ack! i'm moving to oklahoma city...or maybe kent

the election results are in. i-91 won an easy victory. i guess that we sports fans stayed home. i'd say that my least favorite person in washington is currently chris van dyk. his post-victory quotes make me want to pelt him with fish sticks.

what does this mean for sonics fans? well, if we're lucky, some rich investors and wise politicians will lure clay bennet and the sonics to the eastside. and if we're unlucky, the sonics will head south.

and what does this mean for the city of seattle? we can look forward to paying for an empty key arena. if we're particularly unlucky, nick licata will get his improvement project passed and we'll pay millions of dollars to have the sports-free seattle center area renovated. lots and lots of pretty trees and foot friendly promenades. i realllllly hope the sonics go to kirkland, kent, or somewhere on the eastside. it will be painfully delicious when the city gets burned by this. i'll smile darkly when businesses in lower queen anne shut down and kent becomes the new concert scene.

andrew david. "election night" 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.