Goldy

The Seattle Times editorial board has, of course, come out in favor of handing over a couple acres of the Seattle Center to a wealthy local family to build a for profit museum. Much more on this editorial later, but…

Seattle Center officials should have opened to all comers the possibility of siting a project on the south side of the Fun Forest. That would have made Chihuly’s glass house a cleaner proposition.

The way forward now is to seek proposals for other privately funded ideas. Exhaust the possibilities, sate the process hounds, then proceed with this promising upgrade.

Honestly, how fucking condescending can they get?

The same ed board that pees its pants over sunshine and open government advises to simply make a charade of it when it comes to a private deal with one of Frank Blethen’s Rainier Club drinking partners.

I think with these two paragraphs the Times has pretty much written itself off as a serious contributor to this particular conversation.

Another day, another intentionally misleading, anti-labor editorial from the Seattle Times:

LAST year organized labor pushed a bill to restrict a company’s ability to talk to its employees. It was marketed as the Worker Privacy Act, and its aim was to shut up managers during the organizing of a union, so that only the union organizer would be heard.

That, of course, is a load of crap. The Worker Privacy Act would have done nothing to restrict a company’s ability to talk to its employees, it didn’t “shut up managers,” and would not have assured that only union organizers would be heard. Employers would have been just as free to oppose unionization as they are now, even to hold meetings expressly for that purpose. The only difference under WPA would be that employees would be equally free, if they so chose, not to participate in such non-work related meetings (regarding unions, religion, politics, etc.) without fear of retaliation.

As it stands now, your employer  can call a meeting for the sole purpose of proselytizing and converting non-Christian workers, and then fire your ass if you walk out or choose not to attend. They can force you to attend a companywide Tea Party. Or they can crowd you into a room without a union representative, and cajole/harangue/threaten as much as they want in their effort prevent unionization. That’s the inequity the WPA sought to address.

No law like it existed in any other state.

You know, except for neighboring Oregon, and I’m guessing a few other states. But regardless, that’s an incredibly stupid argument prima facie. No other nation guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of speech at the time our First Amendment was adopted, so would that have been a reasonable argument to reject it? According to the Times, yes.

Business hated it, and Democratic leaders, elected with union support, found an excuse to kill it.

In a hyperbolic charade intended to provide political cover for scuttling the bill, Democratic leaders literally called the cops on labor over an internal email that state troopers and other watchdogs ultimately laughed off. And the Times presents this as a good thing?

The spirit of this bill resurfaced deep in the 292-page budget measure, ESSB 6444, moving through the Legislature. Certain employers receiving state funds would be forbidden “to use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.” The “or deter” is what this is about.

This restriction is not for all employers. It is only on those providing long-term care or services to people with disabilities. But the principle is the same: The state would use its spending power to favor unions.

You gotta be kidding. The 30-word provision in question has absolutely nothing to do with the WPA. The WPA would have protected workers from retaliation when choosing not to participate in workplace communications related to issues of conscience. On the other hand, here is the specific language to which the Times objects:

“No employer, provider, or entity receiving state funds to provide long-term care services or services to the developmentally disabled may use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.”

Would the Times object to the provision had the word “deter” been deleted? No, of course not. Indeed, the Times wouldn’t even have been aware of the provision had it not been brought to their attention by the Association of Washington Businesses. (You don’t think the Times’ editors are actually in the habit of reading 292-page bills, do you?)

In fact, the provision is actually quite evenhanded, as it prohibits an “employer, provider, or entity” from using state funds to “assist” or “promote” union organization, as well as to “deter” it — specifically and only within the context of providing long-term care to the developmentally disabled. And yes, there are union “entities” that receive state funds for the purpose of providing training to long-term care workers, that would fall under this provision, so it does impact employers and unions alike.

Oh, and it’s not like this provision was added without provocation. Long-term care employers have used state funds to hold mandatory “training” meetings for the purpose of deterring union activities… and they’ve been caught on video. The Times is all gung ho about reducing the footprint of state government while protecting seniors from shoddy long-term care, yet apparently the editors believe mandatory anti-union meetings to be an appropriate use of taxpayer funded training dollars. Go figure.

Here, not coincidentally, the benefit would go the state’s most politically aggressive union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

And here, not coincidentally, is the crux of this issue. The Times just hates SEIU, and thus anything SEIU supports, the Times opposes. SEIU = evil incarnate.

Compared to the whole economy, long-term-care homes are not large. But if this provision goes through once, it will be used again. “We view this provision as a crossing of the Rubicon,” said Kris Tefft, counsel to the Association of Washington Business.

