Back in the game?

So I find myself back at the 5th LD Democrats' meeting tonight, just 11 months after swearing off politics. It's reorg night, meaning the District elected themselves a new Chair (congratulations, Hank! - Hank's a good guy from Issaquah, and will be a great leader). It's weird being back in one of these meetings, missing The Office, not working out, and generally doing none of the things people normally like to do on a Wednesday night. At the same time, I'm doing many things I would rather NOT be doing on a Wednesday night: sitting through speeches, Robert's Rules, etc.

*sigh*

But that's okay. This is where democracy really happens, and it's worthwhile to take part. The thing that brought me back to this meeting (possibly future meetings?) is Barack Obama. I like Barack, I think we all know about his ability to reach crowds and his rockstar status. But his work on civil rights in Chicago, voter registration drives, etc., is exciting to me. I also see his work in the Senate so far as, with the exception of some votes I undoubtedly agree with, being sensible and really standing up for progressive values. In any event, I'm not ready to start the sales pitch for him - gotta study up so I'm not just yapping.

Being interested in Obama, I've connected with other folks also interested in supporting him (including a number of fellow Dean veterans), and we've already had a Meetup. February 10th, we'll have our second Meetup, at Piecora's Pizza in Seattle. And that, my reader friends, is what brings me to the 5th LD meeting.

Not the most interesting blog post I've ever written, I'm sure, but hey...next time one of you tells me I should write more, remember this post. This is what happens when I write more!

Marriage equality coming to Washington?

It's a day too late to share the Martin Luther King connection, but still worthy of discussion.  Today, Jamie Pederson and Ed Murray introduced two landmark pieces of legislation that will move the discussion of marriage equality forward for years to come in Washington state.

[Before I go further, please register now to attend Equality Day in Olympia on February 26, to join clergy, people of faith and people like me to lobby legislators on behalf of this legislation and against discrimination!  And please consider sharing your testimony on behalf of these bills...opposition will be hot, so your participation is so important!]

HB 1350 (adobe required - non adobe link here) is least likely to pass, and would amend existing law primarily by removing all references to "a male and a female" or "wife or husband" and replacing them with "two persons" or "spouse".  In other words, it would expand marriage equality to all Washington citizens. 

Something I didn't know about same-sex couples, from the bill itself:

According to the 2000 census, Washington state is home to at least sixteen thousand same sex couples, ranking ninth among the fifty states in the number of same sex couples. Same sex couples live in all thirty-nine counties in Washington, and nearly one in four of these couples is raising children.

More from the same bill, and of utmost importance when discussing this bill in a religious setting:

No official of any religious denomination or nonprofit institution authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by the Washington state Constitution.

HB 1351 (non adobe link here) and its sister bill SB 5336 takes quite a different tack:  It addresses specific aspects of the 423+ rights and responsibilities that married couples enjoy - specifically those pertaining to health care, disposition of remains upon death and inheritance of an estate without a written will.  This will be significantly more difficult for opponents to dispatch it, in part because of the language which expands beyond same sex couples to include heterosexual couples past age 62.

This is similar in many ways to legislation on the books in California, which specifically addressed the rights and responsibilities of same sex couples and unmarried couples over age 62.  It's important to note that the bill under consideration here may have the same future as California's legislation, which has an amendment bill in consideration, SB 11, which would eliminate the age requirement for heterosexual couples and would become gender- and age-neutral, as long as the couple met all other requirements for domestic partnership (essentially, the same as those needed to become married minus gender language and plus the requirement of cohabitation).

There are roughly 5.5 million unmarried-partner households in the country (as of 2000; this is undoubtedly higher) - roughly 8.2%, and one of the lower rates of cohabitation among industrialized countries.  There is little available data on the percentage of these households which involve partners over the age of 62, and most data is based on opinion and conjecture rather than data.  However, it is difficult to argue against the logic of providing such couples the rights of hospital visitation, estate executorship, etc., without enduring the financial hardship many retired folks would suffer upon giving up pensions and Social Security. 

