Search Results for: ’

SEIU local 925, representing 6,500 University of Washington employees in academic, research and business departments, overwhelmingly voted last night to voluntarily give up scheduled wage increases for 2009-2011.

“Giving up raises won’t stop staff layoffs,” said Anne Lawson, SEIU 925 UW chapter president. “But it will preserve more services for students, faculty and hospital patients, and keep as many experienced staff as possible.”

State employee union leaders aren’t stupid, and everybody I’ve spoken to has seemed more than willing to negotiate concessions to help soften the blow of impending budget cuts.  And that’s the way it should work, rather than the governor or legislature simply imposing wage and benefit cuts, unilaterally abrogating contracts that had been negotiated and signed in good faith.

Don’t miss Kos’s front pager on the hilarious spectacle of Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh engaging each other for control of the GOP. As Markos says about Steele:

When you have to proclaim that “I’m the leader of the Republican Party”, then you are not.

Limbaugh is apparently going to respond to Steele on the radio, which should be hilarious. While most of the news these days ranges from terrible to awful, the Republican Party base genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh is awesomely awesome.

Limbaugh may be the king of AM conservative radio, but that’s not exactly a winning coalition. In fact, it’s not even a coalition, it’s just the tattered remnants of the “angry white male” devotees from twenty years ago. The country has moved on, and normal people want to confront the economic crisis in a meaningful way.

My crystal ball is at the Teletype office having new, lower stock ticker numbers installed, but could this be the true beginning of the end for the Republicans? Hard to see how any “moderates,” meaning in the case of the GOP anyone who isn’t certifiable, can survive in the Limbaugh Party.

UPDATE–Kos points to this post at The Plum Line, where Greg Sargent has some of Limbaugh’s response. Oh, and make sure you’re not drinking hot coffee. Like with this bit:

I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife…

At The Big Picture, Marshall Auerback, an economist and global portfolio strategist for RAB Capital, persuasively lays out the case for a New “New Deal.” The abstract is inside.

[Read more…]

I found this paragraph in co-blogger Paul Andrews’ great post about a proposed apartment building in his neighborhood of Phinney Ridge. Some of the neighbors aren’t happy with the condo’s design, and they met with the Northwest Design Review Board to have their voices heard.

Among those voicing concern was Bruce Ramsey of The Seattle Times, himself a Phinney resident.

“We have a garden, apple trees, plum tree, plants in our windows — that’s a lot of shade,” said next-door neighbor Bruce Ramsey. Step-back upper stories, he said, “and we would get a little more sun.”

After laughing out loud, it made me wonder… Can a principled libertarian fight regulation on the “macro” level, only to embrace nanny-state, ticky-tack regulation locally?

KGW-TV in Portland had an exclusive report last night about the deadly Dec., 2008 bank bombing in Woodburn, Or., that killed two law enforcement officers and seriously wounded a third. It seems the accused suspects, the father-son duo of Bruce Turnidge and Joshua Turnidge, had been planning (or perhaps “fantasizing” is a more accurate term) about robbing banks ever since 1994.

According to a police affidavit, a family friend, Ronald Laughlin, stated that he heard Bruce, Joshua and another family member who has not been charged in the case “speak so often about robbing banks that it became like ‘white noise’. Often, Laughlin said, they’d “discuss methods of robbery including diversions.”

Laughlin described the men as Constitutionalists and anti-government.

According to investigators, in the summer of 1994, Laughlin recalled meeting Joshua and Bruce Turnidge for lunch in Woodburn.

Witness Joshua Turnidge said “he had called the bank and told them there was a bomb and they were to deliver $20,000 to $40,000 to a construction Port-a-potty.” Laughlin said he watched police arrive at the bank.

How odd they were thinking of that in 1994, the summer of love, er, black helicopters. I can’t find seem to find anything in the Constitution about blowing up banks and killing cops, oddly enough.

The new information makes a statement by Oregon Republican chair Vance Day shortly after the deadly Dec., 2008 bombing even more curious.

And the arrests of two members of the Turnidge family — which decades ago helped start the Salem Academy Christian schools — have left those who know the family incredulous.

“I would be very surprised if Bruce Turnidge was involved in that,” said Vance Day, the Oregon GOP chairman and a Salem attorney who has known brothers Bruce and Pat Turnidge for several years. “I know him to be strong, very pro-American. He doesn’t believe in violence of that sort whatsoever.”

