HorsesAss.Org

House Speaker Frank Chopp has some funny ideas. The funniest? Frank wants to cap part of the span of the new Viaduct. What does this mean, exactly?

That great Viaduct view you see while driving north into town? Gone. Instead of a great vista, you get concrete and shadow. If you want a sneak preview, try driving south on the Viaduct now!

Second, putting another level on the Viaduct will make it even taller and more obtrusive than it is now! With a new Viaduct projected to be as much as 50 percent wider, a third deck will make it humongous.

So what goes on that third deck? Plans are for a new park, accessible by skybridge from adjacent buildings. Considering new skybridges on view corridors are against city code, that seems unlikely. Also, would real estate owners warm to the idea of thousands of people a year trudging through their lobbies to access the park? What’s more, it could even exceed the Aurora Bridge in what it’s known for…

Welcome, one and all, to Frank Chopp’s exciting new “Suicide Park”!

The blog Capitol Hill Seattle has an ethical dilemma on their hands:

Metroblogging Seattle put us up against HorsesAss.org in their Blarch Badness tournament. Don’t know if it’s cheating or not but we’ll save you the trip over there to vote.

Hmm. I suppose it might not be cheating to embed the poll — though the only conceivable motive Metroblogging Seattle had in running a tournament was to up their own page views — but it is certainly bad strategy. I wasn’t even aware of this poll until I saw a couple links come in from CHS’s post, but now that I am, hell if I’m going to be out-cheated.

Yeah sure, it’s entirely petty and childish. All the more reason to vote in the poll and kick the living bejeebus out of those dirty, traitorous cheaters over at CHS.

Of course the big news from the military court martial front this week was the surprise mistrial in the case of Lt. Ehren Watada. But the less publicized case of Marine Cpl. Trent Thomas, accused in the kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian, presents an interesting parallel to Lt. Watada’s legal defense, while raising disturbing questions about the government’s efforts to undermine it.

Lt. Watada refused an order to deploy to Iraq, a statement of fact so undisputed that the defendant signed a stipulation that he would not contest it. Prosecutors understood this stipulation to be a signed confession, and thus presented little evidence otherwise supporting the charge. But Lt. Watada insists that the deployment order was unlawful, because the war itself is illegal under U.S. and international law. Under his oath of service, Lt. Watada argues, he has both a legal and moral obligation to refuse to follow an unlawful order. Admitting to the facts, Lt. Watada told the court, was not an admission of guilt. It was this failure to achieve a “meeting of minds” between Lt. Watada and the prosecutors that the presiding judge cited in throwing out the stipulation and instigating a mistrial.

Lt. Watada’s legal defense has always relied on the argument that he cannot be convicted of refusing to follow an unlawful order — a defense the judge did not allow his attorney to present. Prosecutors have argued that Lt. Watada should not be allowed to put the war itself on trial, even if that is his only means of proving his innocence. Our military, they argue, cannot function without strict discipline, and strict military discipline requires that soldiers unflinchingly follow their commanders’ orders. In refusing to allow him to argue the illegality of his deployment order, the government asserts that Lt. Watada had no legal right to question it.

Compare that to the case of Cpl. Trent Thomas, who after having an “epiphany” decided to put himself at risk of the death penalty yesterday, by withdrawing his guilty plea in the brutal killing of an Iraqi civilian.

Cpl. Trent Thomas, 25, pleaded guilty as part of a pretrial agreement to several charges Jan. 18, including kidnapping and murder, in the slaying of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamandia last year. But Thomas said Thursday that he no longer believes he’s guilty and was following a lawful order.

”Sir, when my country gives me an order, I follow it,” Thomas told the judge, Lt. Col. Tracy A. Daly, adding that his squad leader and his lieutenant gave the order.

Cpl. Thomas’s defense rests on the assertion that he was issued a lawful order, whereas Lt. Watada’s defense rests on the assertion that he was not.

Hmm.

In a capital offense such as this, one can only assume that the government will give Cpl. Thomas the opportunity to present his evidence in court, but even if he succeeds in proving he was following his commanders’ orders, it is hard to imagine that he could be fully exonerated for his actions. This question of whether an order is lawful or not is not an esoteric legalism concocted out of thin air by Lt. Watada and his attorney; it is an issue routinely examined by military courts in cases such as that of Cpl. Thomas. Cpl. Thomas and his cohorts allegedly kidnapped a man, forced him into a hole, shot him, and then attempted to make it look like the victim was an insurgent planting a bomb, by placing an AK-47 and shovel next to his body. Perhaps his squad leader and lieutenant really did order him to execute a murder… but that doesn’t make it a lawful order.

