i don't like the sound of this

according to this AP report, president-elect obama plans to blast into office with a series of executive orders.

on the surface, the proposed executive orders represent a new direction for the country. if you're in favor of lifting limits on stem cell research or if you cringed at the "drill, baby, drill" chants of the republican convention, you should be happy.

but i'm afraid that obama's mandate for change may result in a continuation of other bush doctrines, specifically the unfettered increase of executive powers. of course, it may be that this is the usual political territory for a new president and obama will represent a less power-hungry force in the oval office, but i'm not convinced.

in other news, i loved obama's pseudoseriousness at his first press conference this week. when a reporter asked him a wacky question about the new puppy he promised his daughters for being such good sports about the campaign, obama played it straight. he calmly described the pros and cons for various dog breeds as if he were weighing whether or not to invade afghanistan.

Kierkegaard in '08

in case you're not sure who to vote for yet, here's a convincing campaign ad:

armies clash by night: some war films

12.no end in sight

build me a ladder of logic up to the sky, a string of carefully constructed proofs that creatively illumine the uncertain state of this world and that beyond. that's my charge to any issue-oriented documentary; do that and i'll happily climb the rungs of your rhetoric. i am so charmed by logic that if a filmmaker sugercoats truth or skillfully twists on-screen action away from one view or another, i'm likely to miss it, likely to fall into the rational trap of the film's narrative.

all that to say, although i can't be sure of the objectivity of no end in sight, the movie makes me angry, angry that the occupation of iraq was undertaken in a fog of idiocy. no end convincingly argues that our leaders had access to effective means of avoiding a full-scale insurgence but they chose to plug their ears, close their eyes, and clash by night.

still, i don't know where to go from there. i obediently followed no end's story arc, and just as the title might suggest, it left me without a conclusion, without some sense of what to do next. this frustration is complicated by the increasing optimism of the war in iraq. no end leaves us in 2007, when things were still going horribly wrong, but now in 2008 the latest AP reports suggest that there may in fact be an end in sight. and so, while no end may be a fine piece of cinematic rhetoric, i seriously question it's timelessness and application for the world today.

11.stop-loss

and here's another rhetorical success. this film (not a documentary) successfully demonstrates the injustice of "stop-loss," the US military's doctrine of reinstating soldiers after their tours of duty have already been completed, that is, sending them back to iraq against their will. i might gripe that some of the film's characters behaved incongruously to their personalities or life scenarios, and that the film may have went a little overboard in some places, but like no end in sight, stop-loss is a likely candidate to make you mad. oh, and get these guys some prazosin!

change

the next issue of the other journal will focus on the 2008 election. although i'm interested to see how theologians will address this topic, and i think it will be an interesting issue for our readers, i wonder how creative writers will take to it.

if poets and writers are our modern prophets, our contemporary truth-tellers, then it makes sense that their work might be politically noisy, that it might voice protests or hoorahs over policies and potentates. and perhaps we should listen.

but when i sit down to read a poem or a short story, i don't want to bullied into belief. i don't want a writer knocking me up side the head with the moral bush is bad. if this is their point, i'd like the message to sneak past my defenses, settle in my mind, and convince me via the rhythm, images, and story.

so, yes, i'm afraid that some writers will forget their subtlety and fly headlong into the role of teacher. therefore, when i think of our next issue, i'm most excited by the lens we're hoping to use for election '08: change.

it's a word that's on the lips of all our pundits and politicians these days, but i also think it's a potentially rich word for christian writers. when you think about it, nearly all great literature is about change. we read books that have shifting plots, characters that are melded by their stories. and at the heart of the christian faith is change.

and speaking of change, here's the point of today's entry: today i'm on the brink of change. after battling a nasty cold, i'm starting to feel much better. this seems small and shallow, of course, but to me, at this moment, it feels big and important.

and i just finished haruki murakami's the wind-up bird chronicle, which i hope to say more about later.

and after several years of off-and-on practice, i'm finally learning debussy's "claire de lune" in its entirety.

so hooray for change!

bad decisions

it's a dark day in seattle--thunder, lightning, ruptured community.

today, on the verge of a courthouse victory in their case against clayton bennett, the city caved. they got cold feet, or perhaps greedy, and agreed to a cash settlement. mayor greg nickels claims that the settlement will keep seattle in the good graces of the NBA--commissioner david stern has even reversed himself, stating that a remodeled key arena will meet the NBA's standards. in exchange for stern's weak promise that if the washington state approves funding for the remodel, seattle will be on the short list of cities to receive the next expansion team, bennett gets a get out of jail free card. already he is whisking the sonics away to oklahoma city.

after hearing the news, i turned my radio to 950 KJR and then made my way to www.sonicscentral.com. i listened as choked-up fan after choked-up fan bitterly torched the city of seattle, called for starbucks boycotts, vowed to never watch another NBA game again. some seemed close to tears as they talked of their memories, torn from them, perhaps forever. others talked of the future and their children who will have no shawn kemps or gary paytons, no kevin calabro.

and they said goodbye. a community 1000s strong suddenly deemed irrelevant by the powers that be. a community that in a flourish of ink, suddenly lost its reason for being.

perhaps there's still some hope.