I'll get back to the same-sex issues here and address the incrementalism, but it's important to consider the implications of this bill, and the realities which it addresses.  As of 2002, nearly 6 million seniors were near or below the poverty level, and the Census Bureau indicates there are somewhere north of 200,000 (data is mixed in their report - age groups are lumped by 55-64 {347,000} and 65+ {148,000}) households with cohabiting seniors.  The Olympian reported in 2000 that:

...households made up of opposite-sex senior couples rose 46 percent between 1996 and 2000, a bigger jump than that of their middle-aged counterparts. Other reports fold in same-sex couples, showing the number of senior cohabitants rising 73 percent between 1990 and 1999, from 127,000 to 220,000.

In any case, this is a healthy population of folks (one wonders how many in Washington) that have the same right as anyone else to not live in poverty, to not give up the Social Security they've earned over a long life, and to live with someone they love without worrying what will happen to them should they get sick or pass away.  Nor should they have to spend the little money they have drafting legal documents to protect themselves from the state should the worst happen.  This is a basic, common-sense thing that provides some basic fairness to a group we can all agree is in many ways very disadvantaged in our society.  I look forward to Republican arguments that our seniors should have to either give up their rights or their Social Security...

And that brings me back to the issue of same-sex rights and incrementalism.  I'm not going to touch on the marriage equality legislation because A) it's a no-brainer, in my book, and progressive don't need me preaching about it, and B) it's destined for a 30-year quest through the legislature, mirroring the path of our recent civil rights legislation.  But I will talk about HB 1351.

Some naysayers have, in echoing the sentiments of MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, decried the approach of HB 1351 as a half-measure, as asking same-sex couples to 'wait just a little while longer'.  It's a valid point to some degree, and certainly a valid argument in the overall social context - indeed, why should anyone have to wait for social justice?  But to decry this bill in particular when seen as a companion with HB 1350 misses the overarching point and strategy, and that is that Ed Murray, Jamie Pederson and their 55 (so far!) co-sponsors are simultaneously forcing marriage equality opponents to discuss, openly and one by one, the rights and responsibilities they would like to keep from same sex couples while simultaneously holding up HB 1350 as the solution to the conversation:  Just pass this, and you don't have to go through the embarrassment of defending these one by one for the next decade.  (During which time, cohabiting seniors and same-sex couples will see their rights gradually expanded, rather than the reverse) 

Is it fast?  Of course not.  Is it as fast a strategy as social justice would seem to require?  Definitely not.  But it's light-years better than simply offering a marriage equality bill by itself and trying to argue the lump of 423 rights at once, which would result in one of two outcomes: 

1)  Most likely, a sound defeat.  As much as Josh Feit at the Stranger likes to complain that Democrats in Olympia aren't reaching far enough given their large majorities, the fact remains that "Democrat" and "progressive" are still two different words, and as long as people like Tim Sheldon win primaries, you'll have trouble pushing something like this through.  Not all Democrats embrace marriage equality; it's well known that any gathering of Democrats is a gathering of wildly varying agendas and opinions, and this is a particularly difficult issue to get agreement on, unfortunately. 

2)  A pyrrhic victory.  There is the chance our majority is large enough to actually pass, and Governor Gregoire's willingness to sign the bill is unknown at the moment.  If HB 1350 passes this session (a huge victory, to be sure!), does anyone think our initiative process, grown so tiresome to most Washingtonians by now, wouldn't instantly regain its popularity with the unfortunate majority who still oppose marriage equality?  Mind you, this isn't the same as a majority who kind of don't like 9 cent gas taxes...there is real passion behind the opposition to marriage equality, even in blue Washington.  Fighting off such an initiative with the background of gays actually getting married would be more difficult than many progressives want to believe.  An initiative to constitutionally ban marriage equality could in a heartbeat undo everything LGBT advocates have worked for over the years.

