HorsesAss.Org

I first watched the movie Alien in a center city Philadelphia theater, where, um, audience participation was more of an accepted part of the film-going culture than in my bland, white suburb, and during that horrific dinner table scene where the alien bursts through the chest of a writhing John Hurt, a fellow theatergoer relieved the tension by yelling at the screen:  “Well, if you didn’t like the spaghetti, you could’ve just said so!”

That’s kinda my reaction to yesterday’s manufactured scandal over the now dead Workers Privacy Act.  If they didn’t like the bill, they could’ve just said so, but state Democratic leaders certainly didn’t have to make such a big scene about it.

Passage of the Workers Privacy Act was one of labor’s top priorities during the current session, so when Gov. Chris Gregoire, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and House Speaker Frank Chopp issued a joint statement early yesterday morning announcing that they were shelving the bill due to “serious legal and ethical questions,” and forwarding a labor email over to the state patrol for further investigation, I feared I’d be covering a scandal of Blagojevichian proportions.

But after finally reading a leaked copy of the email, which turned out to be a communication between labor stakeholders summarizing a strategy conference call… well… not so much.

Union leaders would send a message to the State Democratic party and to the Truman and Roosevelt funds from the House and Senate that “not another dime from labor” until the Governor signs the Worker Privacy Act.

Um… that’s it?  Angry constituents talking amongst themselves about withholding future contributions? That’s cause for a police investigation? Our state’s three top Dems douched the Washington State Labor Council for this? Are they out of their fucking minds?

You wanna prosecute a supporter for an idle threat, how about me:  not another dime from Goldy until Gov. Gregoire signs an income tax. In fact, I’ll take it one step further:  if the governor does sign an income tax, I promise to donate five dollars to every legislator who votes yes on the bill. There… now that’s crossing a line.  I await my visit from the state patrol.

Sure, it may have been imprudent to use such blunt language in writing, and it was certainly stupid to have included a handful of legislators on the email list, but there is nothing unethical or illegal about threatening to withhold future contributions from a Democratic leadership that seems intent on screwing its most loyal supporters. Money follows votes—that’s how our system works—and if legislators don’t like it they could give up the inherent advantage of incumbency and move to a system of publicly financed elections.

Indeed, it’s only when votes follow money that we’ve really crossed a legal and ethical line, and as this incident once again proves, our Democratic leadership has absolutely no problem kicking their gift horse in the mouth… you know… at least when the horse belongs to labor or environmentalists or any other non-business constituency group.

No doubt the business lobby’s fake think tanks and talk radio hosts and other surrogates in our media establishment will get all high and mighty about the corrupt culture of Olympia and all that, and yet it is business that has honed extortion into their most potent and familiar political tool:  “Cut these unemployment benefits, or we’ll leave town!”  “Kill this bill, or we’ll leave town!”  “Cut our taxes, or we’ll leave town!”

But a handful of unions threaten to turn off the tap if the Dems keep treating them like shit, and that’s unethical? That warrants calling the cops? It beggars the imagination.

No, we all know what happened here:  the Democratic leadership hated this bill and were just itching for an excuse to kill it. The only question remaining is why they had to do it in such an outrageously ham-fisted manner?

Frank could have just refused to let the bill come to the floor for a vote; he’s good at that.  Or the bill could have been allowed to die in one committee or another.  Or the governor could have vetoed the bill, had it somehow managed to pass both houses. If they didn’t like the spaghetti, they could’ve just said so.

And if they really were concerned about the language or intent of the email, they could have expressed their displeasure privately, then killed the bill all the same, just as they had always intended to do.  It was a stupid thing to put in writing, and the WSLC arguably deserved a tongue lashing in response.

But instead, they took this relatively innocuous line in an email that wasn’t even directed to legislators, and used that as grounds for publicly attacking unions, and instigating a police investigation?  Why?

Are they that fearful of even the remotest appearance of impropriety that they’re willing to throw their most loyal supporters under the bus at the slightest provocation?  Is this whole incident a calculated effort to prove to the media and business establishment that the party really is independent of labor?  Or, have the state Dems really come to take labor money so for granted, that they’ve forgotten it isn’t their own, thus, in their own minds, making any suggestion of withholding future contributions the ethical equivalent of a reverse bribe… essentially a threat to steal money from Democratic coffers unless the bill is signed?