(1) the city may have acted with prescience--balmer's still around, so this seeming betrayal of fan interest may actually result in seattle getting a second shot with the supes someday in the far future.

(2) howard schultz's lawsuit to rescind the original sale of the team is still on the table. if successful, we could be cheering in the streets once again.

in the meantime, here's my list of annoying people that deserve an otter-pop spanking:

howard schultz
clayton bennett
commissioner david stern
governor chris gregoire
speaker frank chopp
mayor greg nickels
city councilman nick licata

and because i haven't published something on the sonics in about a week . . .

from sonicscentral.com:

3,691 to 117

This was the 4 day total of calls to the governors hotline beginning the morning after the Ballmer announcement and ending the Tuesday we assumed it was dead and filed our public disclosure.

97% of the people who bothered to call in urged her to support a solution and get something done. We expect similar numbers but a much greater quantity of calls when the legislature returns their tallies.

also, last week we heard a lot of rhetoric about "not having enough time to put together a package." but as i was listening to 950 KJR AM tonight, i learned that during the thursday session at least 5 hours (!) were spent congratulating one another on a session well spent and recognizing the lifetime achievements of some of the retiring legislators. that's a bit frustrating.

on the sonics blogs i frequent i've noticed an overwhelming response in favor of this proposal (i.e., hundreds of posters) and an equally dramatic backlash against the politicians in olympia for sitting on their butts and doing nothing. my impression is that many of these fans are your typical washingtonians--liberal and left--and i wonder how their dissatisfaction might influence the next round of elections. i know that i for one am disappointed that i haven't even received a dismissive form letter back from my legislators.

finally, people are calling obama's latest speech amazing. my pastor, for instance, has said that it is "perhaps the most powerful speech on the issues of racism and economic divides offered in the past 40 years." check it out at the npr site. and i'm sure that if obama were on the scale tonight, one thing he might add is that each and every one of us should do our part to end racial discrimination, economic crises, and sonics atrocities by emailing the seattle city council and urging them to find a solution to the missing $75 million (council@saveoursonics.org).

andrew the political provocateur

my friend greta recently pegged me as "pretty passionate about the sonics," which i suppose must be somewhat true. after all, during the last week i have sent several impassioned pleas to my governor and state legislators, and i have printed and posted "save our sonics" paraphernalia--grammar errors and all.

however, i haven't actually watched an entire sonics game all year. the supes suck this year, and i'm happy to spend my time elsewhere, give someone else my dollars.

the thing is, NBA basketball is cyclical. today we field a team of rookies and scrubs, but tomorrow--and by tomorrow, i mean five years from now--the key arena/ford center will rock. think '95-'96.

but my sudden political activity isn't founded on a gamble or the promise of a rosy future--i'm willing to admit that durant might lose a leg and presti's stockpile of #1 draft picks could turn to naught. no, my desire to keep the sonics and impeach the legislature is entirely separate from the great potential of future iterations of the green and gold.

i guess i am just tired of the same old irrelevant arguments. i am tired of dogma that prohibits us from looking beyond our wallets and imagining the world from someone else's shoes. i am tired of leaders who parrot back the same meaningless answers to straw man arguments rather than taking decisive action.

and that is why i have called the legislature (800.562.6000), written my governor, and enlisted at least 3 others to do the same.

now it's your turn! unless the governor schedules an emergency legislative session, the city ponies up another $75 million, or some other sports miracle occurs, today is the last day.

photograph: sean meichle. "the provocateur." VAPSHCS, seattle, wa.


PS apparently i am so annoyed at our leaders that i even gave the governor some input on an unrelated bill about law enforcement and gang activity.

the sonics make me happy, frank chopp does not

contact the governor!
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp

My email to Gregoire:

Dear Governor Gregoire:

Hi, I'm writing to encourage you to take a stand in favor of the recent proposal by the potential Sonics investors who are offering to contribute half the cost to a Key Arena renovation. As I understand it, the City of Seattle would chip in another $75 million, which only leaves $75 million for the state. And since the bonds for Safeco are expected to be paid off early--right?--that means no new taxes! For $75 million I think this is spectacular, must-do high priority.

I'm proud that Washington state hasn't caved to Clay Bennett's extortion attempts, but this deal is our chance to say YES! to the 40+ years of memories, the jobs, and the civic pride that is the Sonics.

And I am counting on you to take a leadership role and make the legislature consider this sweet bill before the NBA Board of Governors meets in April. Frank Chopp and Jeff Morris are fond of saying that there isn't time or that other issues are more pressing, but quite frankly, it's the 11th hour and now is the time.

Governor Gregoire, if you don’t do all that you can to embrace this bill and keep the Sonics in Seattle, if you don't rally for the legislature to fund the state’s portion of the proposal before this session ends, I will be very disappointed. Please don't let your legacy suffer; don't make me vote for Rossi in the next election; make our state ecstatic and proud.

Thank you for your time,
Andrew

save the sonics!