This is admittedly a pessimistic view of things, but we must take the reality of our situation into account.  We've got a chance to make serious headway on marriage equality - maybe even pass the bill (and I hope I can eat my words on the pyrrhic victory) - and at a minimum, provide same sex couples and cohabiting seniors with the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital and make medical decisions, dispose of their loved ones' remains, and maintain their estate if they don't have a written will...basic rights I take for granted as a straight married man. 

The long and short here is that Jamie Pederson and Ed Murray have decided to play two bets at once:  one bet with house money, that they're pretty sure they can win, and one that they could win that may or may not have permanent payoff.  If nothing else, they don't walk away with nothing...and maybe they walk away with the whole ball of wax.  Because despite my pessimism, there is still always the possibility, always, that they could pull this off - pass marriage equality and protect it when the inevitable initiative is voted on. 

In the short run though, with regard to HB 1351, is no progress at all preferable to at least some basic progress?  Can we not agree that even a small amount of dignity and freedom is worth working for?  If this bill was entered in a vacuum, with no other move to seek full marriage equality, I would share the outrage of those who call it a half-measure.  As it is, though, progressives need to play smart and see this for the shrewd (to use a lame sports metaphor) ball-control offense this really is.

I believe we can work for HB 1351 with all the fervor and passion the cause of equal rights deserves without for a moment sacrificing our fight for full marriage equality.  I believe we must do so.  I think this bill deserves no less than an all-out press on our part, and while we're at it let's work for full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Seattle snowstorm drinking game

Watch the local news

Drink for the following words or items:

"Blast" - 1 drink
"Slammed" - 1 drink
"Treacherous" - 1 drink
"Icy conditions" - 1 drink
"Bone chilling" - 2 drinks
"Arctic" or "Frigid" - 2 drinks

footage of drivers spinning wheels attempting to go uphill - 2 drinks

any interview in which baffled local says "I've never seen anything like this" - 1 shot, 1 drink

any interview in which confident local says "I've been through this before, but..." - 1 shot, 1 drink

any interview in which local references their year living in midwestern city - 1 shot, 2 drinks

asinine, painfully obvious or inaccurate advice from local media (drive as slow as possible, stay home [if snow is under 1 inch]) - 2 shots, 1 drink

any footage of person clearly driving too fast, losing control and crashing - 1 drink and high five everyone in room twice while shouting "Hullabaloo!"

(Game conceived and created by switzer and Mrs. switzer)

GOP Idiocy: Denver snow = Katrina

I received a forwarded email from a Republican friend of mine - we tend to get along and see eye to eye on lots of things, but he occassionally runs off the rails. This forwarded email, which I'll reproduce in its entirety, draws a parallel between the snowstorms in Colorado and Hurricane Katrina. (I may provide helpful links in-line, but otherwise, no editing) Check this:

Up here, in the " Mile-Hi City ", we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:

George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Shepard Smith, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.

Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a

mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.

I'll take this pretty much in order. I grew up in Colorado. I've been through four storms that were this severe - it's a big, hairy deal (although we never missed a day of school), but easily survivable. This is evidenced by the death toll of...zero. I live in Washington now. We have windstorms like this every year; it's part of our landscape. I and a million of my closest friends spent from 3 to 14 days without power last month after a particularly brutal one (8 days in my case).

The difference between windstorms, snowstorms and hurricane Katrina? In the first two, stores reopen. Basic amenities of life still function. No one is under 9 feet of water. With few exceptions, houses don't fall apart, and entire communities aren't destroyed. Tens of millions in costs, versus hundreds of millions. Quite the opposite with hurricane Katrina.

George Bush didn't come because Colorado didn't vote for him. But he has been asked for help.

FEMA is paying the govenrment's cost for police and fire overtime, repairs, and snow removal. This means that my federal taxes are paying for Colorado's recovery from a storm that they are always prepared for - their state taxes will not bear the burden. So it's either stupidity, ignorance or lying to say FEMA did nothing.

