44th Democrats Blog

Supreme Court Judges

2006-09-01T13:28:00.000-07:00

Please vote for:

Susan Owens,
Gerry L. Alexander, and
Tom Chambers.

(Avoid: Groen, Johnson, and Burrage)

Please Defeat Proposed Bylaws Amendment 17

2006-08-05T12:26:00.000-07:00

Proposed Amendment 17
Article IV: Appointed Officers
Section 11: Website Editor (Webmaster)
Strike fifth bullet.
----
It sounds simple enough. What is the fifth bullet?
----
Duties of the Website Editor (Webmaster):
• Maintains all editorial rights (i.e. the right and discretion to edit and/or delete) any and all postings to any electronic lists of the 44th.
----
This amendment included no explanatory comment. What was the amendment maker thinking?

This editorial right is critical to the Webmaster's job. It is used on a daily basis. For example, the webmaster deletes 2 or 3 junk email messages by hand almost every day, filtering spam out of everyone's inboxes.

The webmaster may exercise this editorial right to very quickly delete or edit offensive language from a blog posting. This is perhaps the most important reason to keep this bullet item unchanged.

The amendment does not specify where these editorial right are to be vested. If the webmaster doens't have these editorial rights, then who does?

Even though the editorial rights are held by the webmaster, he still has a duty to report the information as accurately as possible. If there is an error, we already have a very simple appeal process: just send the webmaster some email, and it gets fixed.

Same Sex Marriage and Democracy

2006-07-28T10:20:00.000-07:00

I am disappointed with the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage. But perhaps in the long run the court has done us a favor. In essence, the court ruled that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is an appropriate exercise of legislative authority; but the court went out of its way to point out that to do the opposite would also be an appropriate exercise of legislative authority.

In other words, the court ruled that we must fight this case in the court of public opinion. I think this is a fight we can win there, and when we can win our battles by democratic action it is better to do so than to use the courts to force our position down the public’s throat.

Consider, for example, the fight for abortion rights. Prior to 1973, the proponents were making steady, though slow, progress in the state legislatures. But when they by-passed the legislatures by securing the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion forces were galvanized and have been ever since. I suspect that if the Supreme Court had refused to get involved, a woman’s right to choose would be a long and satisfactorily settled issue.

According to numerous polls collected on pollingpoint.com, the public generally opposes homosexual marriage, if it is called homosexual marriage, 60% to 30% with 10% undecided. But if civil unions are added to the choices, opposition drops to 40%, with civil unions and marriages together receiving 55% support. And if it is called same-sex marriage there is a 5% shift in our favor. (In this paragraph, I am rounding to multiples of 5%, as I am summarizing numerous polls rather than reporting on any particular poll. Moreover, I don’t think the results are any more accurate than that.)

Ten years ago, the opposition to homosexual marriage was more like 70% to 25% with 5% undecided. So we are making progress. Moreover, these are national figures; I suspect that figures for Washington State would be much more favorable.

Representative Ed Murray has announced that he will introduce a bill addressing the Supreme Court decision. Our part is to use this decision to get out our base to effect change. And that’s called democracy.

The anti-neighborhood initiative

2006-07-12T16:49:00.000-07:00

Karen Lowe, with others, has an excellent guest column in the Seattle Times concerning I-933, the property wrongs initiative.

Basically, I-933 proposes that when a change in regulations decreases the value of property, the property owner can sue for damages. We will vote to endorse the NoOnI933 position at our Thursday meeting. The NoOnI933 website is here.

Among many examples in Karen’s piece:

Horseman's Trail is a proposed 116-unit subdivision that would be located on 23 acres of steep, environmentally sensitive property in the Picnic Point area between Mukilteo and Edmonds. Many local residents are asking Snohomish County not to approve the subdivision. Under I-933, the county would have only two choices: allow the development, or pay the developer what the subdivision would be worth — potentially millions of dollars.

It seems to me, in the spirit of this initiative, one might ask that when a change in use of a property decreases the value of nearby property, the effected property owners should be able to sue the developer for the decreased value. If I-933 is good, wouldn’t this be even better?

Democrats have more Integrity

2006-07-06T13:40:00.000-07:00

Normally, I consider web based polls to be not worth the effort to view. Even so, I was struck by the ratings of U.S. Senators at the New Political Review.

The New Political Review is not a left wing site. The opinion pieces posted on the site are evenly balanced between Republican and Democratic authors, and those I read by Democrats were definitely to the right of my own views. The site has a page that invites readers to rate Senators on traits such as integrity, honor, and character.

With one exception, readers of the Review rate every Democratic Senator above every Republican Senator on these traits!

Currently, the top five Senators are John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, and Edward Kennedy. The bottom five are Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Joe Lieberman (the one exception), Pat Roberts, and Ted Stevens. Our own Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray come in at numbers 7 and 15 respectively.

I wonder if Joe Lieberman's showing reflects his recent announcement that he will run as an independent if he fails in the Democratic Primary. Prior to that announcement, I would have rated Joe high on integrity, for sticking with an unpopular stand, even though I disagreed with him.

The Process Debate - Was what I saw what was really happening?

2006-05-31T10:37:00.000-07:00

Good Wednesday, all.

I have called for a separation of the debate about process from the debatee about the upcoming State Senate race. Please understand that I don't think that eoither topic should be dropped. Rather, I think they should be different threads. In this posting, I want to talk about the process thread - specifically, what I thought I saw at the April 2006 meeting when the endorsement vote was taken.

In order to understand why I think there is a problem, let's review the bylaws - specifically Article II:Membership, Section 2: Associate Membership, Subsection 1. It states:

An Associate membership in the 44th is open to any person that meets all of
the following:
Is a registered voter, residing within the boundaries of the 44th,
Publicly supports the principles and goals of the Democratic Party
Chooses to be known publicly as a Democrat
Supports the work of the Democratic Party in the 44th
Pays annual membership dues
Has previously attended at least one 44th LD meeting in the last 12
months.