Legislative Hotline 1.800.562.6000

Call it, tell them that you are calling in response to the articles last week and the ones you’re going to see tomorrow morning. Tell them to be supportive of local investors attempts to buy the team.

This is important.

See the article "Business titans try to keep Sonics here" in Tuesday's Seattle Times for more info.

i want a clinton-mccain-obama hybrid

in case you missed it, here is tonight's democratic debate. russert seems like a pretty tough moderator. i kind of wonder what it would be like if this debate was hosted by the daily show.

obama on faith

here's a clip of barack obama speaking of the separation of church and state, the way in which faith could and should inform politics, and his own conversion to christianity. it's a long speech, but i think it's worth a listen.

free sonics tickets!

leave me a message if you're interested in free (lower bowel) sonics tickets. the catch is that you'd have to go to olympia (with me?) on monday evening.

if you're thinking "maybe...but why would i go to olympia?" well, there's a legislative hearing about the $300 million tax proposal to keep the sonics in washington state, and the Save Our Sonics/Storm organization is giving out free tickets, shirts, and food to people who come and show their support for the sonics. if i find someone else that's crazy enough to drive south after work, i'll probably go.

this website has the details: http://saveoursonics.org/

forward this to anyone you know that likes the sonics (and free basketball) enough to drive (or carpool) to olympia.

UPDATE 1:25AM
random gusts of rain keep triggering the motion sensor on the light outside my bedroom window. instead of sleeping, i find myself thinking about aurora, soccer, and the sonics. more particularly, i've been imagining myself renting a room in one of those nasty hotels down on 85th, wondering how many new friends it would take to assemble a king county soccer team, and betting that i won't find any takers on my olympia adventure, which will probably make me happy in the end, because i don't really want to meet a bunch of sonics fans and hobnob with politicians....

the state of the union address (in green and gold)

i was at the supersonics basketball game last night, so i missed most of the state of the union address. however, i did catch some snippets from the address; during the final tense moments of the supes' loss (112-117), the massive screen that dangles prominently in the middle of key arena flashed quick clips from the president's speech, exhorting the crowd to have faith and cheer madly for the home team.

with the sonics leading 106-103, nuggets' guard steve blake drilled a three pointer from 26 feet. the crowd groaned, but an image of bush pushed us on: "on this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle," he encouraged us, "let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." suddenly empowered, we jumped to our feet and cheered. unfortunately, a minute later, blake drifted beyond the three point arc and buried another sonic-dagger. we were down by 5 with 1:28 left. it didn't look good. but the president shook his fist and cried, "we are united in the goal of victory!" perhaps there was a chance. then, with less than 30 seconds remaining, ray allen hit a three of his own. the shot capped an amazing 44 point night, but it was too little, too late.

okay, okay. i admit it. there was no video feed streaming from the capitol to the key (but those are real quotes from his speech, check the link above), but i'm afraid that my recap sincerely captures my sense of the address. it was a great speech. as i skimmed his various points, i found myself nodding in agreement (incidentally, i had a similar response to the content on baraka obama's website; i suppose i'm just easily swayed by political rhetoric*). bush was ray allen in a blue tie. he was on fire, scorching the house of representatives chamber with his thoughtful words. still, despite the fine speech, bush's presidencies will ultimately be evaluated based on his response to 9/11 and his management of the iraq war. and, unfortunately for the world (and bush), it's probably too late for iraq. the majority of our nation (including many republican politicians) believes that an increase in troop strength will make no difference in the war. like the sonics-nuggets match, the outcome seems predetermined.

however, although the sonics fell to the triple threat of carmelo anthony, allen iverson, and steve (who the heck is he?) blake, plenty of other nba teams have rallied from 5 down with 2-to-go. and, likewise, there's always a chance that bush can beat the odds and crush the insurgency in baghdad. after all, the military brass appears to support the president's decision (i'm not entirely certain of this claim; the link is for factcheck.org, a nice nonpartisan political site. it's unrelated but i found the optimistic polling response of the iraqis to be rather surprising).

in any case, let's hope we aren't watching the sonics-nuggets duke it out on the global scale. i'm afraid to send more troops, and conversely, i'm afraid to abandon iraq to terrorists and genocide. and i certainly don't support a slow withdrawal--either get those troops out of there or send in the reinforcements and give our military a fighting chance. ah, crap-goose, i wish we could just fast-forward to a happy conclusion and be done with this. if only it were a game of hoops, then we could tivo it and skip to the end.


andrew david. "troops marching to war" alberta, canada.

ps. if elected to the office of president in 2008, i'll win the war on terror by forcing the world to listen to john rouse's "love vibration." how could someone be nasty and malicious after hearing these lyrics?

step out into the sun
step out into the world and love someone
save yourself from hate
and save yourself from hate and all the hassle

yeah, you people all know what i'm talking about (yeah, you people all know what he's talking about)
yeah, you people all know what i'm talking about (yeah, you people all know what he's talking about)
spread the love vibration, uh huh
spread the love vibration, uh huh

now everybody's scared
scared of being lonely and abandoned
if you found someone who cares
you found someone to love and understand ya'

then you people all know what i'm talking about (yeah, you people all know what he's talking about)

yeah, you people all know what i'm talking about (yeah, you people all know what he's talking about)
spread the love vibration, uh huh
spread the love vibration, uh huh