And wait, what's this...? Seems them tough ol' ranchers do want some FEMA aid, after all! What a surprise!

President Bush has declared two emergencies in Colorado after two blizzards beat up counties up and down Colorado’s Front Range.

The declarations came Sunday, two days after local officials expressed frustration with the delay by the federal government in recognizing the severity of the impact of the storms on ranchers in southeast Colorado, but do not include aid to those who have lost thousands of head of cattle stranded without food or water by drifting snow last week.

The federal government is yet to act on a request for low-interest loans for those ranchers.

No one howled for the government because...wait for it...they were doing their jobs (I'll get to this later)

The mayor of Denver didn't blame Bush because FEMA is helping him. Same for the Governor.

Please see inline links above to dispute the moron's claim that the major networks didn't cover this storm. Seriously, to claim nobody covered it? Please.

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards because no one was evacuated thousands of miles away from their bank accounts, which were destroyed along with their banks. Unlike Katrina, where people were left with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs - no ID, no money, no nothing - people in Denver were snug in their homes, and their bank kept on workin'.

No one needed a FEMA Trailer because no one found themselves suffering the indignity of homelessness, as hundreds of thousands did in Louisiana and Mississippi. No one looted, again, why? Because people had access to their own money, stores, water, and homes.

As for expecting the government to do anything...I suppose people drove the snowplows themselves? I suppose avalanche control (which failed at Berthoud Pass) was handled by the hardy locals at their own cost? I suppose the fire and police and national guard that were called out to help aren't part of the government? The airlifted food for cattle came from...where? Folks' living rooms?

I will admit, no one from Hollywood seems to have jetted off to Denver to try and alleviate all the...people not suffering.

Now we get to the part about melting snow for water. Apparently, this email was written by Grizzly Adams rather than someone who lives in Denver, because this is just fucking nonsense. It's a major metropolitan area, and the water still worked. Those on ranches have wells. If you're going to spread right-wing anti-government puke, at least don't make up outright stupid things.

As for people pitching in to help each other - apparently this moron missed the constant coverage of truck drivers helping people, teenagers commandeering school buses to get people to safety, restaurants opening, millions upon millions of dollars in donations, clothes, food, shelter all being donated during Katrina. Nope, only them rootin', tootin', toughest-on-the-plains Denver ranchers help each other.

I especially like the connection between putting on layers of clothing (don't normal people learn to do this when they're 5?) and "Work or Die". HA! Yeah, Denver's got a real do-it-yourself wild west cowboy work ethic. Sweet.

As for the rest of this drivel, seriously - I'd love a follow-up email to tell me how an "affirmative action" government's "welfare program" caused New Orleans to be under water for a month. Amazing how government did nothing to save this self-sufficient, brave person in their suburban hell of snow, and no one blamed the government for their predicament, but somehow government DID cause New Orleans to flood....odd, ain't it?

WTF! Gassy smell edition

Time for these, I guess...

Am I the only person who thinks it odd that on the same day a 'natural-gas odor' permeates Manhattan and extends all the way to New Jersey (odd enough in its own right!), downtown Austin, TX is evacuated because of dozens of unexplained bird deaths?

Both seem to be resolving themselves; New York is getting back to normal (although a lot of kids got a day off from school), and Austin should have reopened downtown by the time this is posted.  But seriously, wtf??  All quotes I've seen from public officials have followed the same basic pattern:

"We have no idea what this is.  But we know no one is in any danger."

Bloomberg even had the nerve to say this is "normal. It happens all the time."  WHAT?!  Manhattan is overcome with a gassy smell that requires building evacuations all the time???  Seriously, I'm not exactly filled with confidence when the best response we can get from leaders is that they have no idea, but are magically certain we're safe.

But the other thing that really has me concerned is that the MSM seems to be treating these as two separate incidents.  Sorry, but when two major cities have to evacuate areas on the same day because of "something" in the air - that's a very big deal, it ain't normal, and it seems connected. 