I dunno.  But what I do know is that unless an apology for this bizarre overreaction is forthcoming, the unions in question might be better served by holding true to their threat.  Not a dime for the house and senate Democratic committees… at least not while they remain under control of leaders who clearly don’t value labor’s support.

Maybe what people should do is email their Legislators and demand that they immediately pass a budget that guts K-12 and higher education and contains no new taxes, or they will never get one more dime from us.

Then they “ethically” can’t do it! (Insert Nelson Muntz “ha ha” here.)

But watch out, you might find a state trooper knocking on your door!

Washington House Democrats report that last night their chamber passed HB 1393, their version of a homeowner’s warranty protection bill. It passed 52-45.

Send me flowers. Or else.

The trial against medical marijuana patient Bruce Olson in Kitsap County has gotten underway this week. The Cannabis Defense Coalition (a group that I work with) has been posting daily roundups from the courtroom. Olson and his wife Pam were arrested after members of the WestNET drug task force raided their home in 2007 and found 48 marijuana plants. Both Bruce and Pam are authorized by a physician to be medical marijuana patients.

Some interesting items from those dispatches:

– The prosecutors have been threatening defense witnesses with prosecution in order to keep them from testifying, including Bruce’s wife Pam, who was already tried and convicted last year of the very same crime (manufacturing marijuana with the intent to deliver).

– Earlier today (Wednesday), the jury pool was sent home because the prosecutor convinced the judge that the potential jurors were “tainted” after seeing a protester outside the courtroom holding a “Stop Arresting Medical Marijuana Patients” sign. This delayed the trial for a day.

I also heard that some local reporters have been on hand, so hopefully we’ll get some more complete news coverage from this gigantic mess. As always, if you’re free to attend and show your support for Bruce, you can find the court schedule at the bottom of this post.

It’s a mostly local edition of the podcast, beginning with a discussion of Seattle public schools funding, school budgets, school closures, class sizes, and other educational topics. Talk then turns to the highly contentious Seattle mayoral race where an anticipated field of strong challengers has now faded to hopes for just one. Will a third term be a slam-dunk for Mayor Nichols? After a brief stop at Ron Sims’ office, the panel heads to Olympia. Can new bonds save the state budget? And, anyway, would the voters approve?

Goldy was joined by Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell, Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle,
Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’ Carl Ballard, and Hominid View’s & Horsesass’ …um, me.

The show is 48:00, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_mar_10_2009.mp3]

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

As Jon previously reported, a huge controversy was kicked up today over an email apparently threatening/promising financial consequences in regards to passage of the Workers Privacy Act, prompting the Gov. Chris Gregoire, House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, to pull the legislation altogether, refer the email to the state patrol and issue a joint statement.

News reports had suggested the email came from the Washington State Labor Council, which the WSLC now confirms by releasing the following statement:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009
Statement from WSLC President Rick Bender 

The following statement regarding today’s developments surrounding the Worker Privacy Act is from Rick Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council:

“We regret the incident.  It was a result of frustration with the legislature’s failure to protect workers’ rights in the workplace.  Our job is to always protect workers’ rights.

“We do not believe that any law has been violated and we have no additional comments until we know where this will go.

“Thank you very much.”

I’m still trying to get a copy of the offending email.

Seattle is a green city, and not just because it rains a lot. Maybe it’s our extraordinary landscape, maybe it’s our history, maybe it’s a combination of these and other factors, but Seattle and its surrounding communities have long been politically green, and profoundly so. Except, it appears, when it comes to the thorny issue of urban density.

Counterintuitive as it may seem, the densest urban communities are also the greenest, making the most efficient use of both landscape and energy, a fact brought home by a recent study that compares the relative CO2 emissions between cities and their surrounding suburbs. Not surprisingly, our nation’s densest city is also by far our most energy efficient, with a CO2 emission differential of nearly 7 tons annually between the average city resident and that of the typical suburbanite.

In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. 

[…] But cars represent only one-third of the gap in carbon emissions between New Yorkers and their suburbanites. The gap in electricity usage between New York City and its suburbs is also about two tons. The gap in emissions from home heating is almost three tons. All told, we estimate a seven-ton difference in carbon emissions between the residents of Manhattan’s urban aeries and the good burghers of Westchester County. Living surrounded by concrete is actually pretty green. Living surrounded by trees is not.