Now, it’s true that there be monsters in the world, and sometimes you think you know people and all that. So I have no problem taking at face value the idea that Day was genuinely stunned. It’s not really clear from press accounts what relationship Day had with the Turnidges. Political leaders meet all sorts of folks, take their money, shake their hand and move on.

Still, WTF? And there’s another family member who was also talking about robbing banks in 1994? Remember, this is a fairly prominent family in Salem. Crazy.

Goldy and friends speak frankly and directly on three critical topics. They begin with a bar-room-inspired analysis of Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress. A few swings get thrown at Bobby Jindal and the pursed-lipped ninnies sitting on one side of the chamber. The topic then turns to former Governor Gary Locke, who is on his way to the other Washington to have his tax returns scrutinized. Regardless of a few jabs and hooks, Goldy really does like Locke. Really! Finally, at risk of a total brawl, the panel undertakes the task of fixing Washington State’s budget problems….

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Group News Blog publisher Jesse Wendel, Effin’ Unsound’s and Horsesass’s Carl Ballard, and The Other Side –Online’s John Wyble.

The show is 37:35, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_feb_24_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

WTF? I swear I was just going to ignore the guy, but really.

When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered the official Republican response to President Obama’s speech last night, he blasted elements of the economic stimulus package as “wasteful spending”– among them, “$140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’”

“Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal said.

What was that all about? Well, Congress authorized some of that $140 million to be spent on volcano monitoring, but not all of it, ProPublica notes in a blow-by-blow of the economic recovery package. That line, ProPublica says, is directed to “U.S. Geological Survey facilities and equipment, including stream gages, seismic and volcano monitoring systems and national map activities.”

Just another Republican idiot. You don’t hear Democrats calling NOAA “wasteful spending.” See, here’s the thing–Louisiana is full of our fellow American citizens, and I’m happy the federal government funds research and prediction efforts regarding tropical storms and hurricanes. It’s a necessary and rational function of the government, just like having the USGS monitor volcanoes.

Good lord. Guess Jindal never heard of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, some 45 miles or so as the crow flies from my location. It was in the news and everything at the time.

UPDATE 11:15 PM PST– Now Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, a retired military officer and no shrinking violet, has weighed in (via CNN. com:)

“Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?” Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. “We have one that’s very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently.”

—snip—

Pollard, a former Army officer who has served as Vancouver’s mayor for 14 years, said USGS equipment used to keep tabs on volcanoes is frequently damaged or destroyed. He said he wasn’t sure how many jobs the money could produce, but, “For us and the people who live closer to it than Vancouver, it’s important.”

“We lost lives the last time, and we could lose them again,” he said.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgmc32guso[/youtube]

Yeah sure, I’m a cynic, but I’m guessing I wasn’t the only American watching Bobby Jindal stride up to the camera last night to instantly assume that the equally cynical Republican leadership cast the first-term Louisiana governor in that role, primarily based on the color of his skin.  Gives new meaning to the phrase the minority response.

The GOP is an overwhelmingly white party, and predominantly old, white male at that, and so their relentless efforts to present a diverse face by touting young governors like Jindal and Sarah Palin as party leaders just comes across as pathetic. No doubt Jindal and Palin bring more to the table than a little melanin or estrogen, but if the Republicans are really interested in rejuvenating and recasting themselves, instead of just putting their same-old, same-old rhetoric in the mouth of a younger, darker face, they’d do better for themselves and the nation by elevating the likes of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist… a silver-haired white man, sure, but at least one who appears willing and able to question party orthodoxy during these extraordinary times.

Republicans are understandably envious (and increasingly alarmed) at the Democrats’ growing success with minority voters, but it seems they have the cause-and-effect behind our nation’s political segregation exactly backwards.  Minorities don’t vote for Democrats because we have more minority leaders; Democrats have more minority leaders because we are a fundamentally more inclusive party that supports and promotes policies that better serve the needs of minority communities.  And Republicans just can’t slap a Jindal or a Michael Steele in front of a gaggle of rich, old, white men and magically bridge that gap.

Jindal may indeed be smart and wonky, and perhaps may yet earn his reputation as a rising star, but he is only 37-years-old, and his three years in Congress and one year as governor of one of the most endemically corrupt and mismanaged states in the union hardly recommends him as a national leader.  And judging by the early reviews, last night’s performance didn’t do much to enhance his stature:

National Public Radio’s Juan Williams said that Jindal’s presentation was “sing-songy” and that Jindal looked “childish” compared to Obama. “I think he had a really poor performance tonight, I’m sorry to say,” Williams said on Fox News Channel.