My concern about the voting that occurred at the April meeting are two-fold. What I saw were a number of people asked to fill out an envelope, enclose a check, or some cash, and hand it to the board members in charge of the vote. The person doing so was then given a blank card which was later used as a ballot. What worries me is that I believe we violated our own rules in three ways:

The board members taking the information and money did not appear, at least from what I observed, to verify the current voter registration status of the people signing up that day;
The board members taking the information and money did not appear, from what I observed, to verify the address of the person signing up to be within the current boundaries of the 44th LD; and
The board members did not appear to verify the names of the people that signed up against a list of people who had attended a 44th LD general membership meeting in the prior twelve months.

It appeared to me that some of these points were assumed to be a given at the time of sign-up. However, if we're just going to assume this, then why should we even have these points in our bylaws?

I'd love to hear from the E-board membership about this point - can they absolutely guarantee that what I thought I saw was incorrect, that in every case, every ballot, there were no mistakes, either accidental or deliberate? If so, I'll freely apologize, here, on the e-mail list, and at a public membership meeting. If not, then we need to work together to find a solution that prevents even the hint of impropriety from appearing at any of our meetings.

I look forward to the comments.

A belated addition to the debate: What do we stand for as Democrats?

2006-05-30T00:06:00.000-07:00

A while back (before the birth of this blog), I posted a call on the Snohomish County Dems for an explanation of what we stood for. I recently came across a response that I had not answered, and which I felt still was relevant enough to deserve an answer. I'm posting my response here for comment and discussion:

****************

Nancy:

I have had this forever in my to comment folder, but somehow kept missing it.

So, two months later, where are we on your list? Well, let’s see:

- Take a big chunk of the defense budget and put it into really defending America by strengthening our infrastructure, building schools, and re-weaving the safety net.

I agree with some of this. I agree that the DOD has become bloated, and that some judicious trimming is needed. I am not, however, in favor of the wholesale replacement of this organization with some wild-eyed and overly naïve scheme for a Dept of Peace. Show me where, anywhere, that any three functioning governments have such an entity. There is a reason. While the goals are high minded, the execution sucks. You wouldn’t be creating peace, you’d be creating bureaucracy – and worse, a bureaucracy with “ideals” that would believe it had the right to interfere with private citizenry to enforce those ideals.

- Making concrete proposals to get us into a reasonable energy future. Denmark gets 100% of their electricity from wind. Germany gets 40%. We could do something!

Don’t forget Brazil. As a free-market sort of guy, I actually think we may be at a tipping point where the market will demand more of this type of solution. What we need now is an energy policy which promotes this development. By the way, here’s where I depart from the Progressives on this. I think that many of the big oil companies need to follow the lead of BP and start looking at themselves as Big Energy – and start finding ways to bring these technologies to market. They have the money and the brainpower already – they just need to change their focus.

- Universal health care for all Americans! Now! Including a pharmacy benefit!

Agreed. In fact, no argument.

- Rejoining the rest of the world. Join the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and all the other treaties our allies have joined. Stop acting like we are an empire ruling the planet.

OK, some of these I agree with. However, not all world governing bodies are good – for example, I doubt you’ll ever find a progressive who believes in the WTO. (I do, by the way, but not the way it is currently structured). The problem with an organization like that is it gives the same amount of power to small nations as well as big ones – so if 10-15 nations form a coalition, they can basically get their way – no matter what their true social and political influence is. A good example is the International Criminal Court. In some ways, it is admirable – but in other ways, it is downright idiotic. I disagree with entangling our country under the rule of others in a structure where we may suffer.

- Here's my favorite: Make America Number One! We should have the best schools in the world, the best healthcare, the best transportation system, the best retirement system. All we have are the biggest debts and the meanest military.

Concerning Debt, that may be true in dollar amount, but not in terms of percentage of GDP. Additionally, are not Progressives the same group that a decade ago was screaming about being betrayed by the Clinton administration for it’s willingness to cut some pet programs with the overall goal of improved fiscal health of the nation?

As for the meanest military, I am going to assume you meant this as hyperbole. There are scattered incidents in any conflict that do not reflect well upon the force as a whole. But to declare us the meanest is to close your eyes to the atrocities being committed on a daily basis by organized national military and militia groups around the world. For example, In Iraq, we are not the ones exploding car bombs. We are not killing people in Darfur. We are no committing genocide in Kosovo. So please, be a little bit more careful in your choice of words.

- We should be a force for peace in the world, not war. We would have more influence, and everyone wouldn't hate us. Let's be the biggest aid donor in the world. Let's eradicate the most diseases. I don't care how many bombs we have. I'd rather have allies!

You talk of being a force for peace - a sort of Pax Americana. Throughout history, such peace has always come at the price of enforcement – it rarely if ever grows from within, but is instead forced onto a situation either by one group triumphing in a conflict or in some bigger outside agent influencing the situation. We could not do that without a military designed to enforce such a peace…and then, Those the peace was forced upon would be resentful, believing that they could do it better themselves, even if “better” meant renewing decades or centuries-old sectarian feuds so a final “winner” could then enforce their own peace. Loom at those you point to as examples of peace, and ask yourself how effective the implementation of their message has been over time. Me, I’m pragmatic. Yes ideals are nice, but show me how you are going to make them work.

We are among the biggest aid donors in the world. Curiously, some of the richest countries in the world (the Arab oil states) contribute very little of their wealth, either individually or as a government, to crisis regions around the world.

Regarding eradication of disease – doing so will increase the possibility of rampant population growth, at a time when we are already straining the resources to feed, clothe and support the existing population. Do you really want more growth without an avenue for them to take and expand to?