Critics of Lt. Watada have long argued that this is an open and shut case — that he refused to follow an order, and thus should pay the penalty for his insubordination. But if soldiers like Cpl. Thomas can be convicted and punished for following an order, shouldn’t the alleged unlawfulness of an order be a valid defense against charges of insubordination? And if so, then shouldn’t the court permit Lt. Watada to present evidence of the illegality of our war in Iraq, the very basis of his claim that his order to deploy was unlawful?

Lt. Watada and his attorney have no illusions that they are likely to convince a military jury that the United States is in the midst of executing an illegal war in Iraq. But if he is denied the right to defend himself, it sets a very dangerous precedent: either any order to act unlawfully places a soldier at risk of court martial, regardless of their actions, or… we are willing to accept “I was only following orders” as a valid legal defense to obeying any order, no matter how heinous.

In yet another sign that the Viaduct Rebuild option is losing public support while the Surface-Plus-Transit option picks up steam, rumors are swirling that the state is prepared to spring a “February Surprise” on voters just weeks before a March 13 special election. According to multiple sources WSDOT will announce next week a new smaller, less expensive Rebuild-Lite proposal, an 11th-hour, 4-lane redesign that shaves tons of concrete and $400 million off the current 6-lane design’s $2.8 billion estimated cost.

Um… I think the governor just blinked.

In dismissing Seattle Mayor Greg Nickel’s Tunnel-Lite, state officials called the proposal untested, unstudied and two-years too late to the table, and yet Rebuild-Lite would borrow its primary innovation, a 4-lane design with wide shoulders that can be used as exit lanes during peak traffic hours. And unfortunately for rebuild proponents, I’m guessing the two Lite options would also share the same reputation as hastily concocted political gambits designed more to move voters than drivers.

The same arguments used to attack Tunnel-Lite can now be used to attack its Rebuild cousin: it is untested, unstudied and two-years too late to the table. And after years of being told that only a six-lane elevated replacement can maintain or increase traffic capacity at an affordable price, voters will now be asked to trust WSDOT that their last-minute 4-lane design can do the same job at a lower cost.

Clearly intended to influence voters in favor of a rebuild, the new, slimmed-down proposal would likely only sow confusion. Rather than being faced with the choice between the uncertain design and cost of a Tunnel-Lite versus an unappealing but unsurprising rebuild, voters will now have absolutely no idea what they’ll be getting (or paying) from either proposal. And I’m not sure what kind of mandate a 4-lane elevated structure can garner from a non-binding advisory measure that describes “a six-lane elevated structure, increased to four lanes in each direction between South King Street and new ramps at Seneca and Columbia Streets.”

Not only would an abrupt switch to a 4-lane proposal undermine the rebuild option’s most compelling feature — familiarity — it would also undermine the primary arguments against considering a Surface-Plus-Transit solution. If a 4-lane tunnel or elevated structure can suddenly maintain the same traffic capacity as the long proposed 6-lane versions, why can’t a 6-lane boulevard? And if there’s plenty of time at this late stage of the game to dramatically re-jigger both the tunnel and elevated designs, why can’t we find the time to properly study a Surface-Plus-Transit solution?

Yeah, at this point the Rebuild-Lite proposal is still just a rumor. But should it come true it will likely upset the current political dynamics of the public debate over how to replace the Viaduct… and not necessarily in the way rebuild proponents intend.

An inside politics/inside blogosphere brouhaha ended today with a statement from Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards that he would not fire two campaign staffers over “offensive” comments written on their personal-but-prominent liberal blogs. Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister had been hired to head Edwards’ blogging and netroots outreach efforts, but came under attack from right-wingers like Michelle Malkin and others for prior posts containing foul and offensive language. And in recent days Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had been making the rounds of conservative talk shows, loudly demanding the bloggers’ scalps, accusing them of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I’m sure the righties are uniformly disappointed that Edwards didn’t buckle under their cynical attacks — that’s what they’ve come to expect from Democrats — but reaction from the left has been mixed. The Stranger’s Erica Barnett, writing on her personal blog, is not alone in wishing that Edwards had defended Marcotte and McEwan more decisively and aggressively:

“Yes, Edwards ultimately made the right choice. But I’m not impressed by the way he initially caved under pressure. If right-wing bigots have this much clout over Edwards (and Edwards expressed no concerns about either blogger whatsoever until the wingers complained, so don’t tell me it was a sudden, unrelated revelation), I’m no longer sure he’s the kind of candidate I can support.”