AWB = second coming of Christ on Earth.

Oh… and I’m sure SEIU and the provision’s sponsor were asked to provide a comment too, but just never got around to it.

Let us be clear: Under federal labor law, unions can speak to workers. So can employers. A state cannot abridge the rights of either side. The U.S. Supreme Court said so recently in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (2007). There the Court threw out a California law that forbade any employer receiving $10,000 in state money from using it “to assist, promote or deter union organizing.”

Let us be clear: the Seattle Times editorial board has the legal acumen of a walnut, and is no more in the habit of reading (let alone understanding) obscure court opinions than it is of spelunking through the details of 292-page legislative bills. Like the provision in question, the Times was only made aware of this court case through the tireless PR efforts of the water-walking, loaves-and-fishes-multiplying AWB, and you can be pretty damn sure that the Times’ interpretation of Chamber of Commerce v. Brown came straight from the mouth of AWB. So forgive me if I don’t take it at face value.

In fact, Chamber of Commerce v. Brown appears to very narrowly focus on whether or not the National Labor Relations Act preempts state restrictions that attempt to regulate employer speech about union organizing under circumstances where Congress intended free debate. A quick reading of both the decision and the dissent makes it clear that the entire case rests on interpreting Congressional intent.

But while the California statute rejected under Chamber of Commerce v. Brown was broad, the particular provision to which the Times objects (at the apparent behest of AWB), merely seeks to reiterate a policy that is already in federal Medicare and Medicaid law, and thus unambiguously sanctioned by Congress. The Medicare provider manual states that “Costs incurred for activities directly related to influencing employees respecting unionization or related to attempts to coerce employees or otherwise interfere with or restrain the exercise of employee rights under the NLRA are not allowable costs for program purposes,” and a few minutes of Googling reveals that this language is duplicated in state Medicaid regulations throughout the nation. (Minnesota, North Dakota and Alabama, for example.)

The ruling was 7-2, with the Court’s senior liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens, laying down the law.

Well, as long as the Times is lauding a liberal justice — you know, when it believes it suits its purpose — let’s take a look at what Justice Stevens actually wrote:

[T]he mere fact that Congress has imposed targeted federal restrictions on union-related advocacy in certain limited contexts does not invite the States to override federal labor policy in other settings.

That is the heart of the majority opinion, and since ESSB 6444 imposes targeted advocacy restrictions within the exact same limited context and setting as that already provided under federal law, it is clearly permissible, and the Times application of Chamber of Commerce v. Brown to ESSB 6444 is clearly wrong. Ignorant, misinformed, boneheaded wrong.

The same language Justice Stevens struck down has been in and out of the budget bill in Olympia. It is a bad provision and has to stay out.

Like I said… the legal acumen of a walnut.

But then, that’s the kind of foolishness that comes from letting your hatred of organized labor get in the way of the facts.

The Seattle Times editorial board is starting to sound like a broken record:

There is still time to make structural spending changes and reduce the footprint of government, but the moment is passing.

And that is a lost opportunity.

Yeah, maybe, but the point the Times’ editors seem to miss is that voters didn’t elect Democrats to “reduce the footprint of government.” That’s the Republican platform, one which voters consistently reject. So, um, why exactly should the Democrats use this economic crisis as an opportunity to enact the Republican agenda when the majority of voters clearly prefer the Democratic platform?

Now if the Times wanted to dis Dems for failing to take the opportunity to enact structural revenue changes, that might be more in line with the will of the people, instead of just the will of the people who own newspapers.

Oy…

From McGinn’s perspective, Chihuly’s “glass house” spells revenue. He says that the $500,000 in annual lease payments could be enough to operate the city’s libraries for a week, or to hire five police officers or seven crime-victim advocates.

Well, by that measure, why not just sell off the real estate entirely? If leasing the Fun Forest property to a for-profit, pay-per-view museum can raise enough money to hire five police officers, just think how many police officers we could hire if started selling off chunks of the Seattle Center to developers of high-priced condos?

And years from now, when there’s no more money from the sale to subsidize basic public services, and there’s no more Seattle Center land to sell off, well, that’s future generations’ problem.

Yet again the Seattle Times editorial board has strongly urged Congress and/or the President to drop health care reform, focus on other issues, and start over from scratch. And yet again the Times has attempted to cover their motives with the following caveat:

For years, this newspaper has favored health care reform. We still favor it, done at the right time and in the right way.

Yeah, well, forgive my cynicism, but I’m not so sure.