MSNBC’s political site was critical as well: “The Louisiana governor, a Rhodes scholar, is a serious guy who’s known for sometimes being too wonky and even somewhat humorless. Well, he tried too hard NOT to look wonky and humorless. But it didn’t work … his speech seemed to be too much of a brochure about himself rather than about his party and its ideas.”

And then there’s conservative commentator David Brooks’ scathing instant assessment on PBS’s The News Hour:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27UIt0RuMw[/youtube]

Ouch.

Still, I guess that’s okay; Jindal wouldn’t be the first young governor to flop in that role, so it’s hardly a career killer.  Indeed, if history is any guide, Jindal might someday have a promising career as Commerce Secretary.

Nice catch by Niki Sullivan over at the TVW blog during testimony on SB 6035, which would reform the retrospective ratings plan system (the infamous “retro” money that BIAW uses as a slush fund to launch endless and usually untruthful attacks against Democrats.)

Rick D. (Didn’t catch his last name): “The Retro program is desperate for serious reform… this program is completely lacking in rigorous … accounting.” He said he participated in the BIAW Retro pool for some time. He would receive refunds, but never knew why or what it was based on. When he found out the BIAW was using some of the refund money to buy political ads, he protested. He says he was kicked out of the program for questioning it.

But it sounds like a couple of senators weren’t buying it so much:

Sen. Karen Keiser asked Rick if he ever received any safety information from his retro program. Yes, he said. He attended training that was “invaluable.”

Sen. Janea Holmquist said she was having a “hard time believing” that Rick didn’t know where the money was spent. She asked if he was on the board of the program. He said yes, for one meeting.

“I just want to highlight that this is a voluntary program,” Holmquist said. You belong to the Retro pool voluntarily and give them your money voluntarily.

Unless, of course, you say something the BIAW doesn’t like, then they kick you out.

It would be a shame if BIAW had to actually go out and solicit donations to fund its vicious campaigns. It’s pretty clear a lot of their own members don’t even like what they do.

Today Sullivan rounds up the proposed legislation here. Requiring an actuarial review and requiring refunds to members, less administrative costs, sounds pretty reasonable. But wait!

That’s the basic framework. But there’s more: During the 2008 campaign, the state Democratic party raised concerns about the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW, the largest retro program) using some of its retro refund for political activity — something that is not illegal. In the public hearing yesterday, some who testified in opposition to the bill said they thought it was an attempt to curb political speech. Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a sponsor, said the bill has nothing to do with that.

To back the train up to the starting point: most regular citizens would be beyond surprised to know that BIAW funds its political activities from rebates in a worker’s compensation fund. It’s downright sleazy and outrageous, and there’s no logical reason to allow the practice to continue, despite the whimpering from BIAW and others.

It’s a freaking insurance program administered by the state, for crying out loud, and protestations about free speech are more than a little ridiculous in that context. The state is under no obligation to enable BIAW or any other group to divert insurance funds towards politics.

Sure, BIAW will cry like stuck pigs about “retribution,” but who cares? Side with the little people for once, Democrats! All those small contractors deserve to get their money back, especially with the economy in the toilet, not pay for a bunch of horseshit right-wing television ads.

Via Slog…

The senate’s judiciary committee just voted seven to one for a bill that would provide legal immunity to those who call medics for someone overdosing on drugs. The bill is designed to encourage folks, who are afraid of getting busted, to call for help instead of abandoning an overdosing person to die. Drug overdoses killed 700 people in Washington in 2006. […] Only state senator Pam Roach (R-31) voted against the bill.

Which is ironic, considering that Roach is also the only state senator on the committee with a child who has been caught on videotape snorting oxycontin, and subsequently convicted on a felony drug offense.  Go figure.

It is a special evening for the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight’s meeting will be held at Seattle’s Town Hall for a talk entitled “Barack Obama and the Challenge of the Bush Legacy” by Walter Williams (emeritus professor at the UW’s Center for American Politics and Public Policy) and Bryan D. Jones (professor at the University of Texas, Austin Department of Government). Start time is 7:30pm.

After the talk (around 9:00pm) the Drinking Liberally crowd will migrate to a (currently) undisclosed location for debriefing, drinks and discussion.

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for some 320 chapters of Drinking Liberally spread across the earth. There’s bound to be one near you.