[ooohs and ahhs followed by chorus #2]

*yes, i know. there are not three a's in obama's first name. i'm conducting a google experiment....

sighhhhhh

alright, no more politics. for the next two years years i'll try to make this a politics-free zone. i may stray into the political realm if there's news about my beloved sonics, but otherwise, i'll clamp the lips and silence the keys until the exciting day when obama and mccain announce their presidential bids.

in other news, i was editing a grant recommendation letter today and it read "dr. raffinoogin is a well rounded clinician-scientist." so, like any good editor, i tossed a hyphen between well and rounded, but then i got a little confused. does well rounded mean well-rounded or, as i thought when i made the replacement, does it mean nicely fat? that is, does a hyphen really preclude us from thinking pretty and porky?

a rainbow, a storm, and some bright sunshine
andrew david. "a storm (R) or a rainbow (D), it's all a matter of perspective" saskatchewan, canada.

the 17 point scale cancels its no endorsement in i-937

the 17 point scale no longer chooses to offer an endorsement for initiative measure 937 (i-937). i'm confused. i don't even know what i'm voting for, so how can i offer an endorsement? however, we still urge you to vote NO on i-91!

earlier today i told my accountant (errr...that is, he's an accountant, and he was the first to show me the free online services that do all the tax work for me) that i was wavering on my no vote. jonathan attempted to encourage me in my no vote by citing this reasoning:

"...I think that corporations need to have the foresight to privately research on their own. I don’t think that this should be imposed on them by the government. If Matt and you are right that we are going to eventually run out of our naturally resources (which I disagree) than the corporations should be savvy enough to figure that on their own and not have sanctions imposed. I think I am really going to scare you, but have you thought about Nuclear Power?"

my friend the alternative energy engineer also commented on yesterday's blog. actually, it was more like a letter to the editor:


Andrew,

Though I’m studying sustainable energy, I don’t claim to have all the facts, especially about Washington State. That being said…

I disagree with your position.

I think you hit the nail on the head that in you point ii response to Beth: “the intitiative doesn't say water is NOT renewable, it just doesn't include it. the supporters of 937 say that that's because we're already maxed out with hydro--we won't be building new dams anytime soon. i haven't heard fish mentioned, but wikipedia does include damage to fish runs as one of the negatives to hydro.”

From my understanding (based on a water management class I took last semester) we’ve pretty much reached the “balance” as far as industrial size hydro power in the US. In that, were we could build them, we pretty much did…everywhere in the continental US that is. And I would also guess that it is likely that any expansions, or small pockets of untouched potential hydro sites, are pretty much off limits because of the perception of what hydro power does to ecosystems (i.e., salmon).

So basically, I think your premise that hydros provide a good source of renewable energy is 100% correct. But I thinking voting against the proposition does a lot more harm, and no good. (Not living in Washington anymore, I haven’t even read this proposition, and completely base any knowledge of it off of your blog.)

Here’s a pretty bad analogy:

Little 10 year old Jimmy has cancer, not the kind that is instantly fatal, but in about 5 years he is going to die unless his cancer is treated. Jimmy also has strep throat as a result of his weekend immune system. Do we choose not to treat the strep throat because it won’t cure the cancer? Or do we tell little Jimmy, “sorry buddy, this strep throat is indirectly related to your terminal illness, but since treating it won’t directly cure your cancer, you’re just going to have to suffer the intense pain, sorry buddy.”

OK, so this analogy doesn’t apply on several levels, and is pretty extreme…but here’s my opinion: The US is horribly addicted to cheap energy derived from cheap oil. There are all sorts of sick geopolitical dimensions to this that go well beyond the scope of this blog (see the movie Syriana for a fictionalized representation …to get your mind going), but even ignoring that, something needs to be done. ANY move toward renewable energy is good.

I agree with you that hydro should have been included. But why does it matter that it wasn’t? Couldn’t another bill be added, or this be amended next year so that it is “more encompassing”? Why would you want to shutdown a good thing that wasn’t perfect but still good?

I don’t see how voting no will do anything except take a step in the wrong direction? Even if the bill only took half a step in the right direction, at least it was in the right direction.

Furthermore, look at your energy bill. What are you paying per kWhr? I bet 12 cents, right? In NYC I’m paying 20 cents, but frankly, even on a tiny student budget in one of the most expensive cities, my utility bill is still a very minor part of my overall expenses. The community I worked with in Africa had to pay closer to $2-3 per kWhr!!! This is only slightly higher than much of Africa. There are a lot of reasons for this disparity – the rich pay less while those that can’t afford it pay more – that again go beyond the scope of this conversation. Additionally the REAL climate change impacts that WE brought on with OUR addiction to cheap energy are being felt in the poorest places in the world, like Darfur for example.

We can afford to pay more for energy; we should pay more for energy. We need to stop requiring the rest of the world to foot the bill for our addiction. (I hate it when people talk about the US as a “super power” or “leader”, that being said…) The US should stop acting unilaterally on issues of Energy (both issues that include military action as well as R&D). The US needs to wake up, and look around and follow in the footsteps of other countries that are putting more efforts into finding sustainable energy solutions.

