Month: October 2006 (Page 3 of 4)

You probably got it, that email from the DNC on matching your money. It is different though that other appeals. Actually there is something about it that made it the most monied email from the DNC since 2004.

Here is what Paul Loeb, of Soul of a Citizen, said:

But it was more than the matching offer that’s made this the DNC’s single most successful fundraising email since 2004. And more even than the timing. Like most of us, I’m sure the Minnesota woman had gotten plenty of requests for contributions, including promises that some Senator, Congressperson, or anonymous wealthy donor would step in and amplify what she gave. But she hadn’t responded. These matching appeals help our modest dollars go further. I respond to them when I can. But I also wonder why donors who have so much more money than I do (or so much in their campaign coffers while sitting on safe seats) don’t simply give whatever they were planning to anyway without all the gamesmanship. They’re trying to multiply their impact, I know, and often this works. But it also sends a bit of a double message.

This appeal felt different. Like the Party’s new social networking tool, PartyBuilder, it offered those participating a human connection. It allowed me and others who’d already contributed a way to increase the impact of what we gave, and those responding to remember that they were being joined not just by generic donors, but by specific ordinary citizens who, like them, would contribute despite having to juggle budgets, bills and other normal commitments. That made all the difference to the woman from Minnesota. And it made all the difference to me, letting me tell the story of why I was contributing, and giving more than I’d originally planned. invited others to respond in kind. It made the process more personal.

It isn’t that I’m not a big fan of Jonathan Raban, I’m sure he’s a very nice man and writer. His apparent concern for rural growth issues and septics is something that he and I have in common.

That said I wish people would stop doing this:

Jonathan Raban=Seattle.

The Stranger did it (in my eyes) today with their Genius Awards, and my favorite radio show did it back a few months ago when they came out to Seattle.

Authors who more =Seattle than Raban would include Bruce Brown, the great Fred Moody and Douglas Coupland. Yes, Coupland is from Canada, but at least for a foreigner, he’s from the eco-region.

Crazy like a fox, and he makes the most ironic statement of the night. At least for me. I was only able to catch the first few minutes of the debate before I actually had to work on something today, but I was able to catch responses to the first question: Who did you vote for and why in 2004?

Cantwell: I voted for Kerry because blah blah blah (and go into something that relates to her campaign, not two years ago)

McGavick: I voted for Bush because (thinks to self… Oh lord, this will screw me, won’t it?)

And Bruce Guthrie, the Libertarian, actually makes a great point. He voted for Badnarik, the Libertarian, and the reason why was because he didn’t want his vote to be wasted.

Hmm… Interesting… Tell me more…

His point was that if the two major parties gave us a race where almost 40 percent of the eligible voters stayed home, what kind of race is that? His vote was for a real choice, a real conversation.

While I never would have voted for who he voted for, I do respect the point he made. Low voter turnout is never a real concern for major party candidates. I would fall down a flight of stairs of a Democratic candidate ever said “If we get a good turnout, I’ll be your next governor.”

Passey apparently agrees with me:

I thought Bruce really nailed the first question about who did you vote for for President and why. He spoke about how low voter turnout showed that the American people thought that their choices were terrible, and that he voted for change — the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik — because he didn’t want to waste his vote on the lesser of two evils. It was a fantastic answer and a great start to the debate.

Pointing out that low voter turnout, though a very good point, seemed ironic for me coming from a Libertarian. As Gary Hart pointed out (generally), if you believe government only needs to secure the borders and a few other things, what is the real point of you being and engaged, informed citizen? Libertarians, it seems, because they are much more attracted to a smaller, limited government in scope, wouldn’t be all that concerned with civic engagement. But, if they were, limited engagement by voting probably would be the greatest extent of their interest.

Oh, ha ha ha:

…Johnson entered my classroom and stated the following: When asked by a student, what would you change about, Washington? His reply: “I’d get rid of all the Democrats.”

What’s the hardest thing about, your job? “Having to work with Democrats.” ‘He went on to disparage two of the Democratic congressmen from the district.

Rock on. As a Supreme Court justice, he might be able to do that.

In 2002 Tim Sheldon gives $10,000 to a Republican campaign committee that tosses the state senate to the GOP.