As fellow HA blogger Will can attest, I’m no Edwards partisan (he is,) but I do not share Barnett’s disappointment. Rather, I think that when viewed in context, Edwards’ actions come off bolder and more significant than they first appear.

Edwards is not a “netroots candidate.” He is a creature of the D.C. political establishment, and as such has surrounded himself with advisors drawn from the consultancy class that Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong have targeted as the primary obstacle to progressive ascension in their book “Crashing the Gates.” You can be sure that risk-adverse advisors — who fear hand-to-hand combat with the far-right almost as much as they fear the growing influence of the progressive netroots — strongly urged Edwards to dump Marcotte and McEwan. Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if yesterday’s inaccurate firing story had been leaked by Edwards advisors seeking to force his hand.

In that context, Edwards decision to ignore the “safe” advice is not only a measure of his loyalty towards staffers who rearranged their lives to join his campaign, but an acknowledgment of a changing political landscape in which grassroots political activists are playing a larger role in turning out the vote and shaping public opinion. The conventional wisdom of the Democratic political establishment would have had Edwards jettison Marcotte and McEwan “for the good of the campaign.” The fact that it was a conventional establishment politician who rejected this wisdom is significant in itself.

Some seem disappointed by Edwards lack of forcefulness, but considering his political background and previous campaigns, I view Edwards defense of Marcotte and McEwan — however tempered — as a welcome departure from Democratic establishment business as usual. While not exactly courageous, it does show growth.

Furthermore, we cannot emphasize enough the significance of this incident in regards to what it portends for other campaigns and the blogosphere in general. Malkin/Donohue et al had intended to lower the bar on public discourse to the point where no liberal blogger who had ever put forth a controversial opinion or dabbled in the joys of foul and abusive language could seek gainful employment again. Had Edwards fired Marcotte and McEwan for language they had previously used on their own personal blogs, the far-righties and their media surrogates would have demanded that the other Democratic candidates fire their foul-mouthed bloggers too. The witch hunt would have been on, and once they had cleared the political establishment of us “hate-talking” lefties, the right’s attention would surely turn towards the private sector.

Malkin herself is a bile-spewing fascist who defends the Japanese internment and lionizes Sen. Joe McCarthy and his anti-democratic blacklists. This was never about Marcotte and McEwan. It was about silencing her political enemies. For his part Donohue now promises a “nationwide public relations blitz” against Edwards, attacking him for his religious “bigotry”… this from a man who freely laces his own public statements with anti-semitic rhetoric.

By standing up to Malkin and Donohue when it would have been much easier to cave, Edwards has decided to take a blow on behalf of a nascent progressive netroots movement most establishment Democrats neither fully understand nor appreciate. Whether or not he is my candidate, this blogger is going to stand up for Edwards in return.

Speculate all you want about Seattle developer Martin Selig’s $10,000 contribution to the No Tunnel Pro-Rebuild Alliance, but from what I hear, political payback is likely a factor. Selig is still pissed off at Mayor Greg Nickels for forcing him to pay his electric bill, and nothing would please him more than to fuck with the Mayor’s Viaduct plans in return.

Notorious for his ethical ambivalence, Selig’s standard business practice seems to be predicated on the assumption that fighting long past-due bills costs far less than the profit to be earned from investing the money elsewhere. Back in 2004 it took a strongly worded shut-off notice sent to Selig’s tenants to force him to pay a $950,000 Seattle City Light bill, but unsuspecting vendors, contractors and partners who lack such leverage are apparently forced to accept pennies on the dollar, or pursue their accounts receivable in court.

And yet Selig, routinely unable to to pay his own bills, somehow managed to scrape up $927,000 in spare change to spend on an initiative to repeal the estate tax, and hundreds of thousands of dollars more killing the Monorail.

Already the Pro-Rebuild Alliance’s largest donor, you can be certain Selig is willing to spend plenty more to assure that a massive, double-decker freeway continues to run through Seattle’s waterfront. And to finance his civic participation, you can be sure that some contractor or vendor somewhere is going to be stiffed this month by Martin Selig.

The Washington State GOP has a new message wherein they attack Democrats for trying to restore voting rights to felons. It’s called “Families Before Felons.” Though for State Senator Pam “The Pistol” Roach, the message might as well be “Felons In My Family.”

A transit riders union? It’s goofy-sounding, but it might just work!

Rep. Doc Hastings: would you like some cheese with your whine?

Michael Dunmire: Proof you don’t have to have sense to be rich.

Ron Sims calls bullshit.

Oh yeah, and that Watada guy is off the hook (for now).

I need to have some repairs done to my 2001 Nissan Altima — alignment and suspension, and likely a bent tie-rod from slamming into a curb on an icy road. No body work, or anything like that.

