Category: Uncategorized (Page 20 of 49)

I just realized something was missing over at my new fascination, Blue Tiger Democrats. No blog.

Not that I’m criticizing, I’m just curious. There are already more than one animal based Democratic blog. The DNC’s used to be called “Kicking Ass,” though the animal reference was probably more of a wink than a nod. And the DLC even has a blog zoo with a New Donkey and a Bull Moose. This isn’t really the point though.

Blue Tiger employs some folks from here, a pretty webby firm, and their idea seems to be built for speed on a media like the internet. Getting local Democratic groups to become agents of civic engagement isn’t something you can do from afar. They obviously know this, they’ve already hired folks to work in three states.

Also, despite my track record, I’m not some who just suggests at the drop of a hat to anyone who doesn’t have a blog, “oh, you should have one,” because they really aren’t for everyone, and not everyone would benefit, do it well, or even see the point in it.

But in terms of spreading the gospel of the Blue Tiger, even if it is a thin, internet gospel, to local Dems like me, a blog would be a good start. Maybe with an obvious “submit YOUR stories” section. Just an idea.

There’s an interesting post on local growth management over at the Sound Politics Public blogs. One would assume that it would detail the unfeeling environmental bureaucracy over at King County, how they roll over rural landowners who just want to do with their land what they want. Rather, its a short example of how often times when landowners want to preserver the rural feel of their community, there is nothing local government can do about it. Despite what some folks say.

Read the entire post, but here’s the good part:

With my councilmember gagged within the convenient “quasi-judicial” straightjacket surrounding land use decisions, forbidding her to even discuss related issues with here constituents, it’s clear that Mr. Spohr is just one more cog in Ron Sims’ growth machine. Citizens still have no means to challenge the systemic wrongdoing within this government that occurs every day. The creation of the new Rural Ombudsman is just the latest cruel joke in support of King County’s false interest in responding to rural concerns.

Quadrant, KCDOT and King County DDES have sued the King County Hearing Examiner over his recommendation to the King County Council to deny Redmond Ridge East and rescind its 2002 traffic concurrency certificate. Several King County DOT whistleblowers are currently in Federal Court alleging, among other things, retaliation against them by their managers after they refused to go along with what they believed were improper and even illegal acts committed by the King County Concurrency Group to help Quadrant obtain a certificate to allow 800 more homes along Novelty Hill Road east of Redmond. Novelty Hill Road has been operating above design capacity for several years now.

“Ron Sims’ growth machine”? That isn’t what some would have you believe:

King County government has stolen our land, our money, our trust, our votes, our freedom and our liberty. How 15,000 people can work for such corrupt leadership is beyond me. Ignorance and apathy are the only pillars that hold up the administration of Executive Ron Sims and his council and DDES.

So, if I-933 gives developers more leeway with local government, how many more situations like what the Sound Politics blogger above described will come down the pipe?

Well, that’s that I guess.

Ninety percent of Dems say they’ll vote for Cantwell next month and 66 percent of Republicans will vote for Mike McGavick. The much lower number for McGavick isn’t surprising since his biggest challenge seems to be getting the unknowns down (19 percent). It isn’t like there is a serious challenger for him, aside from people not knowing who he is.

The threat of a real Cantwell dissenter, or even anyone breaking 10 percent against her in the primary, seems to have faded as well. Even Mike Goodspaceguy Nelson got more (3 percent to 2 percent) than the leading anti-Cantwell candidate.

It is here.

Noemie has a good post on it here.

Roughly based on Sinced Sliced Bread, it is intended (from my point of view, I’m not talking for the other folks helping organize this) to build something constructive from the netroots. Let me know what you think.

And, if you have an idea, for pete’s sake, post it.

Here at Better Donkey. Ironic writing about Tigers at a Donkey blog, but they’re all donkey blogs.

Well, they don’t like government. So, why would they associate with it?

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for awhile now, told someone I’d right over a week ago (Emmett, Emmett, Emmett), and have now just been reminded to get on the stick.

So, Jack says:

Mark posts a comment in his own blog that spells out exactly why I’d rather be a “little l” libertarian than be a Libertarian party member. Quoted in its entirety, Mark said:

I don’t agree with Free Libertarian that the “true home” for libertarians is the Libertarian Party. Most people seem to think that the only way to change society is through political means, i.e., through party politics. That only shows that most of us are addicted to politics. What is needed for a free society is the elimination of political influences on our lives. Politicization of decision-making in all areas of life is the collectivist way of running a society.

Joining the Libertarian Party is joining the political process. As in all parties, the end result will be political careerism and political deal-making. Capital-L Libertarians are not necessarily different from any other political operatives. They are subject to (and many will acquiesce in) the pressures on all politicians to keep their jobs and take money for favors.

Relying on the political process to free us from the corrupting and anti-liberty consequences of the political process is a fundamental mistake and a contradiction of libertarian principles.

I’m still learning my way through all this nonsense, but I can always count on Mark to codify something that I’ve been thinking about. Now he just needs to post about the meaning of life and I’ll be set.