In 2004 he votes for and supports the Republican candidate for governor.

In 2004 he heads up the local chapter of Democrats for Bush.

This year he fails to get the endorsement of any local Democratic Party organization.

He is listed by the Republican senate campaign committee as a Republican.

In 2006 he receives $500 from a Republican PAC, $100 more than is even raised by his Republican opponent.

Now, he endorses the Republican opponent of a Democratic representative from his own district.

So, I ask you, why do parties matter at all?

Here are some fact type thingies:

1. Libraries are among the most valued and trusted of public institutions. I don’t have any citation to back this up, but they have to be up there, way above elected officials or

2. Conservatives have tapped the social structures at mega-churches, recognizing that social conections are the most effective at determining how someone votes.

3. Libraries are wondering about their own role as “places,” or rather destinations in the way that Applebees and megachurches have become destinations.

Its a sad comment, but the valuable “third places” in our society are no longer places were people randomly come together (maybe they were never that way), but rather places were people go because they know other folks they want to meet are there.

Democrats, especially, should be worried about the places in our communities, and making sure that there are enough places for people to get together.

Out and about today, I was able to squeeze in the last 20 or so minutes of Podcasting Liberally, which covered the cerfuffle this week about a handful of newspapers across the region writing checks to the Initiative 920 campaign (here and here).

Goldy and crew were worried that because all of these papers were in league with the estate tax killer, therefore killing any chance that the anti-920 folks would get fair shake. Their worries were only half baked, as they never got around to wondering why newspapers, all family owned, would hate the estate tax.

Let’s get one thing straight, I like the estate tax. A lot. I like what it has to say about our values as a nation and I never want to see the rise of the American aristocracy again.

That said, I also like local, family owned newspapers.

Lets get down to it. The papers writing checks to I-920 aren’t the Tacoma News Tribune (owned by the McClatchy) the Seattle PI (owned by Hearst) or the Aberdeen Daily World (owned by Stephens Media), because corporations don’t fear the estate tax.

And, over the past half century, family owned papers have disappeared. The estate tax has been a nice neat weapon for large newspaper chains to sweep into a community and buy up a newspaper from heirs who either didn’t have it in them to run the paper, or lost too much cash in the transaction to make it worth it.

A great book on this sad history is Richard McCord’s “The Chain Gang: One Newspaper Versus the Gannett Empire.” While Gannett did tons of other nasty things in their earlier days, the estate tax was a common denominator in a lot of their buy outs. The Blethen family, along with the other publishers that have jumped on the I-920 bandwagon have seen dozens of family, local owned papers go down the chain route.

While I’m not for ending the estate tax, I’m also not for ending local ownership of newspapers. Locally owned papers are under intense pressure to sell out to larger chains, because they are highly profitable businesses. Chains, because they can buy things like paper at cheaper prices, can make the papers even more profitable.

Especially Goldy, who fears the lack of decent coverage of both sides of I-920, can recognize the possible chilling effects of chain ownership of newspapers.

Vote no on I-920, but also support local journalism.

Democratic candidate for the WA 8 is coming to Olympia:

On October 28^th we have an opportunity to take a direct action to change the direction of our country. Darcy Burner will be in Olympia for a fundraiser at the Home of Paul and Beth Berendt in conjunction with a swing through the southern end of the eight congressional district ( Olympia isn’t in the eighth – but the district dose come nearby to the Pierce County border).

Burner is taking on one of the most endangered Republicans in the Congress: Dave Reichert. Polling shows that Darcy is well positioned to win the race but she needs a big push to help win in the final days of the election. Will you join us in helping Darcy change the direction of our country?

What: Fundraiser Benefiting Darcy Burner for Congress

Where: Home of Paul & Beth Berendt – 1702 Sulenes Loop SE, Olympia

(Off Henderson St. near Olympia High School and the Briggs YMCA)

Date & Time: October 28^th 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Donation: suggested donation is $25, $50 or $100

Call Paul or Beth Berendt for more information at 360-753-6235

Up until about May I was involved in my neighborhood association, that had come together to try to stop the upsurge in development in south-east Olympia. This part of Oly had been pretty rural up until recently, and a lot of long time residents had a hard time understanding why this muddy wet part of town was a good place for a few thousand more homes.

