The Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight. Please join us for an evening of politics over a pint.
We meet every Tuesday evening at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier than that for Dinner.
With 205 chapters of Living Liberally, including sixteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and two more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter meeting near you.
– There was a mayoral candidate’s debate last night (Seattle Times link).
– Really the only thing I learned from following it on Twitter is that Jim Brunner doesn’t know who the Blue Scholars are, but still feels like he can make fun of other people’s taste in music.
– Hey, Seattle, no more shootings, OK?
– Chris Hansen’s statement after the Relocation Committee’s decision.
– The Columbia City Farmer’s Market is starting up again.
– Is that a homemade lightsaber in your pocket, or are you just glad to shut down the bus tunnel?
The NBA Relocation Committee has voted against moving the Kings to Seattle. So boo to that. I mean I get that one team out of several is very different from the only sport in town. It makes some business sense, although given how much of their money is the value of the teams, I’m not sure that making a team take a lower bid is a good value.
But whatever, I’m not a business owner who feels the need to have a city subsidize their hobby/side job. I hope those business owners know that while Seattle will be willing to put some of its bonding capacity up for the arena, we aren’t going to spend actual taxpayer money on one.
So, those of us who are hoping for a new team can hope that the unanimity of the deal means there will be an expansion team coming rather than the city getting fucked around.
– The legislature adjourns sine dud. Don’t worry, there will be a special session where there’s a brand-new chance to not get anything accomplished starting in a few weeks.
– A background checks initiative drive starts today.
– Jesus and Muhammad and the Question of the State
– I am not one who spent much of the Bush presidency trying to figure out how smart he actually was, but some of these (especially the Swedish Army!) are pretty yikes.
– The WMD Wing (h/t)
President Obama does the 2013 White House Correspondence dinner:
And so does Conan:
Last week’s contest was won by Geoduck. It was in Olympia.
This week’s contest is related to something in the news from April, good luck!
Revelation 19:17-18
I then saw an angel standing on the sun, and he shouted to all the birds flying in the sky, “Come and join in God’s great feast! You can eat the flesh of kings, rulers, leaders, horses, riders, free people, slaves, important people, and everyone else.”!
Discuss.
Either that, or one of our most logorrheic troll/commenters has been channeling him.
Bonus quote of the day (April 26, 2013), Taegan Goddard’s PoliticalWire:
This administration has so many Muslim brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America.
— Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01)
Said troll/commenter will go especially batshit-crazy when I tip my hat to Hunter at DailyKos, whose frontpage post alerted me to the latest “wisdom” from Mr. Gohmert.
Needless to say, the Congressman’s latest idiotic pronouncement was uttered on WorldNutDaily Radio.
Jonathan Mann: A comment to the TSA.
Ann Telnaes: Barbara Bush, “We’ve had enough Bushes.
Young Turks: The pathetic twisted case of the Romney & Gingrich intern.
SlateTV: Nevada Senator comes out during same sex marriage debate.
Ignorance and Denial:
Young Turks: Voters turn again Republican politicians over voting down background check vote.
Mark Sanford debates a cardboard image of Nancy Pelosi (…and, um, loses) (via Political Wire):
Sam Seder: Mark Sanford’s really, really lousy week.
The “Rent is too damn high” guy is back, rapping about it, and running for NYC Mayor (via Political Wire).
Library Accomplished:
White House: West Wing Week.
Kimmel: The week in unnecessary censorship.
Stephen: Better know PA-17 (via Political Wire).
Young Turks: Infowars Boston bombing conspiracy theories.
Aqua Buddha Bomber:
Young Turks: “Ex-Gay” leader apologizes for horrible ‘gay conversion therapy’.
Susie Sampson’s Tea Party Report: Congressional Report Card.
Young Turks: CISPA goes down in the Senate.
Townsquare: The end of the American Dream?
Chris Hayes: The untold story of deregulating chemical plants under Bush.
Miranda Warning:
Sam Seder: Culture of conspiracy.
Young Turks: FAUX News basks in its own ignorance.
Maddow: The dangerously sloppy reporting of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post.
Pap: The Anti-intellectual epidemic in America.
Thom: The Good, The Band and The Very, Very Ugly.
Stephen gives Bill Clinton a Twitter lesson.