Hydros are good, and micro hydros should continue to be explored. But frankly, the technology is mature, and in the US, I’m pretty sure, we’ve pretty much tapped all the large scale locations we can at this point.

Our greatest hope for a sustainable energy future, I think, will come from solar power…(from a straight up physics type energy / matter balance perspective this is the biggest source of energy) not hydro, not biodiesel (even though biodiesel type fuels is ironically what I’m going to be doing my PhD on), not wind…but solar PV (photo voltaic) cells…eventually, not tomorrow, not in 10 years, but maybe in 50 years if we start today…. PV is still too expensive to be cost competitive with our addiction to cheap oil, but sooner or later it will come down. Let’s help get the price of PV solar down…maybe this initiative will lead to Pudget Sound energy funding research at UW, and maybe some great breakthroughs will happen…and maybe then we can have cheap, responsible energy, and even share the technology with the rest of the world…but even if that doesn’t happen, voting NO doesn’t seem to do anything except take a step in the opposite direction.

Even if its not perfect, I think you should vote YES for this proposition, not against it.

-Matt

initiative measure 937 (i-937)

the 17 point scale endorses a no vote for initiative measure 937 (i-937)

what is i-937?
if passed, i-937 would impose new conservation guidelines on utilities in washington state. i-937 is a statewide initiative.

i-937 would encourage utilities to explore renewable energy sources like wind. more particularly, by 2012 three percent of all utility energy would have to be from renewable sources; by 2020, fifteen percent.

sounds good, right? why a no vote?

get this: "examples of eligible renewable resources include wind farms, solar panels, and geothermal plants. with limited exceptions, use of fresh water by hydroelectric dams and plants is not included as an eligible renewable resource." now, according to the energy information administration (apparently the home of "official energy statistics from the US government"), water is a renewable resource--it's cheap, doesn't burn fossil fuels, doesn't create pollution, and, as far as i can tell, it doesn't usually dry up--so the exclusion of hydroelectricity seems strange.

the proponents of i-937 argue that similar methods have been successful in 20 other states. i'm happy for those states, but the comparison isn't apt. washington state is unique. for example, utilities in the united states provide the majority of their energy from coal (48%) and only 8% from hydroelectric sources; in contrast, puget sound energy (like other washington state utilities) provides the majority of its energy from hydroelectricity (42%; pse stats courtesy of earthshare of washington; other sources have said that more 60% of washington state energy comes from hydroelectricity). in other words, other states (a) at baseline are depending far more on non-renewable resources than washington state and (b) it seems that washington state has a huge advantage in the availability of a renewable resource. i think it would make more sense to play to our strengths.

anecdotally, i recently met a dude from portland. as i was teasing him about the shrinking size of his wallet due to higher rent in seattle, he said that it's all balanced out because of the utilities. "what?" i asked. "yeah, the utilities are half the cost--maybe a third--of portland utilities. it's cause of the hydroelectricity...."

in closing, i tend to agree with opponents of i-937: this initiative could result in the sale of our cheaper columbia river energy to california while we fulfill our needs with other more expensive foms of renewable energy. if they revamped this measure to include hydroelectricity i'd be all for it!

andrew david. "buy a honda; they're don't necessarily use renewable energy, but they get good gas mileage" blackfeet nation bison reserve, mt.

additional info for i-91:
i-91 is a seattle-only initiative. if you're voting yes on i-91, see thurday's blog. if you're still voting yes, don't do it because of the following two reasons: (a) the sonics gouge their fans; only middle to high income fans can afford games; or (b) the sonics suck; who cares if they leave?

(a) you obviously haven't gone to a game in a while. cheap sonics tickets (with a good view) cost the same as a movie. it's $10 to see a game at the key. now, if you try to eat at the key, that's a different story. but come on, that's what dicks is for.

(b) they may be 0-2 but as of 7:05pm it looks like they might start changing their losing ways. they're currently leading the lakers 45-38. but even if they lose (and keep losing), sports are cyclical. the mariners sucked for twenty years before 1995 and 2001. now they may stink for another twenty years. therefore, the value of a team to community should not be measured based on it's record.

initiative 91 (i-91)

the 17 point scale endorses a no vote on initiative 91 (i-91)
isn't it odd that we still use the endorse verb when encouraging others to vote no?

what is i-91?
if passed, i-91 would require the city to receive "fair value" in any lease deals with for-profit sports organizations (fair value is approximately 4-5%).

before i explain why this well-meaning initiative is dangerous and baaaad, let me offer two less relevant bits of insight. first, please recognize that i'm a political squirrel. in other words, the political corner of my brain is small and rather undeveloped. moreover, i spend most of my time running around looking for peanuts (i.e., doing the deed of life), so i rarely pause to nurture what little understanding that i may have. therefore, don't expect a flawless, bullet-proof argument. second, despite my political naivete, i feel that most of the propaganda against i-91 takes the wrong approach. the standard i-91 polemic tends to stress the fact that a yes vote is a big blow to local area sports. although this is true, i think it's a shame that i-91 rebuttals don't do more to appeal to non-sports fans. yes, a no vote is essentially an angry kick in the colletive seattle sonic groin, but if someone is a sports fan, i presume that they're already voting no on this initiative. thus, it makes more sense to begin by addressing the issue asportically.