This fight though is a good example of the arguments surrounding I-933, balancing the rights of long time landowners to their rural setting, low volume traffic and property values, with the rights of developers to do what they do.

Earlier today the VP of the neighborhood association sent out a reminder for folks to donate to No on I-933 (to the credit of Dan Stonnington and other folks at the Community Protection Coalition, they were in contact with my neighborhood association early on). I’ll call her Neighbor A has been pretty vocal about I-933, specifically how it would prevent folks like her and her neighbors from stopping development from happening.

Neighbor B, also very active in the association, replied in contrast:

We need less government interference and more accountability to the people. Any and all government (and each person!) should be held accountable for it’s actions. Period.

…I am surprised that you aren’t concerned about the fact that plans are showing a road going thru your house in the future. I would think you would expect to be reimbursed by the government taking your home as they see fit without your intent to sell or input from you. You are campaigning, voting and contributing to the government not having to pay you fair market value when they decide to take your land for a more direct route to downtown. Where ‘they’ go to spend more of our tax dollars on stopping food and medical supplies from getting to our troops fighting for our freedom of speech, way of life and religion.

What does I-933 do for Washington property owners?

Yes On I-993 means that if government regulation damages the use or value of your land you are entitled to compensation for your loss.

How much will I-933 cost?

Nothing. If the government doesn’t damage someone’s property, it owes nothing. No damage, no cost. That’s fair.

Does I-933 eliminate zoning laws and environmental protections?

No. Only regulations applied to individual properties are addressed by I-933. Zoning doesn’t change and the environment is still protected.

My main contention is with the logic that she seems to be employing that “if the rules stay on the books, what is the harm?” The harm is that the rules aren’t enforced, they practically don’t exist.

She also seems to be confusing the concepteminentient domain with so called “takings.” If Neighbor A’s house was taken out to build a road, then under the Constitution of the United States and Washington, she’d be paid. If they downzoned her property from one house per one acre to one to five, there would be no payment (as it stands today). The fiscenarioerio iseminentient domain case, the second is so-called “takings.”

Anyway, I could spend a lot of time countering her logic, but rather, I just want to reflect on if we couldn’t reach someone whose home is being surrounded by new developments, who can we reach?

The only reason there is a halt in development in SE Olympia is because the city was able to enact a rule to put a temporary halt to development until they reconsider their overall rules. If all of those rules can be called into question when they obviously will lessen the commercial value of their properties, how can they be effective at all?

From the PDF:

…that is because it shifts power away from the center of organizations out to the edges. Millions of us now can speak on a much more level playing field than anything that has ever existed before. By definition that is bad for elites and insiders. Which can’t be good news for the incumbent party in Washington.

I think pluralism is also hard-wired into the net, and especially into Web 2.0, where everyone is one click away from everyone else and (contrary to the fears of some), you are far more likely to encounter opposing viewpoints online than elsewhere. This again, it seems to me, means the web is inherently friendlier to people who value civic debate and engagement.

This is not to say that the web is full of liberals. It still trends to the wealthier, especially if you are looking at broadband users. And given the huge technosphere, which is as big or bigger than the political blogosphere, a lot of its politics is more libertarian than traditionally left or right. But even if it’s not by design, it does seem Cox is right, and the right is losing the online future.

That’s because the culture of Web 2.0 favors dissenters and creatives over conformists. If you are uncomfortable with free expression, you’re not going to like YouTube. It’s not “who builds what,” as Cox puts it, that “means everything,” it’s what is the web good for and what do people like to use it for, that means everything.

This is why calling wired citizens the nutroots, is well, nuts.

A good local conversation on this is right here.

I also agree with Micah (I didn’t quote this part) that the right has a good hold on off line networks, such as mega-churches and gun groups. That isn’t to say, though, that these offline networks have to stay with Republicans. One thing I learned while reading Applebee’s America (I loved that book, if you read this blog with any regularity, you’re going to have to settle with that), is that while these networks may be 60 or so percent GOP, by not focussing on them, we’re loosing the 40 percent Dem/Progressives that attend mega-churches, attend gun club meetings, etc…

Though, as the online networks spawn offline networks, we’ll have a greater advantage there.