Here’s an interesting article from Financial Week that suggests existing law would allow for a faster fix of the insolvent banking system:

The law, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act, was signed into law in 1991. In an interview with Financial Week, Bob Eisenbeis, a former research director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said the FDICIA contains more than enough tools for regulators to help stem the current financial crisis.

If regulators had applied FDICIA’s provisions once the solvency of major banks was first called into question, Mr. Eisenbeis said, many would already have been taken over by Uncle Sam.

That would mean that their good assets would have been separated from their bad and sold off to healthy institutions or other investors.

This, he claims, would have gone a long way toward solving the credit crisis.

The article quotes a blog post made by at The Big Picture by a financial consultant named Christopher Whalen:

“When the Q1 numbers for the financials come out, the children’s hour in DC will end,” Mr. Whalen wrote in a note posted on the blog, The Big Picture. “The markets will react and Washington will finally be forced to have an adult conversation with the global community as to how much we haircut the bondholders.”

Yes, reading and discussing economic and financial stuff gets old, but to regular citizens it sure appears we are still headed off a cliff in many ways. The stimulus plan is a start, of course, but fixing the financial system is now paramount.

If I understand all this, the argument is that the Paulson-Geithner approach has us in a holding pattern. If existing law can be applied as Eisenbeis claims, it would seem to warrant consideration so that we can get on with things. Whatever name people wish to use can be affixed to the action–temporary nationalization, receivership, or my personal suggestion of “restructuring awards,” we need to just do it. The longer uncertainty prevails, the worse things will get.

Props to The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter

Sam Quinones writes about Mexico in the Foreign Policy online magazine:

I’d recently lived in Mexico for a decade, but I’d never seen anything like this. I left in 2004—as it turned out, just a year before Mexico’s long-running trouble with drug gangs took a dark new turn for the worse. Monterrey was the safest region in the country when I lived there, thanks to its robust economy and the sturdy social control of an industrial elite.

…

That week in Monterrey, newspapers reported, Mexico clocked 167 drug-related murders. When I lived there, they didn’t have to measure murder by the week. There were only about a thousand drug-related killings annually. The Mexico I returned to in 2008 would end that year with a body count of more than 5,300 dead. That’s almost double the death toll from the year before—and more than all the U.S. troops killed in Iraq since that war began.

But it wasn’t just the amount of killing that shocked me. When I lived in Mexico, the occasional gang member would turn up executed, maybe with duct-taped hands, rolled in a carpet, and dropped in an alley. But Mexico’s newspapers itemized a different kind of slaughter last August: Twenty-four of the week’s 167 dead were cops, 21 were decapitated, and 30 showed signs of torture. Campesinos found a pile of 12 more headless bodies in the Yucatán. Four more decapitated corpses were found in Tijuana, the same city where barrels of acid containing human remains were later placed in front of a seafood restaurant. A couple of weeks later, someone threw two hand grenades into an Independence Day celebration in Morelia, killing eight and injuring dozens more. And at any time, you could find YouTube videos of Mexican gangs executing their rivals—an eerie reminder of, and possibly a lesson learned from, al Qaeda in Iraq.

Of course, when it comes to the traditional media’s coverage of the drug war, the devastation in Mexico isn’t as interesting as whether or not Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was going to arrest Michael Phelps.

A local pol, via email, rightly rants about our media’s googly-eyed infatuation with bipartisanship:

What the stupid media don’t realize is that it’s a tactic, not a goal. The goal is to get something accomplished. If that something requires bipartisanship to do it, so be it. If it doesn’t, who cares. They’ve made the classic mistake of not caring what the goal is, as long as it’s bipartisan. It’s not a surprising conclusion, really, as long as you frame in the media’s so-called “objectivity” frame. That frame forces themselves to gravitate to the holy grail of bipartisanship, because they are too lame to call some actual goals bullshit, or praise some as actually being worthy. Thus their choices comes down to partisan=bad, bi-partisan=good. No wonder why people have stopped reading their drivel.

And in my opinion, it’s even worse than that, because good or bad, the very notion of “bipartisanship” is usually as illusory as that whole “objectivity” crap.

For example… Obama goes to the Hill.  He meets with Republicans on their turf.  The Dems compromise, making the stimulus package smaller, less progressive, and less effective.  And then House Republicans still vote unanimously against it, including our own local, conscience-driven independent, Dave Reichert.  Bipartisanship my ass.

See, the problem is, even as a tactic, bipartisanship is pointless if not counterproductive if you don’t have an honest, trustworthy partner across the aisle.  And currently, the Dems don’t.