The Downside of Rush:
Lawrence O’Donnell: Grad student debunks famous Harvard Study that pushes austerity.
Shuster: Stephen Colbert’s sister gets a boost.
Maddow: Black and white-out.
Young Turks: Bill-O pushes for more hatred and fear.
Ann Telnaes: Wall Street and your fragile nest egg.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
I love that my two favorite local politicians are hashing things out in the mayor’s race. In this case, they have dueling posts on Slog about sub area equity. Sub area equity is an important issue for a Seattle mayor who will have a seat on the Sound Transit Board of Directors. First, was Ed Murray, who I agree with in general, opposing sub are equity (I’m ignoring the political sniping in both; I’m pro political sniping, but not what I want to write about here).
Sound Transit’s sub-area equity requires that any money raised in one of the five sub-areas of the Sound Transit district must be spent in that sub-area. It may seem sensible on the surface, but it is really a terrible policy, originally cooked up by light rail opponent Rob McKenna (when he served on the King County Council and the Sound Transit board) as a way of forcing transit dollars that should have been spent in Seattle to be diverted to the suburbs instead.
Sub-area equity has done more harm to the cause of efficient deployment of limited transit dollars in the central Puget Sound—and thus more harm to Seattle—than any other single decision made in the last two decades of transit planning. It allocates dollars based not on density and demand for service, but on political geography. Instead of building a system from the inside out to maximize ridership and benefit smart land use decisions, it balkanizes the region and facilitates sprawl.
Sub-area equity needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with a more sensible policy that stipulates that Sound Transit dollars will be spent efficiently to add light rail where it will have the maximum impact in terms of moving people, i.e. in denser cities like Seattle and our growing inner-ring suburbs. Such a policy would ensure that Seattle’s transit needs are better accommodated – particularly our underserved West side Green Line communities including Ballard and West Seattle – while also ensuring that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas where population densities are insufficient to support strong ridership.
I’m not sure it encourages sprawl (it brings transit to less dense places, but those places are already sprawling). But in general, I agree that there’s more bang for the buck in denser areas. And transit ought to be built more in our big cities and inner ring cities, and sub area equity is a hindrance to that. So fair enough.
Mayor McGinn has a response.
In fact, at the urging of myself and others, the Sound Transit board accelerated all of their planning around the region so we are prepared to go to the ballot in 2016 if the legislature gives Sound Transit revenue authority to support expansion.
All of that work falls apart if a Seattle mayor suddenly decided they wanted to change the deal. By attacking sub-area equity Ed Murray threatens to blow up Sound Transit. Sound Transit’s board was willing to advance these rail planning studies in Seattle in part because I pledged Seattle’s support to help complete the regional system. Communities outside of Seattle have been banking on future rail while the central portion has been built in Seattle. Proposing to end sub-area equity and take the money for Seattle is guaranteed to destroy the regional political coalition for rail and doom the chances of putting Sound Transit 3 on the ballot in 2016.
Further, sub-area equity protects Seattle. The recession significantly reduced Sound Transit’s revenues too, and they are working hard to meet their commitments elsewhere in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. We need to ensure revenue raised in Seattle stays in Seattle to support our projects – which is why Seattle needs to defend sub-area equity, not attack it.
Even though McGinn probably wrote the better piece, I still agree with Ed Murray on sub area equity.
Generally this piece on a bill to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people if God tells them it’s OK by Josh Feit is solid. But I have to object to this paragraph:
The bill’s main sponsor is Sen. Sharon Brown (R-8, Kennewick). Brown’s district is the home to a controversy that blew up in March when Barronelle Stutzman, who owns Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, refused to do business for a gay couple.
It makes it sound like the business is in her district but the gay couple just happened to be there. In fact, Senator Brown is prioritizing –or at least is allowing the law to prioritize — businesses in her district that want to discriminate over her constituents who are being discriminated against. This hurtful bill won’t just hurt people in Seattle, or just in King County, or the Puget Sound region, or Western Washington. It hurts people all over the state.
Goldy notes that the GOP caucus fundraising for Senator Mike Carrell — who needs a bone marrow transplant — hasn’t made them more sympathetic to the plight of people who need better health care. Who knows, maybe he’ll come around, and maybe the rest of the caucus will too.
