reduce barriers that add delay, cost and risks to development of new housing and businesses.

SEPA, for those of you not up on your bureaucratese, is the State Environmental Policy Act, Washington’s equivalent to the federal Environmental Impact Statement. SEPA allows local municipalities to determine how large a project needs to be before its size triggers a SEPA review, and what Nickels is proposing is increasing that threshold by from 150 to 400 percent. If approved by City Council it would be a massive gift to developers.

It warms the cockles of one’s heart to think that Nickels is proposing such measures not because he’s in bed with their beneficiaries, but because he wants to save the planet. You see, according to Nickels, anything that makes more money in Seattle for developers by definition discourages sprawl, and therefore helps stop global warming in its tracks. Your new high-end condo could save a polar bear’s life.

But why stop there? Saving the planet is serious business; it won’t be accomplished simply with a tax break here and a gutted regulation there. Nickels needs to think bigger, and undoubtably he is. Look for these proposed measures soon:

* What’s this 20 to 40 stalls nonsense? Abolish parking. Cuts CO2 emissions (except for those clueless out-of-towners circling the block for hours…) and eliminates developers’ need to provide parking.

* Cut down all trees in the city. “More good, socially conscious projects get held up by some stupid old tree than any other single factor,” Nickels will say, before promising to minimize CO2 by replacing each tree with a new twig on a one-to-one basis.

* Abolish all height limits and setback requirements on new buildings. It’s the only conceivable way to save the Inuit way of life.

* Ban back yards.

* Bulldoze all environmentally sensitive areas. (Happily, the city has already gotten a head start on this one.) Lots of potential for new townhomes here.

* Have Seattle taxpayers pay for all construction costs. Expensive, sure, but so is building a levee to save downtown from rising sea levels.

* Rather than paying bothersome, expensive relocation fees to tenants whose homes are being destroyed, developers may simply pass the tenants along to the city, which will shoot them. (They didn’t want to live in Auburn anyway.)

These sure-fire environmental winners are a slam dunk to sail through city council. Just ask newly minted environmentalist Jean Godden, who, when asked for comment on the mayor’s planet-saving proposals, rolled on her back and asked to have her tummy rubbed.

The fact that these ideas, like the mayor’s current proposals, would help to make the mayor’s rich buddies that much richer, is strictly a coincidence. And the fact that they will force still more poor, working, and middle class people out of the city is — well, look, do you want to save that polar bear or not?