My thinking (get that tinfoil ready) is this: If someone wanted to release some airborne pathogen as a terrorist act, they might do a couple test runs, not big enough to do real damage, but big enough to cause a full response.  It just seems like a good way to draw out your opponent (assuming we're the opponent) and see what their capabilities and vulnerabilities are.  And as we've seen over the last four years, we're much better at panicking over false alarms than we are at identifying and preventing real attacks.

I hate to be Mr. Conspiracy about it, but birds dying in Texas and a gassy smell that covers miles of a metropolitan area - on the same day?  Seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence.  But maybe it's just my liberal blame-America-first mindset that causes me to see that we may be blowing off an actual terrorist threat today.

John Boehner's belated wisdom

"If there is one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this: A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of a majority lies not in the chance to wield great power, but in the chance to do great things."

That's John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, speaking shortly before handing over the gavel to Nancy Pelosi (which he did in a gracious manner, and to bipartisan applause in recognition of the historic import of the event). 

Notwithstanding my continued lack of interest in any advice a Republican might choose to share with my fellow Democrats, I find it funny that he realized the "value of a majority" only after having it beaten into his head by the electorate.

Would that the GOP had understood that sage bit of wisdom when they took power in '94, we might really be facing that permanent majority they promised us all.

Unfortunately for America, they didn't understand it, and we've suffered through six years of rubberstamp governance, illogical and at times harmful legislation, an historic and unprecedented stifling of the minority, and now we're saddled with a war, financial and constitutional crisis of the GOP's making, which could take years if not decades to unravel. 

Boehner's observation about the value of a majority is worthy of notice, however, because (in a GOP rarity) he's exactly right.  Being in the majority is a chance to do great things, but not only a chance - it's an obligation.  The Dems got off to a good start yesterday by passing a beefed up ethics measure shortly after formally electing the first femal Speaker and highest-ranking woman in our government's history.  Here's hoping they get their 100-hour agenda accomplished and then get down to business in a bipartisan manner (within limits, given the GOP's stated plan to disrupt Congressional business).

And lastly, a toast to my former boss, Senator Patty Murray.  Congratulations, Senator, on becoming the highest-ranking woman in the Senate, fourth-ranking Dem, and hiring a strong new chief of staff!

Open letter to parents

"Blood on the lockers".  That's the quote from Foss High School students today that will be used to turn this tragedy into nothing more than a headline and book title.  And that's what we'll focus on while parents ask why the school didn't do more and all Washington state begins the inevitable debate: more gun control?  better security?  stricter guidelines in the school?

Gun control is not the issue here - people are still upset that Dylan Klebold could buy his weapons at a gunshow and want that loophole closed, but this assumes that Dylan Klebold was incapable of coming up with another idea.  Close the loophole by all means, but let's face reality:  smart kids will think of ways to get what they want.  In our society, it really isn't difficult to get a gun without anyone knowing you've done so.  So gun control, in this context, misses the mark.  Better security?  We should spend millions upgrading schools and hassling kids, creating more fear and tension, on the off-chance that your kid's school might have one of the 15 or 20 (out of millions of students) kids that bring in a gun every year?  Does anyone believe there aren't multiple ways to get around this?  Even in schools with metal detectors, the only way guns are detected is by another student finding out about it and telling someone. And as for stricter guidelines, well...that really brings us to my point. 

You see, this whole debate really misses the larger problem with our schools today, and it isn't the students - it's you, it's us - it's the parents.  Parents have failed their children in our society. 

I should explain, before going further, that I am of course speaking generally, but I do mean to offend most parents specifically, because frankly, someone needs to say something.  We spend too much time and energy deferring to parents, granting them elevated status as paragons of virtue, wisdom and strong stewards of values for their children, doubting parents only when given strong reason to do so. 

We have to stop this.  I am not suggesting that you should be assumed to be a bad parent; far from it.  What I am suggesting is that as a society, we need to relearn that the only things borne in the womb are babies - not wisdom, not virtue, and not values.  When your child is born, your work is only beginning.