Can anybody here recommend a good mechanic? I’m not necessarily looking for the cheapest, but rather somebody who is trustworthy, who will give me a straight deal and do reliable work. A convenient South Seattle location would be a plus.

I more than enjoy poking my finger in the eye of the Seattle Times editorial board, but the truth is, I often agree with many of their editorials. For instance, today’s editorial, “Let voters decide school-levy rules,” is not only dead on the money, it is particularly well reasoned and argued.

Maybe if politicians had to be elected by a 60-percent supermajority, they’d be quicker to understand the unfair burden such a requirement imposes on school levies.

[…] Nearly all of the state’s 296 districts rely on levy funds, some for 18 to 21 percent of their operating budgets. In Seattle, the levy accounts for 25 percent of the district’s budget.

The state ought to fund education better, but until it does, levy funds will make or break a district’s budget. It is unfair that a minority of citizens can punish a school system. Yet it happens. Several years ago, a levy in the Arlington School District failed with 59.7 percent of the vote. The majority of citizens said yes and still the district had to spend additional money and time on a second campaign.

Yesterday, Seattle voters once again approved new school levies by a comfortable margin, but had one or both failed with only 59-point-something percent of the vote, folks like our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics would undoubtedly be kvelling over their huge political victory. Think about it. In any other election this would be considered a landslide, but when it comes to school levies our constitution transforms a near 20-point margin into a public rebuke.

The same sort of folks who condemn raising the initiative filing from $5 to $100 as an unprincipled attack on direct democracy want the fate of our schools to rest in the hands of only 40-percent-plus-one of the electorate? Huh? It just doesn’t make any sense that funding our children’s education should be made more difficult than nearly any other democratic exercise.

And as the Times points out, this whole issue is about democracy.

Changing the levy rules requires amending the state constitution; voters will ultimately decide this issue — that is, if the Legislature passes the bill and gives voters a chance.

[…] Voters have a stake in this. The Senate ought to let them speak.

The legislature doesn’t have the final say on this, the people do. Our state Constitution prescribes that any amendment must ultimately be approved by a simple majority of voters. It is time to let the people decide if the same rules should apply to school levy elections.

I was accused of pouring it on a little thick in my last post about FoS. Truth be told, when I hear about folks doing what they can to make the city a better place, I just get weak in the knees. Call it post-Monorail syndrome, but I feel like digging in again. I think that’s where the passion about Seattle’s waterfront comes from. As a callow youth, if we really decide to put another freeway on the waterfront, I’ll have to live with the god awful mistake for longer than most of you. I got skin in the game.

In short, the FoS event was a smash. The room was packed. Lots of people: electeds, activists, hacks, and two bloggers. The crowd was quite youthful compared to most political events I’ve been to.

I don’t know if I’ll be an active part of this group. I don’t like to hitch my wagon to just anything. (Exception: Mike Lowry for Commissioner of Public Lands in ’00. Forgive me!) Besides, it’s not all “viaduct”. I want to see the new streetcar integrated into downtown. I want to see better parks downtown, even if that means getting tough on the homeless folks who’ve taken them over. I want to see the city make a greater effort to facilitate affordable housing. And more cops… way, way, WAY more cops on the beat.

If the coming Viaduct vote goes against me (My vote? No on Rebuild, No on Tunnel), and Seattle residents see fit to approve another freeway, so be it. I don’t have any kids, so I’m not too tied down. I can always move to a city that won’t build a freeway on it’s waterfront. You know… like Milwaukee!

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join me for a hoppy Manny’s and some hopped up conversation.

I’m also planning to stop by tonight’s kickoff event for Friends of Seattle, 6:00 PM at Twist Restaurant & Lounge, 2313 First Ave (First & Bell). Hope to see you there.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

The same people who want you to turn the music down! Josh Feit explains.

Check out the No Tunnel Alliance blog. Look at who is pushing for the rebuild, and whose support they tout: Helen Sommers, Joni Balter (and the Seattle Times editorial page), Joel Connelly, the Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans, Nick Licata …

It is a veritable who’s who of Seattle oldsters.

The rebuild is endorsed by the WSARA? (Their slogan: “We’d like some deli and a comfortable chair.”) I think retired people are great, don’t get me wrong. They still use checks, drive the speed limit, and their houses smell like medicine. But…

Of course, if we take their advice and rebuild this monstrosity, most of these folks won’t be around in 25 years to explain why the city made such a dumb mistake.

A friend who works in politics once told me a story about a room full of folks listening to a transportation planner talk about the region’s future. The speaker says, “Now, most of this won’t come to fruition until the year 2015…”

An old man rose to his feet, and slowly walked out of the meeting. I guess he figured he’d be dead by then.