i think i'll begin with a quick history lesson. i-91 was designed by citizens for more important things (CAIT). the organization is the brain-child of nick licata, and although licata is a HUGE supporter of this initiative, he's since moved on to bigger and better things (another organization name?). he currently serves as the seattle city council president, where he was recently the only member to stand against the city's head-over-heels support of the costly underground option for the viaduct. licata's consistent: he's against spending money, period. and although i agree with his viaduct position, he's been an idiot when it comes to sports (several months ago, licata remarked that the sonics had "close to zero" cultural impact on seattle, a remark that i lambasted on the 17 point scale).

since licata's absence, CAIT has been managed by chris van dyk, a non-seattle resident that appears to have less marketing prowess than his predecessor. that is, while licata's legacy is one of creativity (give him credit, he dreamed up a rather clever and effective organization name), CAIT's website is currently an irritating mess of random fonts, colors, and blinking lights that resembles a do-it-yourself effort by some poor child with attention deficit disorder. in any case, after examining CAIT's actual contributions to the pacific northwest, it seems clear to me that their name isn't quite accurate. they really aren't for anything. although, they may hope that by slaying professional sports, money will be diverted to education, social services, and other "more important things," CAIT makes no contributions to this effort. with this in mind, i've decided to refer to them as citizens against important things (thus the CAIT; if you're a fan of their platform, you might prefer citizens against less important things or CALIT--either way, my acronyms sound a lot better than CFMIT).

but perhaps i'm remiss in substituting my own name for CAIT. the name CFMIT actually suggests one of the fundemental flaws of CAIT's position. (now remember, i'm a squirrel; i don't really understand how what i'm about to say relates to i-91.) often the money that's earmarked for sports teams is not even accessible to "more important things" like education and social services. in other words, when voting for initiatives that purport to save money on things like sports, it's important to realize that there is no a direct cause and effect at work--a vote for i-91 will not result in more money for first-grade teachers or potholes on 15th ave.

alright, now that i've discussed the players behind i-91, let's look at the issue from a non-sports fan viewpoint:

1. LANGUAGE
did you see that noun that i used? players? well, think about this. a yes vote on i-91 is a strike against language. by approving anti-sports legislation, we risk the slow decomposure of words like player and strike. with no seattle context for these words, their rich meaning would dissolve. in twenty years i'd be forced to say something vague like "the people behind i-91"....now why didn't they include this in the voter's pamphlet?

2. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
i-91 is a strongly anti-government initiative. i'm for small government, but it seems odd to have citizens legislate minor budget considerations. i-91 yanks the control of day-to-day financial decision-making out of the hands of our leadership and binds their hands in making deals with propspective tenants. i think the seattle pi says it best: "although the sentiment behind the restrictions is understandable, we tend to think voters elect councils and mayors to make the best decisions based on the facts at hand. attempting to legislate complex financial formulas will limit the city's flexibility and may discourage creativity" (9/06). our city council may suck, but let's not make them suck more by making their job impossible.

3. WILL I-91 SAVE ME MONEY IN TAXES? (no!) THAT IS, WHAT ABOUT THE KEY ARENA?
seattle owns the key arena. if i-91 passes and the sonics say "see ya'," this could be a whopper of a problem for our city. the restrictive business climate that will result from i-91 will make it difficult to fill the key with a long-term tenant. concerts and other events are sometimes held at the key, but they can hardly make the key profitable. and in addition to continued operating expenses, the city is still paying off the initial costs of key construction. so, without a tenant to help recoup these costs, that means a larger cut from andrew c taxpayer.

4. AMATEUR SPORTS
okay, let's say that you're frustrated with high ticket prices and player salaries (more on that later). i could say any number of positive things about the sonics and you'd still believe that professional sports are the scourge of humanity. screw the sonics, you say. fine. but what about the little guy? the lesser known thunderbirds, an amateur hockey team, currently rent space at the key arena, but under the i-91 restrictions they wouldn't be able to make enough money to satisfy the lease. let me quote from deputy mayor tim ceis: "besides being an absurd premise -- how do you create a lease based on a formula? -- if the initiative passes, we can't do a lease for the storm, the t-birds hockey team, or any other new venture, such as pro lacrosse, that lack a track record." listen to the deputy, do you want to see the end of professional lacrosse before it even begins?

5. LOW-INCOME WORKERS
professional sports teams like the sonics offer plenty of jobs to low-income workers. i-91 would remove those jobs. see the next section.