As compromised as the current bill is, if history is any guide, this is our last, best chance to pass health care reform for at least a generation. Surely, the Times editors don’t believe that given such a disastrous political failure, Congress or the President would be willing to buck history and touch this rail again anytime soon? Certainly the Times isn’t suggesting that smaller Democratic majorities in both houses, or even a Republican majority in one or the other, would be more likely to pass health care reform than the relatively large Democratic majorities we hold at the moment? The Republicans are clearly invested in blocking reform at any cost, and view this obstructionist strategy as absolutely critical to their long term political survival.

So I can only assume that the Times is being either naive or disingenuous when they repeatedly and aggressively urge Democrats to abandon health care reform at the same time they claim to support it.

Here’s my theory. The Times used to support health care reform, as like most businesses, they saw rising employee health insurance costs as threatening their economic survival. But with the collapse of the newspaper industry, and the large number of journalists and other related professionals now out of work, supply and  demand has shifted so far in favor of the publisher that health care costs have ceased to be much of an issue. Newspaper employees are just thankful to have a job, and have repeatedly granted wage and benefit concessions to the Times and other papers nationwide.

If health insurance costs continue to rise, the Times will simply demand even more concessions, with the implied threat that recalcitrant employees can always be replaced by those hungry enough to do the job for less.

Health care crisis solved.

Yeah, I know, that’s an awfully cynical theory. But the only reasonable alternative would be to assume that the Times editors are a bunch of blithering idiots who genuinely and inexplicably believe that defeating health care reform is the surest path toward achieving it… and such a brutally harsh assessment just wouldn’t be polite.

If you’re wondering why I’ve sat back and allowed Jon DeVore to use HA as a forum for promoting the candidacy of State Sen. Craig Pridemore to succeed U.S. Rep. Brian Baird in WA-03, well, this video should tell you everything you need to know.

Of course, with a controversial and uncertain House vote nearly upon us, the politically prudent thing to do would be to keep quiet until the outcome is determined. No need to expend political capital in a losing cause, and all that. And that’s exactly the path that Pridemore’s main Democratic opponent, Denny Heck has chosen.

But not Pridemore. This is a guy who clearly wants to go to the other Washington not just to be a representative, but to represent the people back home. There’s an authenticity in this video that one doesn’t often see from politicians these days, and I sure hope Pridemore’s consultants don’t attempt to polish it out of him.

Yeah sure, Pridemore is the more progressive of the two candidates, and of course that helps earn my support, but I’m also a pragmatist who fully understands that WA-03 is a swing district in which sometimes the less progressive Democrat is the better choice in August if that’s the only Democrat who can win in November. But I simply don’t believe that Heck’s more “moderate” tack gives him that advantage… not in this race, and not in this election cycle.

Heck comes off as just another politician, and maybe that’s good enough in some years, but not in 2010 when there’s a backlash brewing against politics as usual. Pridemore on the other hand is a guy who I believe can genuinely connect with voters, given the resources and opportunity to do so. And that’s why I’m convinced that Pridemore represents the Democrats’ best shot at holding WA-03 in November.

But don’t take my word for it. Check out Pridemore’s website for yourself. And if you come away as impressed as I have, you might want to consider throwing him a few bucks.

For the first time since I learned about the King County Conservation District elections a few years back, the King County Conservation Voters endorsed candidate has finally won one of these bizarre, nearly secret elections. So congratulations to Max Prinsen, who topped runner-up Mara Heiman, 1,772 to 1,488.

So now that we’ve proven that pro-conservation forces can win an election that in recent years had proven the only race that KC Republicans could reliably count on, I’d like to take the opportunity to publicly suggest that we scrap this election entirely.

4,232 conscientious citizens cast ballots in yesterday’s election, better than 50% more than the 2,757 ballots cast in 2009… which in itself was a huge increase over previous years, when a mere few hundred votes was sometimes all that was needed to assure victory. But that’s still a tiny fraction of the roughly one million registered voters in King County.

So if we really can’t afford to piggyback the KCCD election onto a primary or general election ballot — when, you know, people actually vote — why even bother holding it? Two of the board’s five seats are already appointed by the three elected members, so why not just appoint them all? Maybe distribute the appointments geographically amongst the nine County Council members, so as to assure that rural voters receive adequate representation?

I know, I know… nobody votes for less democracy, but a countywide election with less than 1% turnout is a farce. It’s past time we admitted it, and eliminated the KCCD election all together.