The culture of babies

The culture of babies and value-laden parents has created a situation where the concept of babies has become more worthwhile than the babies themselves.  Having babies, not a family, becomes a goal for too many young girls, and in fact becomes the end, rather than a means.  Every time I hear someone, after seeing a baby, exclaim "they're so cute - I want one!", I shudder.  Our children have become puppies, or dolls to dress up, and not what they really are:  young people learning to become members of our society.  I'm not suggesting we should stop enjoying our children, far from it - but we can't stop with enjoying our children.  We have to take responsibility for their safety as well as their physical, mental and emotional growth.  This simply isn't happening.

Why are we having children in the first place?  I tend to mock the parents who will tell you they've received a "little blessing" or refer to their child as "our little miracle".  I mock this because children aren't miracles or blessings - they're independent people that we've created, and by elevating them to this artificial status as a miracle or blessing, we remove ourselves from the responsibility that we have to them.  They're not abstract; they're real, they're our responsibility, and furthermore, it's our responsibility to society to ensure that they are functional adults when they leave our care.  It is not society's responsibility to make them functional children, nor train them for adulthood - it is ours.

Values

While the right-leaning among us apply their "values" to all parents (save liberals), they disregard the responsibilities parents have for creating and instilling those values not just in their children, but in themselves.  Too often, talk of "values" brings the conservative viewpoint, which has become dominant in the world of parenting and child-rearing, to issues of homosexuality, sexual behavior, and media (radio/movies/television shows).  The conservative viewpoint is that homosexuality must be stamped out so "our" children won't be "corrupted" and become gay themselves.  Sexual behavior must be stigmatized in all its ways and manners - save that between a married man and a woman, which should never be discussed prior to the wedding night.  And the media must stamp out all messages of, well, things "I" disapprove of.  (fair warning - a contradiction is coming on this point)

This viewpoint is weak-minded, corrupt, and in my opinion, is the most significant cause of the failure of modern parenting. 

Society, my fellow parents, is not your babysitter.  There certainly is a responsibility, at the societal level, to determine what is reasonable to have in the public square.  But the eradication of images and speech deemed "wrong" by parents and others bent on judgment does nothing to ensure children are raised well.

When I hear people ask "what about the children?", when I hear "what do I tell my children about marriage when two men can marry?", I always think "why is that my problem?".  You are responsible for your children.  You teach them right from wrong.  You teach them values and morals.  You show them how to behave - through discipline and object lessons.  Live how you want your children to live, and teach them right from wrong.  You cannot expect government, nor society, to do it for you.

My child is special

This is endemic today.  Your child, while undoubtedly in possession of some variety of talents and surely interesting and unique in their own right, is not special.  Your child is one among millions who is learning how to interact with others, learning boundaries and learning limits, and the concept of being "special" is damaging to this important development. 

Surely, as a society, we are advanced enough to love and embrace our children, teach them confidence and self-esteem, without falsely inflating their sense of importance in the world.  We are not special - we are important parts of a community.  Whether that community is the family, classroom, coworkers, or society as a whole, we should understand our place within it, and if we aren't appropriately grounded as children, when will we learn it?  How many future George Bushes are we raising if we aren't teaching our children not to place themselves above other people? 

I strongly believe that the idea of all children being special, again referring back to the idea of babies as miracles or blessings, has created an abstraction and accomplished two things, both bad and complementary:  It has allowed us as parents to forgo our responsibilities to our children to teach them, and it has created a space for children in which others are not seen as equals or fellow members of a community, but as other abstract beings with little relevance or importance.  This is incredibly dangerous, and I believe we're beginning to reap what we've sown.