- That's what Progressives are fighting to get the Party to do. Don't you agree? Nancy

Nancy: The problem I have with many progressives (at least the ones I have met to date) is that they seem to be, as a whole, the most intolerant, intractable people I’ve ever met. They seem to believe as much or more in litmus test-based judgments as their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum. I freely admit to possibly being wrong about this, but so far my empirical evidence states otherwise. Perhaps the current rabid temperament is due as much as a Newtonian reaction to the excesses of the other side of the political spectrum. Still, I fear that a pendulum swing too far off balance to the left will be just as bad as a swing too far to the right.

Sincerely,
Don Speirs

A Gauntlet Thrown...

2006-05-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

I seem to say this a lot, but I'll do it again...

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

And no, this isn't because I'm a fan of International Talk Like a Pirate Day. It's because I am tired.

I've just spent the last hour catching up on a week's worth of accusations, recriminations, name-calling, etc. etc. etc. It's almost enough to make a guy wish for a benign dictatorship.

Look, we have just spent 7 weeks now discussing the endorsement process. And you know what? After this period of time, you have thoroughly convinced me that my vote should be for "NONE OF THE ABOVE."

I hear nothing on this blog or on the mailing list about new policy ideas and initiatives from either candidate. Instead, it's more along the lines of:

"He was robbed."
"No he wasn't."
"She Cheated."
"No she didn't."
"Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

Folks, our process is broken. Let's admit that and move on. If it wasn't broken, neither candidate could have worked to stack the room - something that I have witnessed campaigns do three times in the 19 months since I was elected as a PCO.

What I wanted, what I have called for, was a substantive campaign of ideas. I wanted a chance for both candidates to present their views for how their assumption of this position would benefit each of us and our community as a whole. Instead, I have one candidacy working through surrogates to have a platform to deliver these ideas and the other campaign working through their own surrogates to deny any such platform, because they feel they've fairly won the right to an empty stage.

Enough, boys and girls. Time for the grown-ups to take over. I am officially calling for debates between our two candidates, to be held in three public forums in August and early September, between Mr. Hobbs and Ms. Kaufer. I'd like to see them held in three different locations: Lake Stevens, Mill Creek and Snohomish. I'd like to see them hosted by a neutral party - say, a service club in each area - and moderated by someone who is an acknowledged and agreed upon neutral in this election.

What I want is ideas, so I can decide other than "None Of The Above." Not this politics of personal attack, because frankly to this point all you folks have convinced me is that we have a whole bunch of inmates running the asylum in both camps.

There's my challenge. Can we all grow up enough for us to have substantive debates on the issues so we have an informed electorate? Or are we going to continue to play in the mud puddles?

Political Hardball & Consequences...

2006-05-29T14:18:00.000-07:00

In the interest of full disclosure, Steve Hobbs is a friend and associate of mine, a fellow Rotarian from Lake Stevens. Lillian Kaufer has been a customer of mine, although I daresay that will probably change after this posting. Lastly, I voted for a dual endorsement at April's meeting.

What I saw occuring on the night of the 44th LD endorsement vote in April was a large number of supporters of Ms. Kaufer, many of whom were overhead to remark they had never been involved in politics before, coming forward to pay for their membership THAT EVENING. That gave them the right to vote THAT EVENING as well. It was a maneuver worthy of an old Chicago-style politician. I even have to applaud her for it - after all, it indicates that she can energize and mobilize a grass-roots group much better than Mr. Hobbs did.

One interesting note: In the time leading up to the vote, Mr. Hobbs lobbied me for my vote multiple times before that evening, but Ms. Kaufer never once did so. Since I am an elected PCO, that surprised me. In retrospect, it appears that Ms. Kaufer didn't feel my vote was necessary for her to receive the endorsement. Perthaps she knew in advance her strategy of recruiting new members was going to be successful, based on average attendanceat previous meetings?

I'd be cruious to hear from our illustriuos leadership how many new members joined that evening for the sole purpose of placing their vote that night. As well, I'm curious if any of them have announced their intentions to stay involved in 44LD affairs, serving on committees, running for elected PCO positions, etc.

But in my naivete, I have to wonder, again, about the fairness of a system that allows first time visitors who have had, up until that moment, no place or participation in the debate, making a choice that has far-reaching consequences, not just in terms of the 44th LD but in limiting one candidate's ability to utilize county party resources as well.

Of course, the perverse part of my political brain wonders if the same rule applies to our Republican counterparts. If so, perhaps we can use the same strategy to overwhelm their meeting with new members and thus influence their party as well.

Oh, wait. Isn't this the same argument that our party leaders have used to say that a blanket primary in the state is unconstitutional?

In the end, we have now spent the better part of two months arguing about the process. What I'm not hearing is substance. I am not hearing Ms. Kaufer's positions on issues. I'm not hearing Mr. Hobbs' proposed solutions. And I'm not hearing 44th LD dems discussing their strategy for winning in November.

If this is the way we're going to behave, then we deserve four more years of Senator Dave Schmidt.

The situation, as I see it.

2006-05-27T00:05:00.000-07:00

(I intend, in this post, to adhere to the tenets of my previous post regarding netiquette. Feel free to call me on any oversteps. Also, please forgive the length of this post. But as in the old saw about the young lady’s skirt, I felt it needed to be long enough to cover the subject.)

We seem to have a situation in the 44th LD.

Again.

As situations go, this one is not completely unfamiliar. Indeed, it shares some similarities with a situation we had about a year ago. Come to think of it, one of the players is the same. Let me see if I recall correctly…

Dave Somers was endorsed by the 44th LD in his 2005 race against County Councilmember Jeff Sax. Later, the possible endorsement of Steve Hobbs in the same race came under consideration. The Endorsement Committee recommended no endorsement for Mr. Hobbs, but a motion to endorse was made from the floor and seconded. After some discussion, a vote was taken and Mr. Hobbs received the endorsement. Without getting into specifics, I believe it would be safe to say that harsh words were spoken, both publicly and privately, and feelings were hurt on both sides. Some darn good Democrats, for reasons they are better qualified to provide than I, quit us.