The good news is that there’s a 90 minute wait to vote at the Bellevue library polling station, so I guess the turnout is relatively high. And the bad news is that there’s a fucking 90 minute wait to vote at the Bellevue library polling station!

The parking lot is overflowing and the line is so long people are walking away in disgust. If you wanted to design an election to discourage participation, this would be the way to do it. You know, the Republicans’ dream system.

What a joke.

When I talk about a really kick–ass playground to replace the Seattle Center’s Fun Forest, instead of the pay-per-view Chihuly museum that’s been proposed, of course I’m thinking of a space mostly aimed at kids. But I emphasize the “mostly.”

This is an opportunity to let our imaginations run wild and build something appealing to kids of all ages. Yeah, sure, we could build just another museum. Or we could build a public “playground” that could ultimately prove just as iconic as the Space Needle itself.

Unless, you know, Seattle just isn’t up to the challenge.

The world’s stupidest election has come around again, with the King County Conservation District giving new meaning to the term “secret ballot.” Dozens of voters will gather today at seven libraries throughout the county to cast ballots in a race that nobody but dedicated environmentalists and self-interested developers even know exists.

No publicity. No convenient neighborhood polling places. No mail-in ballot. It’s pretty much democracy at its worse.

That said, I suppose I’ll attempt to find the polling-place/library closest to a Trader Joe’s, and try to make the most of the inconvenience, casting my ballot for either Kirk Prindle or Max Prinsen. As Lee mentioned, Kirk is a friend of Howie, and thus a friend of HA, who has managed to make it out to a couple DL’s. But Prinsen has the endorsement of the King County Conservation Voters, and I’d hate to see our side split their vote.

Anyway, I’m probably voting for Prindle, but you use your own judgment. Just get out there and vote.

As legislators prepare to close Washington’s $2.6 billion budget gap, partially by imposing a tax on carbonated beverages, a new scientific study confirms the obvious… that taxing soft drinks can make young people healthier.

The study, which collected food intake data from 12,123 young adults for 20 years, found that with every 10 percent increase in the price of a two-liter bottle, people consumed 7 percent fewer calories from soda. They also took in fewer calories over all.

When people faced an even larger increase — $1 for a two-liter bottle of soda, comparable to a proposed tax in Philadelphia — they consumed 124 fewer calories a day, the study found. The lower soda intake was associated with a drop in weight of more than two pounds — and a lower risk for pre-diabetes. The study appears in the March 8 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

Now some might argue against any government effort to influence behavior by distorting the price of one product over another, yet the low price consumers have long enjoyed on sugary beverages is itself a direct result of massive federal corn subsidies and the vast supply of cheap, high fructose corn syrup these policies have created. Washington’s proposed nickel per 12 ounce tax, representing about a 20 to 30 percent increase at the checkout counter, can thus rightly be seen as merely a state effort to partially counter the market distortions created by subsidies at the national level. And considering the measurable public health benefits the study suggests we should expect, this policy seems like a win-win to me.

The Wright family, the people who constructed and own the Space Needle, want to build a private, pay-per-view Chihuly Museum at the foot of the Needle on public land where the Fun Forest used to be. Personally, I can think of some much better uses for a couple acres of land the Seattle Center master plan had envisioned as open space.

As tough as I am on them, I have to admit that the Seattle Times editorial board is usually pretty good on issues involving free speech. Unless, of course, it’s spoken in Mandarin.

GOOGLE’S fight with China presents issues that are not as simple as many Americans believe.

Americans frame it as a fight against state censorship — of government telling a U.S. company to disable its search engine in China so that Google’s customers there can’t read certain political opinions. Americans don’t believe in doing that — and Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, has said so publicly, threatening to leave China.

To China’s government, the issue is whether a foreign corporation will obey its laws. Framed that way, the answer is easy. It has to obey. That is the rule with foreign companies everywhere.

Well, the law is the law. Spoken like a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King Jr… you know, if they were drunk.

And on what does the Times base this bold statement of principle? Well apparently they looked the communist Chinese minister of industry and information in the eye and were able to get a sense of his soul. After all…

Listen to what they say.

“I hope Google will abide by Chinese laws and regulations,” says Li Yizhong, minister of industry and information technology. This is not the diction of a totalitarian state. It sounds like a man who wants to make a deal.

Now that’s the sorta confident assessment of a foreign government’s character and intentions that would make Neville Chamberlain proud. I mean, with totally non-totalitarian diction like that, where’s the harm in a little censorship?

I dunno, but is anybody else a little weirded out by an American newspaper defending government censorship, while urging the world’s largest Internet search engine to just quietly play along? Strange.