6. FOLLOW THE DOLLAR SIGNS
whoah, i just found this report. it reminds me a lot of my work at northwest research group. anyway, the report concludes that the key (i.e., the sonics) generates jobs and income for thousands of people locally, and draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year from outside the local economy. here are some numbers from 2005:

a. the key arena creates more than 3250 jobs in the queen anne area, including nearly 600 that work directly for the key. most of the key arena jobs are seasonal or part-time and benefit low-income service industry workers. together, these workers received somewhere between above $100 million in income. that's 100+ million taxable dollars.
b. the spending of KeyArena visitors and businesses creates $350 million in business activity; state and local governments receive $13.3 million in tax revenues as a result of this business activity at KeyArena.
c. 43% of key visitors come from outside King County and would not have made the trip if not for the key; this results in $165 million in business activity and $7 million in tax income.

there is a great deal of debate about the economic value of professional sports. i'm no economist, but my common sense reaction is that sports teams are extremely valuable to our city. wander down queen anne hill on a game night and you will detect a buzz of activity that is absent when the sonics aren't playing. that's the buzz of dollar signs. also, some of seattle sports players live locally; that means that at least some of their exhorbitant salaries are funneled back into the local economy, either through spending or taxes. finally, pro sports offer a lot of intangible monetary rewards that are hard to measure. for example, professional sports give our city national exposure that may draw new residents and businesses and thereby richen the cultural and economic viability of our city.

7. COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL VALUE
it may seem silly that a bunch of guys in baggy shorts or tight pants can create community, but, whether you like it or not, sports are the best kindling that we've got for passionate community. in an earlier post i said, "i have many fond memories of the sonics, especially as a kid; some fans have thirty years of memories" (including a national title--something that no other seattle franchise has attained), and every game represents another opportunity to build memories. but it gets better. sports offer an opportunity for us to build these memories together. remember the 1995 mariners? the 1996 sonics? the 2005 seahawks? these sports teams brought our city together. professional sports are unique in their ability to cut across social, political, economic, and age barriers. thus, a vote for i-91 could bring a serious blow to seattle community.

let me quote from art thiel of the pi: "as to the larger question of the importance of things, seattle has invested heavily in arts and culture with no shot at tangible economic returns. the city's contribution to benaroya hall is about $37 million. the mccaw hall tab was about $43 million. the dun for seattle art museum's new sculpture park opening in january is about $7 million....personally, i would prefer to live in a place that aspires to more than filling potholes and removing garbage, even if i never attended another sports event, art exhibition or music performance."

8. COMMUNITY SERVICE
i'm worn out by this list. check out the sonics website. they have an entire section devoted to community service. when steve and i attended the seahawks game, the crowd raised more than $80,000 (i think) for the boys and girls club. sports radio kjr 950am raises more than $60,000 a year for literacy (and some other charity) from listeners and local sports figures. seattle sports and their fans play a key role in the community. so, let me close with an excerpt from jay holzman's letter to the seattle times (i had to modify the pronouns a bit, but it think it works now):

"like society, professional sports teams have their thugs. but the sonics and storm are overwhelmingly filled with good people who do more for their community than our inept city council, nick licata, and citizens for more important things will ever do, both directly and indirectly.

"how much equipment have they [the city council, nick licata, or CAIT] donated to schools? how many incentive programs and fundraising projects have they sponsored for kids? how many courts have they built in parks and schools around the northwest? when cleveland high school had uniforms stolen, did they buy them new ones? have they built an addition to the ronald mcdonald house? have they opened a health and fitness facility in minority areas of our city (donaldson fitness)? have they raised more than $10 million for cystic fibrosis in the past few years (Detlef Schrempf Foundation)? how many kids' lives have they made happier and better by visiting them in the hospital when they're sick, or just smiled and talked to them at just the right time? when a team is on a roll, can they get hundreds of thousands of strangers in a whole region and people of different races and ages to celebrate, unite, interact and feel connected? didn't think so."

9. SO WHAT SHOULD I DO?
vote no on i-91.

happy halloween

here's an update of what's in the works for upcoming 17 point scale posts:

1. a conclusion to the ongoing saga of the other andrew; in this post i will finally address the original topic that rallied so much support among my unfortunate readers;
2. the launch of a new grammar oriented feature;
3. a book review blurb for image update (james perry walker's the reverend);
3. the official 17 point scale endorsements for the november 7th elections. i doubt i'll endorse any candidates, but i'll take a stab at some of the initiatives. (by the way, both the times and the pi endorse a no vote on the evil i-91. as expected, the stranger endorsed a yes, but surprisingly, it's a luke-warm yes that is nuanced with a realization that i-91 is an 'angry,' 'nasty' initiative that could prove deterimental to the city. but i'm getting ahead of myself. i'll explain why we must vote no on i-91 in a later post....);
4. a masterpiece post that i've been working on for a long time but may not finish for another few months;
5. a return to the sequential presentation of my pictures rather than a blatterskatch method that i've been using for the last month. blogger still isn't working for me, but flickr seems to do the job okay;
6. something else that i forgot....


andrew david. "lunch & the s.o." somewhere, mt (day 2).
312 to go.

get out and vote!

election time is coming soon and only one thing is certain, i intend to vote NO on i-91 (more on that later). otherwise, i'm characteristically indecisive. i watched a podcast of the cantwell-mcgavick debate and learned a few things: cantwell is a brownnoser, mcgavick wants to build a wall between mexico and california, and there is no clear choice for senate this year. it's too bad mike the mover didn't win the democratic primary.