Then, in expectation that there would be no Primary Election suitable to the two main political parties, came the Nominating Convention. The voting members of the Snohomish County Democratic Party Central Committee convened for the purpose of selecting one candidate, Dave Somers or Steve Hobbs, to carry the Party banner into the General Election. Those of us casting ballots that day were assured that the winner of the nomination would have the full and unqualified support of the unsuccessful candidate. Dave Somers got the nod, and Steve Hobbs opted not to support him, but to continue campaigning as a Democrat, even without the nomination.

At a later General Meeting of the 44th LD, a motion was made, seconded and passed to rescind the endorsement of Steve Hobbs.

(Aren’t these strolls down Memory Lane a hoot!?)

Next there was a judicial ruling that resulted in a Primary Election that was suitable after all. It was as if there had never been a Nominating Convention! The race was run, Somers won, and peace prevailed throughout the land.

That was the old situation, now for the new one.

Members of the local labor community recruited Steve Hobbs to take on Dave Schmidt, incumbent Republican, for the 44th LD Senate seat in 2006. There was some contact with the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (SDCC) in Olympia, and some assurances of support were given, though by whom and to what extent, I am unable to say for certain. Indeed, this part of the story is based entirely on second hand information and subject to any needed correction by those who know it better.

Meanwhile, all unbeknownst to the local labor community and the SDCC, a grassroots candidate named Lillian Kaufer was emerging with her sights set on the same State Senate seat. A well known, well liked, and active member of the 44th LD community, Lillian served as Affirmative Action Committee Chair and was known for her work in opposition to the proposed Mill Creek Wal-Mart. She quickly attracted strong support among the 44th LD regulars.

When it came time to consider endorsing, the Endorsement Committee recommended a dual endorsement. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I was on the Endorsement Committee, and voted to dual endorse.) At the General Meeting, the voting members were given the option of voting to endorse one candidate or both. As I recall it, 18 members (including myself) voted to endorse both candidates. One member voted to endorse Steve Hobbs alone, while 32 members voted to endorse Lillian Kaufer alone. Final tally: Lillian Kaufer, 50 votes, Steve Hobbs, 19. This represented a surprising (at least to me) show of support for Lillian’s candidacy, perhaps balanced by a measure of repudiation for that of Steve. One is left to speculate as to whether or not the circumstance described above as, “Steve Hobbs opted not to support him, but to continue campaigning as a Democrat, even without the nomination,” had anything to do with the outcome of the vote.

So, here we are. Harsh words are again being spoken. Members of the 44th LD are reportedly criticizing, perhaps even demonizing, the labor community for trying to pick our candidate for us. Members of the labor community are reportedly accusing us of being a bunch of hard-lefties and even raving left-wing Deaniacs!

While I think it is very likely these views exist, I strongly suspect they are minority views. I think most of us would agree with Don Henley, who sings, “There’s three sides to ev’ry story, baby: There’s yours and there’s mine and the cold hard truth!”

With that in mind, it seems time for us to sit down and reason together, progressive Democrats and conservative Democrats alike. (I left that little angle out of my narrative, didn’t I?) After all, we share the common goal of removing Dave Schmidt from his perch.

Rumor has it that both Darrell Chapman, President of the Snohomish County Labor Council, and Rick Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council, have been invited to address the 44th LD Dems at the June meeting. I don’t know if either has accepted the invitation as yet, but if they do, wouldn’t that be a great opportunity to lay some cards on the table, and maybe even clear the air a bit?

Open and honest communication can’t hurt, can it? If we can manage to keep it civil, that is.

Jackie Minchew
PCO, Everett 38
2nd Vice Chair, 44th LD Dems

Where was Don Speirs? or discussion r/t use of some non union small businesses at 44th General Meeting

2006-05-16T16:09:00.000-07:00

I know that the discussion of Democratic candidates using some, not all, non-union, local businesses for their campaign materials was brief and full of passion. Quite honestly, that is what I like most about the 44th. A willingness, in fact an increasing willingness to ask why? To challenge the status quo.

Mr. Speirs is vocal and sometimes appears to have difficulty with some of thestands on issues and endorsement the 44th has been grappling with lately.

On this particular issue, he has been vocal in the past and I for one, missed hearing his input. The eboard of the 44th was infavor of bringing this issue to debate, even though we knew we were treading on hallowed ground.

I hope we have the opportunity to dialogue about this issue with data/facts in the future rather than fear of some form of retaliation if we or our candidates make decisions that are right for them and their candidacy (and our local business owners).

I want to clear up the misconception that I am against unions, or that I was suggesting that we not use union shops. This could not be further from my intent.

My intent is that we talk about this. That we re examine past practice and perhaps, maybe, possibly, make informed decisions that may not be the same as those made 20, 40 or 60 years ago....sometimes.

Do Unto Others…

2006-05-14T14:06:00.000-07:00

…as you would have them do unto you.

The 44th LD blog offers a terrific tool for discourse and debate. Kudos to Russ for his leadership on this project, as well as the website, and to Rick DeWitt for jumping in to help out. It now falls to us, the active Democrats in the 44th LD, to use these tools wisely and well.

Passions sometimes run high in our little enclave of activism, and on occasion impair good judgement., my own as often as any I daresay. Whether discussing challenges to Maria Cantwell’s incumbency, the race to unseat Dave Schmidt, or immigration (the dominant topic so far,) the risk of overstepping the bounds of civil discourse is ever-present. So, in the interest of maintaining and even building long-term relationships among 44th LD Democrats, allow me to share a few “netiquette” guidelines compiled for me by my son who blogs extensively.

Some may say we need look no further than the “Golden Rule” with which this post opened. Others may agree with me that some degree of specificity is called for. So, here goes.