So, here’s the conundrum: for all libertarians (and some Libertarians) and some Republicans (the kind that are sort of like libertarians), if you think you can’t trust government, what are you doing getting involved with a political party? Of course, I come from a civic baphilosophicallysophicaly, so I think “getting involved” is the only path to really good government, so I’m coming to this question from a different path.

While I don’t like “political careerism and political deal-making” any more than the original blogger, I think about them as perversions (at least in perception) of the real civic deal: constant citizen engagement (whether or not you get paid) and really listening to other people. It seems that libertarians have the same aversions to government that many of us have, including a lot of Democrats. We don’t like government becrottens wrotten, there seems to be a lot of self serving people running for office under many different party banners and no one really believes in anything.

But, to believe that these are fatal flaws of our system of government is short sighted and is seeing the perversion of the system as the system itself.

I’d like to see a world though where people get involved and stay involved and where people hold core beliefs, but are also willing to see the world through the eyes of someone else if that means something gets done.

Eric has a great post article in the Oregonian on 933. I like this point the best:

I-933 would short-circuit community. Despite deceptive language to the contrary, I-933 jeopardizes common-sense laws that are decades old. For example, in order to qualify for flood insurance, communities often must prohibit development in flood plains. But under I-933, communities that need insurance may be forced to pay property owners not to build in known flood zones.

Also, if you want to learn how to be an advocate for the good side No on 933 is holding a “Speakers Training and Day of Action” in several places around the state.

Seattle PI:

Bernard Friedman spent part of his career as a risk manager for the Department of Social and Health Services, trying to improve one of the most controversial state agencies. Those who knew him say he was tough, straightforward, got the job done and was not afraid to take unpopular positions.

But Friedman was also a big man with a big heart, the liveliest man at stuffy law functions and a proud Duke Blue Devil.

He died from a heart attack Aug. 3 in Olympia. He was 63.

My best memory of Bernie Friedman was back in 2000 when he was the first person to use the Washington News Council to challenge a newspaper. He had run for Olympia City Council the year before against Mark Foutch, and the Olympian wrote a misleading (even according to Foutch) editorial endorsing Foutch. In it they said that Friedman had been distruptive during a city council meeting, even to the point that a police officer had to be called.

The actual exchange was more like:

Bernie: I would like to talk about this.

Council person: Oh, we’re going to talk about that later.

Bernie: Can I still say what I want to say now?

Council person: Maybe later?

Bernie: How later?

Council person: Uhmm… half hour or so?

Bernie: Okie Dokie.

And, there just happened to be a police officer in the room. Or, as Bernie described it:

In the fall of 1999, I was a candidate for Olympia City Council. During the campaign, The Olympian published an editorial about me that was factually inaccurate and woefully misleading concerning an incident involving me that had happened two months prior to the editorial at an Olympia City Council meeting. That incident was so insignificant the reporter for The Olympian, who was at the meeting, and her editor, did not see fit to print a news story about it. Yet the subsequent editorial purported to describe the incident, described it inaccurately, and concluded from it I lacked the “civic deportment” to qualify me for office. As the election transpired, a swing of 700 votes would have won it for me. It seems likely the unfair editorial could have accounted for that many votes.

Blue Tiger Dems have it right. More right than anyone else:

Democratic organizations, particularly in urban areas, have a rich history of Civic Engagement. Unfortunately, a great deal of this history has been forgotten by the Party and it has shed its Civic Engagement mission.

Democrats must go back to the future. Consider getting involved, helping your community and contributing to civic engagement projects.

With $1.6 billion spent on political ads during the 2004 presidential election and very little money devoted to support civic engagement projects to aid individuals in their communities, it is no wonder that we have begun to lose our connection with individuals at the local level.

I’m a bit peeved that I learned about Blue Tiger Democrats from Joho the Blog, not from the tens of Democrat/Liberal blogs I read, but in a way it makes sense. What Blue Tigers are talking about is more interesting to someone who writes about social technology than folks who write about elections.

Ken has a great post on what has been so good about the Open Mike! tour:

1. Mike! is open to a $28 million golden parachute/ campaign contribution from his former employer Safeco (which is now getting him sued).

2. Mike! is open to selling out to Ted Stevens and Big Oil to drill in ANWR.That’s the same Ted Stevens who wants to send supertankers into Puget Sound to affect my quality of life.

3. Mike! is open to giving people like Paris Hilton a financial break, while sticking it to working men and women, and to making Bush’s tax cuts for the richest 1% permanent.

4. Mike! is open to teaching intelligent design in our schools. (Shouldn’t he be running for Senator in Kansas?)

5. Mike! is open to staying the course in Iraq (which is working so well), with no timetable for bringing our troops home.

6. Mike! is open to gutting the Endangered Species Act.

7. Mike! is open to privatizing higher education (specifically UW & WSU). Note to Mike!: In Washington, we already have SPU, UPS, Gonzaga, Walla Walla, Whitman and PLU, so there is a choice for students among private colleges and universities.

8. Mike! does his best to portray a nice-guy, moderate image (much like that wolf in sheep’s clothing Dino Rossi) but Mike! is open to the right-wing agenda, particularly when the righties get people to open their wallets for him.