The question of how to replace the viaduct is too important to be left only to those who’ll never see it’s consequences.

Today is election day in Seattle, with Seattle School District operations and capital levies on the ballot. Our friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics wants you to vote “no” on both:

I’m voting NO on both levies for a very simple reason. The school district is in crisis, and the only foreseeable spur for meaningful change is a cataclysmic event such as a levy defeat. And meanwhile, “for the children” rhetoric or not, the grown-ups running the School District haven’t convinced me they’ll do a particularly good job of spending my money.

Yeah, well, I’m guessing Stefan doesn’t have any children in the Seattle public schools, and thus the cataclysmic event he wishes for is purely theoretical as far as his own family’s experience. However, for the children who do attend the city’s public schools, the cataclysm of their school suddenly losing twenty-five percent of its funding would be very, very real.

In fact, voting against the operations levy would be downright immoral.

Stefan says that the district is “in crisis,” and while I agree that the district has significant financial, management and leadership problems that need to be turned around, it is far from the crisis experienced by many big city school districts elsewhere in the nation. And, um, even if you believe the district is in crisis… how does slashing funding by twenty-five percent solve the problem?

The fact is, a “cataclysmic event” is exactly what Stefan and other righties want, for they simply don’t believe in public education as the great equalizer in American society, and apparently, they’re willing to sacrifice a generation of students to make a political point.

But I’m not. So as angry as I still am at the district and school board over what I learned during the school closure process, I’ll be voting for both levies today. The operations levy is a no-brainer — you might as well just shut down the district without it.

The capital levy, well, there’s no question that the district’s capital spending needs to be reprioritized and better managed, but we’re so far into a multi-phase capital improvement plan that it just isn’t fair to the schools that have patiently waited for their turn to suddenly cut the money off. A few weeks back I met with former CAC member Melissa Westbrook — who is urging a “no” vote on the capital levy. We had a long conversation about the district’s capital plans, and I agree with many of her concerns. But there are many more deserving projects in the upcoming phase than there are those that should be eliminated or scaled back, so I don’t believe that this levy vote is the proper outlet for sending a message… especially since so few voters understand the details of the capital plan they would be sending a message about.

That’s why I urge you to vote “yes” on both the operations and capital levies… and then work harder over the next two years to help move our school district forward in the right direction. Don’t just get angry; get involved.

Let me just say right off the bat that if the state legislature approves $300 million in sales tax on restaurants, hotels and car rentals in King County to pay for a new Sonics arena, it will be a slap in the face of Seattle voters.

Just this November Seattle voters overwhelmingly rejected public funding of a new arena, and now Sen. Margarita Prentice (D-Renton) wants to tax us anyway… to build a new arena in Renton or Bellevue? She wants Seattle voters — who represent the bulk of the county’s population and thus would pick up the bulk of the cost — to pay for a new arena outside the city limits? And after we expressly rejected public subsidies, she now wants to force us to finance an arena that would compete for events with city-owned Key Arena, thus costing us even more money?

This is like rubbing salt in a fresh wound.

Prentice said that when details of the plan come out, support will follow. Other lawmakers have “enjoyed letting me stick my neck out, which I have done from time to time, but there will be support for it,” she said.

Hmm. Perhaps. Fucking Seattle is always a popular position elsewhere in the state. But Seattle Democrats should be awfully wary about supporting Prentice’s bill — just because you’re in a safe Democratic district doesn’t mean your seat is safe.

Andrew at NPI is more than a touch pissed off at our state’s editorial boards, and rightly so, for giving initiative guru profiteer Tim Eyman a free ride. But Andrew fails to ask the all important question, why? Why does the media still pretend that a self-promoter, admitted liar, and insufferably arrogant prick like Tim still has any credibility at all?

Hmm. Well, maybe it has something do with the fact that Tim is a self-promoter, admitted liar, and insufferably arrogant prick? Combine that with his talent for giving good quote, and you’ve got the makings of a good story. And after all, that’s what our media is in the business of selling: good stories.

It’s kind of like the Seattle Times’ vigorous defense of the Sonics’ efforts to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers. The Times needs the Sonics, because sports coverage sells newspapers. So the Times has a vested interest in keeping the Sonics in the region.

Likewise, the Times and our state’s other newspapers have a vested interest in maintaining the current initiative process as the corrupt and broken system it is today. Controversial initiatives and controversial sponsors sell papers, no matter how mind-numbingly stupid or insufferably arrogant they might be.

Trust me, I know.