1. Give Respect, Gain Respect. No matter how strong our disagreements may be, opinions are opinions and we all have a right to our own. It's hard to give a list of disrespectful behaviors, because you should always be aware of how you're addressing others, and respect comes in too many forms to simply list it out. But let’s give it a try. Being respectful on a blog, as in daily life, means:
a) No namecalling. Simply not acceptable, anytime, anywhere. Don't do it.
b) No ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks (literally “attacking the messenger) frequently contain logical fallacies. (If you are pro-choice, you must like killing babies.) They are intended to throw someone off their mark, put them on the defensive and distract from whatever argument they might otherwise use to support their point of view. It is a cheap form of argument that lessens the user.
c) Support your argument with evidence, and respect others' ability and right to do the same. Links are good as they shorten otherwise lengthy posts and give the reader the option of examining your evidence or not.
d) Accept that your viewpoint is not the only one. Making your case based on your beliefs, rather than an assumption that "everybody knows", actually strengthens your argument.
e) Avoid "go to hell" language. if you realize that the person you're debating will simply never "get" your point of view, or they've crossed the line and become disrespectful to you, your best plan is to just disengage and end the conversation. Last words never work, and telling someone to "get lost" "go find another blog", etc., just makes you look petty and gives them the impression that you're out of arguments or they won.
f) If someone crosses the line and is disrespectful to you, this does not grant you the right to become disrespectful. If you want your blog to truly be a place for open debate and discussion, it's up to you to keep the conversation civil and productive. If you stoop to someone else's level, all you're doing is reducing the overall discourse. Rise above it.

2. Avoid confusing fact and opinion. Many heated, unpleasant arguments have dragged on because some decided that it was an obvious "fact" that, for example, “Incumbent A” sucks and should be removed from office. No matter how strongly you feel it to be true, that is an opinion. It is a fact, however, that primaries are an opportunity for members of the Party to select someone else to represent the Party in the general election if they want an incumbent replaced.

3. If you are stating an opinion, be clear that you are doing so. If you are stating a fact, back it up with evidence.

4. Be fair. Hold yourself to the same high standards you expect of others.

5. Unless you have firm evidence, don't presume to know the motives of others (See also item 1-b, “Ad Hominem attacks” and item 4, "Be fair.”)

6. Don't take the bait. Occasionally, someone is just going to be so disagreeable that no matter what you say, they just keep picking a fight. “Putting someone in their place” can be personally gratifying on a certain level, but it seldom advances the debate in any meaningful way. Better to make your point and walk away. It is better, in the long run, to be viewed as the voice of reason rather than as the hothead who simply can’t be reasoned with. (I have been credited {accused?} of playing both roles at one time or another.)

7. When you're wrong, say so. If you've been corrected or find evidence that you said something that was wrong, leave a comment addressing your error. If you re-read something you wrote and realize you treated someone badly or came across wrong, leave a comment addressing it and apologize.

Don't try to memorize this list, but feel free to add other admonitions by way of comment. Or, just remember the Golden Rule: Don't speak to others in a way you wouldn’t want to be addressed, or in a way you wouldn't speak to them in person. Monitor yourself, be respectful, and our blog will be a productive environment to work out differences and get things done.

(Disclaimer: I have not intentionally targeted any of these comments at anyone. Nor do I intend to set myself up as any kind of model of proper netiquette, or as an arbiter of the netiquette of others. This is simply a set of guidelines, compiled by Ray Minchew, my son and veteran blogger, edited by me in such a way that I am willing to put my name to it, and submitted for your consideration and further discussion.) jwm

Rick Larson Endorsement

2006-05-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

Congressman Rick Larson has asked for our endorsement at our May 11th meeting. I am opening this post to generate some discussion on the endorsement.

For my part, I went from being a lukewarm to an avid supporter of Rick when he voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Given that Rick was in a very tight race for his first reelection, I thought this was an act of true political courage. (I wish Maria Cantwell could be half as courageous.) I actually expected his vote to cost him the election.

Most of us would have preferred that Rick had voted differently on the Bankruptcy bill last year. However, subscribers to our email list will remember Rick’s very detailed letter explaining his position and refuting many of the arguments against the Bankruptcy bill. I had to conclude that opposition to the bill was hardly the no-brainer I had assumed.

According to voteview.com, which publishes a most liberal to most conservative ranking of each house of Congress, Rick has moved steadily, if not dramatically, to the left over the past three terms; from the 168th most liberal in 2001/2002 to the 127th most liberal in the current congress.

In his request for our endorsement, Rick makes the following points concerning his recent record:

I ask for your endorsement to help me continue my work to create jobs and support the strong Democratic innovation agenda to strengthen manufacturing by funding and investing in research, public education and technology.

Your endorsement means much to me because it will recognize my role in fighting for clean air and clean water and setting a new direction in energy policy that focuses on alternative sources, renewables and conservation. I have led the effort to pass the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, which would mark the first wilderness area in more than 20 years for Washington state. I also fought the Republican-led efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act.

I support access to affordable health care for everyone. Democrats held together against the President’s efforts to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting health care for the working poor. I need your endorsement to continue my work to help our hospitals meet their critical access needs and serve our rural neighbors.

As the only member from Washington state on the Agriculture Committee, I am leading the effort to stop the Republicans from cutting the legs out from under the dinner table of hungry kids. Not only have I been able to get Washington state added to a program that extends free summer lunches to poor children, but I have also made it a continuing priority to keep food stamps available for our neighbors who are less fortunate than we are, battling national Republicans every step of the way.

I need your endorsement to continue my work to eradicate methamphetamine from our communities. As a leader in Congress, I have helped craft legislation that assists our local law enforcement in their fight against the meth epidemic. I lead the effort to restore funding that President Bush cut that helps our communities fight meth. And I will be leading the effort to bring federal resources to bear on education, prevention and treatment of meth addicts to break the cycle of addiction.

One final point. Last August I ment a childhood friend who now lives in the other Washington. It turns out her daughter babysits for Rick. She says Rick is a good guy. On that recomendation, I support our endorsement of Rick Larson.

Please-No more finger pointing!