Media

This is where the aforementioned contradiction is coming in.  While parents as a whole seek to force the media to prevent any images or ideas from reaching their children via FCC complaints and moralistic legislation, we simultaneously (and bizarrely) embrace the products of that media and allow our children in massive numbers to take in and absorb those images and big-screen lessons, unquestioned by us.  How many parents seriously have conversations with their children about the mind-boggling problems with the Fast and the Furious?  Apparently, not many, judging by the number of children racing around in Acuras with giant ridiculous spoilers.  In my mind, this type of film is much more dangerous than trainspotting, which showed the realistic problems of drug addiction.  The moralists would love to allow the former movie to be shown, and the latter to be banned, despite seeing the evidence that our kids aren't suddenly doing blow because they have the good sense to see that's no good, but they don't yet have the good sense to recognize that dangerous driving habits are, well...dangerous.  This isn't a difficult concept to grasp: offer your 14 year old a choice between a heroin needle and your car keys sometime and see which one they'll go for.  Kids aren't that hard to figure out.

The contradiction of wanting to ban one but not the other honestly baffles me.  But before you jump down to leave your scathing comment, understand I'm not saying either should be banned, or even limited.  I'm saying it is the parent's responsibility to decide what their children watch, and to make an effort to impact the lessons they take away from it.  When you decide to have children, you're agreeing to have difficult conversations and sometimes make difficult rules.

TV  - same thing applies.  Is it really that hard, if a homophobe's son or daughter watches Will & Grace and has a question about it, to sit down and have a conversation about why you believe what you believe?  If it is, perhaps you need to examine your beliefs, rather than trying to force society to protect your child for you. 

Parents, children and school

And this brings me to the more specific point today.  Our focus on banning media (or sex ed, or take your pick) rather than teaching our children how to think about the information they take in, our focus on our children as hyper-important beings, our wrong-minded acceptance that parents are right because they're parents has put our kids in a no-win situation. 

Too often, we hear of kids expelled for behavior that warrants, well, expulsion, and parents suing the school district.  Too often, kids disciplined in classroom find shelter and protection from parents who extend the oddball "You can't tell me how to raise my kids" mindset into the classroom and morph it into "you can't tell my kid how to act".  Too many kids have been raised by parents assuring them they're special and no one can tell them what to do.  We've created a climate where children are running the schools - respect for teachers is unnecessary when they know mom and dad will back them up. 

Right and wrong - we talk about it, but who's responsible?  More and more, I hear conservatives complain that we spend too much on schools, and they should only be concentrating on the three "R's", yet when children act out, when they have sex, when they break laws or commit acts of violence, the same parents want to know why the school isn't teaching these kids right from wrong.  Well...the better question is, why aren't you?

At the same time, the constant bombardment of violent images in song and video, which goes largely unchallenged and unquestioned by parents (except when they ask government to do something about it FOR them), has bred a Jerry Springer mindset - conflict resolution necessarily involves physical altercations.  You have to stand up for yourself, and physical domination is the only way to do so.  Mind you, I don't blame the imagery for this problem - I blame the parents who have not directly challenged that imagery with their children. 

The schools, hamstrung by a system that punishes teachers who stand up for their classroom (sorry, school districts can't afford the legal fees associated with litigious parents), have become places where teachers have little to no ability to mandate behavior.  When they're forced to discipline students, schools rarely get the backing of the people they need most - the parents. 

And we're back to you, the parents.  We have the responsibility to send well-adjusted children to school to be students - schools are not responsible for taking your neglected clay and molding it from 8:15 to 2:45 into model citizens.  Schools have enough on their hands with hormone-addled children, with soccer practice looming and WASL over their shoulder, just keeping kids focused on the task at hand without also being responsible for personal morals.  You have to set that standard, so when kids don't meet those standards at school, you're prepared to deal with it. 

The Christian movement has embraced homeschooling over the last few years - notwithstanding the failures in basic science and history that this movement has fostered, I think it's wonderful in two ways:  One, these kids are wonderfully shielded from these rare, tragic outbreaks of violence, and two, they are getting parental attention, guidance and support that is woefully lacking in too many homes of public-school kids. 