The policy prescription that follows from this is that environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

Of course, New York is the extreme, and due to our lower densities, temperate climate, and anemic, bus-centric transit system, the CO2 emission differential between Seattleites and our suburban counterparts is substantially less, amounting to about 2.5 tons annually per capita.  But that’s a significant savings nonetheless, and one that will only increase as we let go of our single family home ideal, and eventually build up a denser, more energy efficient Seattle.

The shift to electric light rail will also make a huge difference, both by moving trips from cars to transit, and by shifting transit to cleaner electric power.  In fact, one of the more interesting details in the study is that Seattle, while generally in the middle of the pack on other metrics, ranks amongst the top five cities in terms of the current CO2 differential from public transit, with city dwellers annually emitting 2,600 pounds more CO2 per capita than their suburban counterparts.  Of course this is more than offset by the CO2 savings from reduced driving, but our relatively meager overall differential on combined transportation related emissions demonstrates how much room there is for improvement both within and without the city center.

While public transportation certainly uses much less energy, per rider, than driving, large carbon reductions are possible without any switch to buses or rails. Higher-density suburban areas, which are still entirely car-dependent, still involve a lot less travel than the really sprawling places. This fact offers some hope for greens eager to reduce carbon emissions, since it is a lot easier to imagine Americans driving shorter distances than giving up their cars.

Of course, apartment life is not for everybody, and I certainly empathize with residents concerned that rezoning to higher densities will change the character of their neighborhoods, but Seattleites should stop kidding themselves that this resistance to change comes without an environmental cost.  The Denny Party originally dubbed their new settlement New York Alki, “alki” being the Chinook word for “eventually” or “by and by.”  If supposedly green Seattle really cares about maintaining the landscape and natural splendor that is so important to our quality of life, it is time we let go of our 1950’s mentality, and embraced a little more of the Denny’s 1850 vision.

The state Senate has taken up debate on SB 5895, the Homeowners Bill of Rights. There’s a bunch of strikers to deal with, so it could take a bit.

UPDATE–The bill passed 25-24. What took so long was not the strikers but the Republicans bowing down before their lords and masters at the BIAW and predicting the entire economy will be destroyed by allowing homeowners to be made whole when shoddy construction occurs. Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, led things off for the GOP by scoffing at the idea that those in construction trades should be certified to do the work properly.

Yeah, that’s nuts. ‘Cause if the guy who put a black iron fitting between my water meter and water service line had known what he was doing, then it wouldn’t have corroded seven years later and spewed thousands of gallons of water down the street, and I wouldn’t have had to find a plumber I could pay to fix it. That is an economic problem, meaning less work for contractors to fix mistakes they shouldn’t have made in the first place.

Senator Janéa Holmquist, R-Ephrata, ended the Republican homage to the BIAW by taking a swipe at former state senator Brian Weinstein, who worked repeatedly during his tenure to pass the bill in that chamber, calling the bill “Son of Weinstein.” Then she gave a little “cutie-pie” look like the smart alec kid in the class who thinks she just made a good one. I’m sure the Sith Lords are very proud, Sen. Holmquist.

The bill, as is commonly done, was transmitted to the House. (Yeah, I know.) That’s another day.

Weinstein called me during the debate to express his congratulations to the Senate Democrats and especially Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, the prime sponsor.

Whew. That was fun!

Yikes.

Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate announced this morning that they will no longer consider taking action on a worker privacy proposal because of an e-mail that linked action on the bills to campaign contributions

Senate Bill 5446, and House Bill 1528, known as “the Worker Privacy Act,” would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, respond to, or participate in any communication relating to political, labor or religious matters. The proposal requires an employer to post a notice of employee rights in a conspicuous place accessible to the employees at the employer’s place of business.

Plus they’ve called the cops! Seriously. I’m not kidding.

Here is the State Patrol’s statement:

The Washington State Patrol has received a request to look into potential criminal allegations surrounding communications pertaining to SB 5446 and HB 1528 – Worker Privacy Act.

As with any on-going investigation, no evidence or further information will be released at this time.

The WSP will be working hand in hand with prosecutors (We don’t know who may/may not have jurisdiction yet.) as we progress.