2006-05-09T11:31:00.000-07:00

Here is an article below that provides insight not commonly talked about in finger pointing discussions on illegal immigration. The article supports the idea that our country and the decisions we make do not exist in a vacuum.

Many critics of illegal immigration so often narrowly frame the issue to be about illegal immigrants breaking the law by entering the US illegally and critics often follow up by pointing to their own ancestors coming here “the legal way.” For starters, unless you are Native American or have indigenous roots from here, anyone that is in the US is here without permission. Besides, no one gets to choose who their ancestors are, so if you happen to be from ancestors that came to the US “legally” this has more to do with chance and less to do with your personal choice in the matter. In addition, I have yet to hear from a US citizen that since finding out that their ancestors came to the US illegally, picked up and moved back to their ancestor's country of origin.

Secondly, there is a good chance that if any one of us had to break a law to save the life of our children we would not think twice, yet illegal immigrants are constantly being criticized for having a basic human reaction. If we had a dying family member in the car with us, might we drive over the speed limit to get to the hospital quicker in an effort to save our family member’s life, therefore breaking the law? Will these finger pointers please get off their high horse and stop acting like they are so above a group of people that have experienced a height of desperation that many of us from the US will most likely never come close to experiencing? Not due to how smart we are or due to our high morals, but simply due to what line of the boarder we happen to be born on.

Let's take responsibility for our role as US citizens and members of the human race. Below is an article that examins some contributing factors to our predicament.

Stephanie

Immigrant Surge is Tied to the Failure of NAFTAThe trade agreement left rural and urban Mexicans worse off than they'd been.
by Octavio Ruiz

The 12 million Mexicans working in the United States who will be criminalized by proposed immigration legislation are the same people who were promised the possibilities of a decent living with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
It is ironic that House conservatives who want to execute these anti-immigrant policies are the same ones who signed the trade agreement, which only has brought poverty to the Mexican people for the last decade and years to come. No level of heightened criminalization will reduce the flow of immigrants to the United States when we endorse trade agreements that give people little choice but to leave the countries of their birth.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of immigrants to the United States from Me xico actually decreased by 18 percent in the three years before NAFTA's implementation. But in the first eight years of NAFTA, the annual number of immigrants from Mexico increased by more than 61 percent.
The cause was twofold. First, NAFTA's agricultural provisions resulted in a flood of subsidized corn being imported into Mexico from the United States. The effect in rural areas was that some 1.5 million rural families -- and some researchers claim twice that -- were driven out of business. Their only options were to move to the cities and seek whatever work, at whatever wage, could be found, or to cross the border. A very large number chose the second option.
Because NAFTA's labor rules did not provide Mexican workers with gains in workplace rights, the trade deal also hurt urban workers. Deprived of their ability to join unions or to organize, Mexican manufacturing workers saw their real wages fall by more than 20 percent over NAFTA's first five years. Today, workers in the country's vast export manufacturing sector, the maquiladora factories, earn from one-fourth to half of their previous wages. Such pay does not even provide very basic necessities for a family. Many of these workers eventually choose the hardships and uncertainties of crossing the border over the certainty of long hours in unhealthy conditions for below-subsistence wages.
Despite the failure of NAFTA, many in Congress who now insist on a draconian response -- including James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, author of the mass-felony bill passed by the House -- voted last year to extend NAFTA to Central America and the Dominican Republic via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). These conservatives are also about to vote on the NAFTA-styled Andean Free Trade Agreement that includes Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. They're doing this despite sources as diverse as the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Catholic Bishops of Central America warning that CAFTA would displace millions of rural people in the region.
If these lawmakers want to address the social and economic costs of the growing number of undocumented immigrants -- or, as they call them, illegal aliens -- in the United States, they should stop passing trade deals that destroy people's livelihoods in their home countries.
It is time for a different policy for engagement with the global economy. Instead of one built on maximizing the supply of "cheap labor" and excluding worker rights from our trade agreements, we need one based on raising the standard of living in all nations. Instead of one based on the displacement of small farmers in our trading partner nations, we need one that develops local markets for those farmers. Otherwise, we will continue to push people into a situation where they have few options other than to immigrate north.
Octavio Ruiz is globalization coordinator for the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition-the Resource Center of the Americas.

Renewable Energy is Sexy?

2006-05-07T00:28:00.000-07:00

I posted a somewhat lengthy (899 words!) little thing over at The Left Shue. Here's the link.

http://theleftshue.blogspot.com/2006/05/renewable-energy-is-sexy.html

Come on over and discuss it with us. If you can post comments here, I believe you can do so there as well.

Jackie Minchew

Net Etiquette

2006-04-28T07:38:00.000-07:00

I have asked my son, Ray Minchew, former Executive Director of Democracy for Washington, to write up a post on net etiquette which I will post to the 44th LD Blog. He is active on a number of blogs including Daily Kos and others. In the meantime, I want to go on record as opposed to anonymous postings as well as those with cryptic user names that hide the poster's true identity. Passions are running high in some quarters these days. A small measure of decorum may help to prevent, or at least minimize, long term damage to important relationships. jwm

Snohomish School Levy

2006-04-26T12:58:00.000-07:00

The Snohomish School Levy appears to have passed, with 69% of the vote. The forces of light have triumphed over the forces of darkness, at least for now.

In a comment on my earlier post on this subject, “Anonymous “ wrote

… But if your house valuation has increased by 20% or more then you are stuck with an equivalent increase in taxes under this logic. It is nice for the schools to have their budget tied to an economic factor that is going up much faster than inflation. They shouldn't play ignorance of this fact.

I was going to respond with a discourse on the virtue of an income tax in preference to most other forms of taxation. But as it turns out, property taxes don’t work this way, at least on average. According to the school district:

Once approved, levy and bond amounts cannot be increased. When community property values increase, the amount paid per $1,000 decreases.