We, as parents, need to embrace the ideals of attention, guidance and support of our children that teaches them right from wrong, that holds them accountable for their actions, that teaches them their responsibilities to society and their community.  We have failed at this, and it's past time to get ourselves right again.

The goal

What is the solution, here?  I think, first, we must decide to take responsibility for ourselves.  It is long past time for us, as a society, to stop worshipping the cult of parents, and rather begin demanding certain things of parents - responsibility, guidance, accountability.  How your child behaves in the store isn't just "kids being kids", it's your responsibility to teach your child how to behave in the store.  How your child interacts with other children isn't a matter of them growing as people, it's your responsibility to teach them how to interact with other children (and adults, for that matter!). 

It's time for us to realize that others most certainly can, and should, tell us how to raise our children - not because one person is good and another bad, or one right and another wrong, but because we are a community, we are all in this together, and our ability to coexist depends on our ability to work together to raise children.

And finally, it's time for you to take responsibility.  Your child's behavior really is a reflection of you.  I don't want to create a culture where our children's actions cause us shame when they do the wrong thing, but where we respond by teaching them, rather than finding an outside influence to blame for not stopping them. 

Tragedies will always happen - there really are bad people, and there will always be someone who snaps, but it doesn't have to be a common part of our landscape.  The decline in the quality of life in our schools can be stopped, but it will take effort on our part to do it.  Until society, and parents, take responsibility again, the blood on those lockers belongs to us.

Hey, what a f*#kin' surprise!

Seems highway projects in the region will cost more than expected.  Wow, whoda thunk it?

Here's the thing:  COST OF MATERIALS GOES UP WITH TIME.  I don't understand, and frankly am baffled by, the shock and horror people feel when the cost of transportation projects proves to be more than expected.  If we can grok that milk, gas, and bread will cost more from year to year, how can we completely fail to understand that the cost of steel, cement and labor also rises? 

It strikes me as self-evident that if you're going to release budget numbers, you'd do well to be conservative and release numbers that assume higher-than-expected inflation, and a cushion for spikes in the cost of materials.  Then, you'd be dealing with an informed (oops, I think we just identified the problem) constituency, have room for those inevitable cost problems, and give yourself a scratching chance at actually getting done under budget.  Instead, if inflation is built into these projections at all (I honestly don't know, but I assume so), it's built in at a friendly, consistently unrealistic rate. 

How do I know it's consistently unrealistic?  Because I've never seen a major infrastructure project, ever, anywhere, that made budget.  They all go over budget, and they all cry about the totally unexpected rise in cost of materials! 

This is, of course, made worse in Washington state, where any transportation project must first be discussed and voted on ad nauseum for 5 to 25 years before any actual work begins, during which time the cost...*gasp*...goes up.  This incredible, mind-boggling delay in actual work in the misguided effort to provide an appearance of consensus itself causes the rise in costs, as more and more studies are commissioned and commissions are studied and COSTS OF MATERIALS FUCKING GOES UP WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME.  And we just keep ramming our thumbs further up our collective asses, then going all Eyman with outrage when we learn that the as-yet-unstarted massive $12 billion transportation project, voted on and approved and planned several years ago but still being discussed and voted on again, suddenly will cost $16 billion.

Ironically, the only infrastructure project I've seen that gave a realistic cost estimate was voted into extinction within two months of release of that unfortunate, honest budget:  the Seattle monorail.  They made the mistake of releasing the actual, total cost of the project with financing and interest, and people went freaking apeshit over it.  Granted, the financing scheme they'd come up with was crap, but that can be corrected.  In the final analysis, the numbers they were released weren't that far off from what was realistically possible, but even the better honest numbers would have doomed the monorail to death.  Why?  Because in the first vote, people were given a cost estimate that was patently (and to me, obviously) well short of what the actual, total cost would have been. 

In other words, while we are slaves to the total cost of ownership (TCO) model when we buy computers or cars for ourselves, for some reason we make no such demand that our public servants share with us the TCO for infrastructure projects, and when they do share it, we respond with righteous outrage.