i assume that i'm not the only undecided voter out there--what if you fence-walkers could get a little voting practice before the election? (that'd be great, you say.) well, here's your chance. i'll play secretary of state sam reed, you don your voter's gown (i couldn't think of anything that's particularly related to voting, but i'm sure that if you are at all patriotic, you must have a voting gown), and we'll get ready to shape some 17 point scale policy.

you've probably noticed that i don't shy away from writing about my friends and acquaintances. i don't gossip (do i?), but i occasionally say some strange things. moreover, i tend to use full names. after chatting with some of my readers, i'm starting to get the impression that not everyone is as gung-ho about last names as i am. for instance, my roommate asked that i not include his full name on the blog. mark explained that he would really prefer to have no information in the public sphere, especially in a permanent, easily-navigable space like the internet. my compromise at the time was "mark t-mandl" (see the well-placed hyphen). perhaps there are other marks out there.

here's my defense for continuing the current policy (or lack thereof):

1. it's my blog, i should feel free to do whatever i want (yikes!).
2. i'm not sure that the 17 point scale fits into any particular genre, but if it were caged into one category, it might be the memoir, close cousin to the autobiography, and therefore, in a rather loose sense, this is journalism; it is a swirling matter of facts, names, and dates that somehow form a broad narrative of, to nearly quote my officemate james o'connell, "the entity that we call" andrew david, and to strip me of my friends is somehow dishonest as a writer and a person (okay, i got a little carried away with that sentence, sorry).
3. although i may share odd things about my friends, i don't write negatively about them.
4. to this end i occasionally consult beth or other friends on posts where the personal content might be in anyway objectionable
5. my audience is primarily composed of people that know me and therefore tend to know one another; thus, the posts are more meaningful to my readers if they can say "boris! i remember boris, he was that chunky fellow who hung out with andrew at the taco time...."
6. likewise, even if readers are unfamiliar with my circle of friends, if they are 17 point scale fanatics, they could begin to get a sense of the frequent 17 point scale guests, and thereby have a more nuanced connection with the blog.
7. what's the use of having labels for every entry if you can't put people's names there?
8. and, most selfishly, i LOVE that if you happen to google kris purganan, MY blog is the first hit. I can't really explain how cool this is to me. it just sucks that "andrew david" still doesn't return a hit in the first 500 entries.

so what do you think? you can vote with a show of hands, but it'd probably be easiest if you leave me a comment. should i maintain my current protocol and do nothing? should i use first names only? should i use no names at all? should i ask people before using their full/partial name in my blog? should i email everyone who has previously appeared in the 17 point scale and ask them if they want their name removed? also, if you would like to email me privately about the modification of your name, feel free to do so...


andrew david. "an odd method of voting" mt pilchuck, wa.
381 to go.

my bleeding heart catharsis

i'm sure you've heard the term 'bleeding heart liberal.' it's the conservative way of mocking the left's dedication to social welfare programs. slang-slinging republicans contend that many liberals hear a single sob story and then forge their entire political doctrine with the aim of helping that poor unfortunate soul. that's fine, the conservative might say, but the problem is that these 'bleeding heart' agendas tend to offer free hand-outs to a vast contingent of welfare abusers.

politically, i fall somewhere between the bleeding hearts and their conservative counterparts. however, i'm starting to develop a bleeding heart complex of an altogether different kind: i'm becoming a 'bleeding heart sports fan.' after the seahawks unfathomable playoff loss and the uw huskies sweet sixteen loss, i just can't help complaining about the biased stated of officiating in sports. seriously, i'm sick of sports. that is, i'm sick of sports officiating, and unfortunately, in most sports it's impossible to separate the two. maybe i should join the rest of america and take up nascar.

i don't mean to scapegoat the boys in black and white, i just can't see why they have to make themselves the pivotal piece of sports. refs are like wallpaper -- you only notice them if the colors aren't right. friday's NCAA battle of the dawgs featured more foul calls than minutes, including several lopsided calls against uw that turned the tide of the game in favor of uconn (e.g., the double foul on roy). actually, i think that lorenzo deserves serious props for holding off the uconn advance while half of his starters sat on the pine. and, aggg! the missed goal-tending call? if the refs can swap fouls back and forth between players several minutes after the original play, why can't they review a simple goaltending call? in any case, as sean wrote in yesterday's comments, uw certainly made some stupid mistakes (although, i don't think applebee was necessarily wrong to dish it off. in that situation, i think you really do want to let some more time slip off the clock. besides, wasn't the lane filled with several big guys? applebee wasn't the one to make the awful pass...), uconn showed some more last-minute heroics, and ultimately, us seattle fans should (just forget about the bad calls and) simply be proud of our dawgs.

(but, holy sammamish, it sure is hard)

ps. have you ever wondered what it would be like to roll around in liquid wax? do you think you would burn yourself? it hurts a bit when you stick your finger in candle wax, but it certainly doesn't burn. well, obviously you couldn't dunk your head, but i think it might be fun.