So as the total valuation of property in the district increases, the rate of the levy decreases to keep the actual funds raised constant. Or course, if your house valuation goes up 20% while everyone else’s stays fixed, you get zapped while all your neighbors pay slightly less.

An open letter to Dick McManus

2006-04-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

Dick:

I'm writing you a public letter because I've seen a couple of things, and wanted to address them in an open forum.

For weeks now I have been reading your long and technical posts regarding the coming doom of civilization. I appreciate you taking the time to bring up the scientific proof of these events, although I have to note that it seems a lot of scientists you quote appear to come from faculties with a long history of prizing political advocacy over an apolitical pursuit of the truth.

That said, what concerns me is the length of your posts. This post had 25 paragraphs to it. All valid points, but still, 25 of them?

Might I suggest you consider following the example of both the 44th LD Dems and Chad Shue, and creating your own blog. You could post a notice here with a brief abstract of your latest posting, as well as a link. You could still get your messages out, while also saving us from the need for larger hard drives to contain your missives.

I'm not arguing with your right to make these statements, Dick. I just think there's a better delivery method. I hope that you will take this comment under advisement.

Sincerely

Don Speirs

44 LD PCO Hillcrest

Reconsider a Dual Endorsement in the 44th Senate Race

2006-04-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

A week ago I attended the 44th general membership meeting, where the case for endorsement was made by both Lillian Kaufer and Steve Hobbs. The end result was a sole endorsement for Lillian. I want to make a case for reconsideration of a dual endorsement.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have relationships with both candidates. Lillian is a customer of my business, and I intend to contribute monetarily to her campaign. Steve Hobbs is a fellow member of the Lake Stevens Rotary and a friend of mine. I also intend to contribute to his campaign.

I like both candidates. I feel they both would be successful candidates in the fall general election. I have issues with both of their campaigns - I don't think ether one has yet given me a sense of their strong vision for where they want to take us. To date I get more of a feeling of what they both oppose. Opposition is good, but it doesn't advance us as a people. It at best preserves the status quo, and we need more than that. We need to move forward.

So why am I asking for a reconsideration of the vote on Steve? Well, I have two issues. First is a concern over the way the membership voted on this. This is the third time I have seen a vote on endorsements, and in each case, I have seen the same thing: that evening, a whole bunch of supporters for one candidate or another show up that evening, pay their dues, and are able to vote for their candidate or position, which wins. They then disappear like smoke, only to be replaced the next vote by whoever gets their supporters to sign up that night as well.

This may be legal under our bylaws, but it just feels wrong. Shouldn't these votes be based on those people committed to the party on a long term basis? People who are willing to campaign for their position as a PCO? People who have paid their dues and attended a number of meetings? Last minute entries feels like, well, stuffing the ballot box.

The other reason I believe we should reconsider an endorsement for Mr. Hobbs. is that I honestly believe we have two capable candidates, and that the decision on who should represent us should be made in the primary, by all our voters, not by 5 dozen people in a room. I know this flies in the face of the county party leadership, who desire to have a united front behind one candidate. But I trust the voters. If we don't trust them, we place ourselves on the road to dictating the future, rather than participating in deciding our paths.

Not endorsing Mr. Hobbs sends the wrong signal. It states that we believe Lillian is the only qualified candidate. I admire Lillian for all she brings to this campaign - a fresh approach, passion, and the ability to excite the voters. But she is not the only qualified person to stand up in this debate.

This said, I have another technical question: I might have missed it at the meeting, but I never heard a report from the endorsement committee at last Thursday's meeting, stating what their position was on either candidate. Should that have been stated before the vote?

One last thing: I want both candidates endorsed, but I also want something from each candidate. I want a pledge from both candidates that they will make this a campaign of ideas, a campaign of vision. If there is anyone to be attacked, it is Dave Schmidt, for his policies and tactics. No one wins when we have two viable candidates who spend the primary shredding each other to bits. How about it, Steve? What say you, Lillian? Will you commit to this, AND will you instruct your proxies in this campaign (yes, I mean both you, the Progressive Caucus, and you, Organized Labor) to also abide by this pledge?

As always, I welcome your comments.

My Hot Button Issues

2006-04-19T17:36:00.000-07:00

Well, hello there. Surprised as I am to find myself the first non-russ blogger here, I still feel a need to speak my peace about issues that have crossed the mailing lists in the past few days.

Hot Button #1: Illegal Immigration. First off, before anyone decides to go off on me here for even raising the topic, let me explain my own past. I am a second generation Italian-American on my mother's side. My grandparents waited three years to obtain the visas necessary to enter the US through Ellis Island. I still remember my grandfather's stories about how he worked hard at the docks by day and learning English through his children's lessons by night. I have seen first hand the hard work and sacrifices made to grab a part of the American Dream.

I appreciate that immigrants want to come here. I appreciate they want to invest their labor in what I consider one of the best places to live on the planet. Sure, we have problems here, but if it was so bad, why would we keep having a net influx of immigrants each year?

No, my problem is in the way this exodus is being handled. My grandparents, like most immigrants of the past few generations, may have started out in a different culture, but upon coming here they became "hyphenated Americans". This didn't mean giving up their culture completely, but it did mean acknowledging and working to become part of the American landscape - of being willing to adapt to differences and changes because it is America.

The current exodus is different in that a large percentage of the immigrants are entering the country illegally. Many of the stories I have heard say it is too hard to get a visa, that the long waits in line are too hard. I'm still trying to equate how 500 miles across a desert is better than waiting in line, but I digress. They decide that coming here without permission is the better choice. They will come in, work as day laborers in a black market economy, get some form of state ID eventually that they can then use to access benefits, and so the story goes.

I am under no illusions that all the people entering the country illegally are bad people. But they have all made a bad choice. They have chosen to disobey our laws because it was inconvenient for them. Which begs the question, if someone can decide to break one law because it is inconvenient, where else might they do that? What laws will carry enough weight with them that they will obey it?