But more likely, he’ll be back to pushing the line that we have to keep tax loopholes wide open, let alone not raise rates and that’s more important than caring for the sick. Or something about the state not being the best place to pay for it.
And to be sure, we all want Senator Carrell to beat this shit. You can donate here, if you’re so inclined.
– Valiant protectors of our civil liberties, except when we might actually need our civil liberties protected.
– Pause…allow the incredible affront of that shit to marinate…continue.
– King Street Station, your argument is irrelevant.
– Something close to 8% of ALL West, Texas residents were either injured or killed in the explosion.
Ugh on a stick, the state GOP.
Bailey was a guest last week on conservative talk radio KVI, where Republican State Chairman Kirby Wilbur is a frequent fill-in host. The two debunked the Dream Act as a way of damaging the Republican franchise rather than helping immigrants’ kids get an education. Democrats had just failed in a bid to force a Senate floor vote.
“It should be obvious, at least to anyone with an IQ above their waist size, that these (bills) have been picked for their political impact, has nothing to do with caring and compassion, to continue this mantra that Republicans are racists,” said Wilbur. “I mean, it seems to me it’s pretty obvious.”
Sen. Bailey agreed.
“It is pretty obvious that it is political. This bill has been brought forward at least twice before by (Sen.) Ed Murray, whgo is the sponsor of the Senate bill, at a time when both the Senate, the House and the Governor’s mansion were controlled by the Democrats and it begs the question: If this is such an important, absolutely needed bill, why didn’t it pass during those times?”
First off THAT’S NOT WHAT BEGS THE QUESTION MEANS! You mean it raises the question. Question begging is making a circular argument. When you use it wrong you sound like a dummy, and I hate you.* Second, if it’s just a trick, why not vote for it like a significant portion of the House GOP Caucus? Or at least let it come to a vote in committee? Or just let the people who want to testify testify? I mean honestly. Anyway, keep talking.
“Here’s another fact: If these (undocumented) students were added to the pool that already exists, underserved (sic) citizens, then the only way those students would ever get financial aid is if they are considered and given preferential treatment above citizens.”
Fact! Just look it up.
Anyway, after finding out about that, Rodney Tom knew just who to get mad at.
Tom has taken to blaming State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, for its failure. The “Senate Majority Coalition” offered Kohl-Welles chairmanship of the Higher Education Committee. She refused to take it, on grounds that the governing coalition was under Republican control and would leave her with no authority.
Tom sent out a legislative “session update” last week that sharply attacked Kohl-Welles. He was called to account by Murray for violating Senate rules by using the e-mail newsletter to deliver a partisan attack on a colleague. The update, too, was edited.
I guess she forced him to vote against allowing the vote on the floor of the Senate.
I don’t like the idea of sub area equity, although it may have saved Sound Transit politically by getting early buy in from the suburbs when Central Link and Tacoma Link were the biggest projects. Still, generally speaking, political solutions designed to reassure suburbanites that big mean Seattle isn’t going to take all of their money (when the opposite is generally true) and that put arbitrary restrictions on transit development aren’t my favorite. See also, 40-40-20.
So the fact that Ed Murray is opposed to it is somewhat of a positive for me (although his doing it in a way that specifically attacks building rail to from Ballard to Downtown is not helpful). But over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman makes the case for Sub Area Equity.
Subarea equity originally existed because suburban legislators, in creating Sound Transit, wanted to make sure that suburban money didn’t end up spent in Seattle. As a result, Link implementation was at first slower. But now that Sound Transit 2 is passed, the North King subarea’s “spine” is fully funded. Most of the political pressure on Sound Transit is now to expand to Tacoma, Everett, and Redmond, and most of the board votes are outside Seattle.
In a Sound Transit 3 package, subarea equity is paramount to ensuring that we get a new line in Seattle – it ensures that Seattle’s contribution stays in the city, and political pressure doesn’t move money out to the ends of the lines.
Murray claims that his reason for wanting to remove subarea equity would be to focus transit investment in Seattle – but the outcome of removing it would be the opposite. As a transit advocate who wants Seattle to have more grade separated transit, this is scary because it’s a direct threat to a new line in the city, and it’s scary because a mayoral candidate should have a better grasp of the issues.
It does seem rather abhorrent to have sub area equity when we’re building Central Link and Tacoma Link and then not have it when we’re building out to the suburbs.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!