We just received the request and little is known at this time.

The WSP is taking this very seriously as we do with any potential criminal allegations and will work closely with prosecutors to determine a course of action.

Well that’s all clear as mud. Nothing against the state patrol, of course, they gotta do what they gotta do.

I’m not even going to pretend to speculate. Bizarre.

Yet another reason why I’ll miss living in a two-newspaper town…

Seattle Times:  Seattle P-I to live another day
Seattle PI:  P-I closure appears near

Same story, two newspapers, two headlines.  So much for impartiality.

State Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-Mercer Island) emailed supporters this morning officially announcing that he’s kinda sorta maybe considering whether to consider a run for King County Executive:

You may have read recent press reports that I might be a candidate for King County Executive this year. Over the past several months many of my friends and supporters have encouraged me to consider entering this race. 
 
I am currently occupied with my Senate duties and will be until the session ends.  That is my priority.  I am deeply involved in strengthening education and the challenges of our budget, and the economic situation our state faces.  Even if I decided to run, I am prohibited from doing so during the legislative session.  Consequently, I’ve answered those who’ve suggested the race that while I saw the opportunities a new county executive would have, I didn’t know how it could be done.
 
This weekend, Susan and I talked about the race.  What it would mean for our family and what I could bring to the race.  We decided we should take a closer look into whether such a candidacy would be feasible.

Well that clears up everything.

It’s no secret that Jarrett would love to take on the Executive job, but running for it, that’s an entirely different question, especially considering he’s barred from raising money until after the current legislative session.  That complicates things for Jarrett and Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48)—who is also rumored to be considering a run at the Exec office (or perhaps WA-08)—and places them both at substantial disadvantage against councilmembers Larry Phillips and Dow Constantine, who are already in full campaign mode.

Still, a lot of folks really like Jarrett and his chances; 41st LD hoo-hahs had already started jockeying to line up his senate replacement, well before today’s pseudo-announcement.  Hell… I really like Jarrett, despite his Republican heritage, and if I didn’t ultimately support him, would find it nigh impossible to back an opponent in my usual enthusiastic style.

This one, at least, is potentially shaping up to be an interesting race.

PBS’s The News Hour had a fascinating story yesterday about how the financial calamity is threatening dozens of transit agencies around the country with extreme financial problems.

The short version is that, with the blessing and encouragement of the federal government, many agencies engaged in what are called “buy-leaseback” arrangements with banks. Since public agencies can’t depreciate purchases of say, rail cars, since public agencies don’t pay taxes, they would sell them to banks. The banks would then get the tax shelter, while the agencies got extra funds, part of which were used to lease the rails cars or whatever from the banks.

But guess what? They needed insurance to do these kinds of deals. And who was the main insurer? None other than global behemoth AIG, and since their ratings are in the toilet, a lot of transit agencies are considered to be in “technical default” on these deals. These kinds of deals eventually were outlawed, but lots of them are still coming due around the country.

Pretty cool how neo-liberals worked things, huh? They insisted the public sector be starved of funds, then they found a way to profit from it by using the tax code and financial shenanigans, and now some of the transit agencies may fail (or at the very least be forced to massively defer maintenance and capital investment,) which will “prove” once again that the public sector is wasteful.

It’s a very funny tale to tell over cocktails for some Banksters. Not so fun for a physically challenged worker in D.C. who depends on transit to get to work, as portrayed in the PBS story.

Damn, I think these people wrecked everything. You kind of expect to go outside every morning and find a banker and a Congress-critter loosening the lug nuts on your wheels.

Only initiatives that wreck government are sacrosanct and represent the will of the people. Initiatives that do non-wrecking things like promoting clean power sources do not meet this definition, and thus can be safely wrecked themselves without fear of a special session being called.

An update to a couple of recent posts about the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. You can find the previous posts here and here.

First, a reliable source emailed me this afternoon to tell me Senate leadership has made it clear that they are not holding up a vote on the bill.

And now Andrew at NPI reports that the Senate is going to consider the bill tonight.

So there you have it.

UPDATE, the next morning: There was a flurry of activity in the Senate last night, but SB 5895 didn’t come up for a vote best I can tell. I had TVW on in the background last night and the Senate Floor Activity calendar doesn’t show that it came up yet. I think they’re coming back at 9 AM.