One tactic I've enjoyed in this debate is how the other side is attempting to frame the positions. They claim they are pro immigrant rights - thus making those of us who want to see the tidal wave of illegal immigrants stemmed against immigrant rights. The truth, however, is that folks on my side of this debate are pro-immigrant rights. I believe that immigrants should have every right to pursue the American Dream, to benefit from the society they have chosen to become part of, provided they did one simple thing - emigrate legally. That's all. Get a green card, come in legally, and then, within 7 years, finish the classes and become a naturalized citizen.

Another thing I don't understand is why do people have a problem with having their identity and citizenship confirmed? I, as a white male, still have to submit to that process whenever I attempt to get support and services from the federal government. Social Security, Veterans Affairs, DOD - all checked my citizenship before issuing me benefits. This is only a problem if you haven't come into this country illegally - in other words, if you haven't already broken the law. But a number of my progressive colleagues are screaming like stuck pigs about Gestapo tactics and jack-booted thugs.

So, there are 12 milling illegals already here now. What do we do about them? Well, let's start off with one simple fact: AMNESTY DOESN'T WORK. To refresh your memories, it was already tried 20 years ago. Then we only had 4 million illegal aliens.

Seems to me the compromise plan proposed by those evil Republicans hits the nail on the head - allow the oldest and most established workers to remain, but force them to become a part of the system - go through naturalization, pay fines and back taxes for their illegal earning, go through citizenship courses and eventually become full fledged Latino-Americans. This doesn't force the most established families to leave, but does make them become Americans. Where is that harmful?

The next group - 2-5 years in country, have to BRIEFLY return to their country of origin to obtain an entry visa, and then can return and start the legal naturalization process. Parts of the proposal also allow certain sections of the visa application process to be done remotely and electronically (all hail the mighty Internet). This would reduce the inconvenience factor enormously.

The last group - those here less than 2 years - they get to go home and start over. This includes the absolute flood of illegals now streaming across the border in Arizona, worried that it will get tougher to sneak in.

Other provisions make sense as well. Building a fence to stem the tide? It is necessary to stop the human flood. Stop that from happening, and I'll be the first guy to say it isn't needed. Make assisting illegal aliens also a crime? Well, the problem here is that one side thinks the operative word is immigrant, while in fact the operative word is illegal. Am I the only one who understands the terms "aiding and abetting?" It is one thing to provide temporary support and succor - such as a doctor at an accident scene. But running organized support programs that work to provide subsistence level support to an illegal population is, by definition, illegal. Has been for over 20 years. Is this, perhaps, another case of convenient ignorance of the law?

Here in Washington, Initiative 946 is being proposed for the ballot. The folks who have, here on our mailing lists, opposed it, state that it is

an effort to deny basic health and human services to immigrants and refugees

Here's the problem with that statement. Legal immigrants, legal residents, will not be denied these services. Again, it comes down to this question - in these days of needed fiscal conservation, why should we make it easy to spend limited resources on people who have broken the law?

I challenge all my colleagues within site of this blog to explain to me why we should reward illegal behavior. Are you trying to appeal on a purely passionate basis - they are poor and downtrodden, and thus need our help? If so, shouldn't the poor, downtrodden and homeless who are already citizens of this country have first claim on your generosity, your compassion?

I'm still waiting to be convinced. Yet I believe all I will hear is that I'm a racist bigot. Nope. What I am is a devil's advocate. I am challenging you with the same arguments that our opponents will use later this year - and I might add, use effectively, unless we admit the basic issue isn't immigration, it's illegality. Until then, we're talking apples and oranges.

Snohomish School Levy

2006-04-17T16:22:00.000-07:00

At our April meeting, Kit Raney of the Snohomish Education Association spoke about the upcoming Snohomish School Levy ballot scheduled for April 25.

This levy replaces an expiring levy, and would increase property taxes by a whopping 1 cent per $1000, from $2.55 to $2.56. The owner of a $500,000 home would be socked for $5 per year.

The four-year levy failed on the Feb. 7 ballot with 57 percent support, 262 votes short of the required 60 percent supermajority. Polling of February 7 was exceptionally light; only 532 ballots were cast on election day. It is hoped that increased turnout will put the ballot past the 60% mark.

If the ballot fails the District will be required to reduce the 2006-07 operating budget by $7 million. Kit was unable to distribute the District's brochure on the levy, which lists the following cuts to take effect if the levy fails:

Reduction of 20.5 certificated staff (teachers and support staff).
20-25% reduction in clerical, instructional assistant & technology staff (approx. 54 positions).
25% reduction in custodial/maintenance staff (13.5positions).
Reduction of 7 central office & building administrators.
A 66% reduction in athletics and extra-curricular
activities.
No spending for textbook and curriculum adoptions.
Closing Hal Moe Pool.
Closing all K-9th grade schools at 4 p.m. to save on
energy costs.
90% reduction in equipment purchases District-wide.
20% reduction in supply purchases District-wide.
Reduction in student transportation services.

Delaying the opening of the new high school, new elementary school, and Parkway.

Welcome

2006-04-14T15:46:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the 44th District Democrat's Blog.

We are located in Snohomish, Washington, some 23 miles North of Seattle. Our district is represented by two Democrats, Representatives John Lovic and Hans Dunshee; and, at least temporarily, by a Republican, Senator Dave Schmidt. In congress, our district is represented by Democrats Jay Islee and Rick Larson. You are welcome to visit our main website, 44thdems.org.

We have started this blog as a better way of discussing current issues than an email list. With everybody's mailboxes being filled with messages demanding immediate attention, plus a lot of SPAM, we've decided to move discussions to a blog.

Several frequent posters to our email list have agreed to post messages here instead, so as hopefully to present something new almost every day. I would like to have a few more posters; members of the 44th District Democrats who are interested should contact me here.

Anybody, whether a member of the 44th Dems or not, whether a Democrat or not, is welcome to join the discussion by posting comments.