Yeah, it's a copy of that.

Solicitor Expliciter
report this user
Apr 21 Solicitor Expliciter commented on A Few More Thoughts on That Business-Backed Poll and the $15 Movement.
@23: I got called for this too. When they described Proposal A and specifically mentioned Sawant by name, and called her out as a Socialist, I gathered that it was not meant to be the most scientific of polls. The other 2 proposals did not mention any particular person by name, though they did describe in general terms who the supporters were ("labor unions and some small businesses" on one of them, "some businesses" on the other, IIRC). I was actually really hoping to know how the 3 options stacked up in the final results. I suspect that there was overwhelming support for the $15 minimum wage, phased in--otherwise the full results would have been released.

What I take away from this is that there is strong public support for a compromise measure that gets us to $15, even if people have some misgivings about Sawant's uncompromising approach. Which is fine by me; it's great to have a real Socialist on the council to make the progressives seem pretty moderate in comparison. Keep right on being unreasonable, Kshama. You're moving the conversation in the right direction.
Feb 27 Solicitor Expliciter commented on Is Having a Quiet Phone Conversation in a Cafe Okay?.
@1, this is the study: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…

Several commenters are acting like it's a moral failing of the others in the cafe to not mind their own business. Others suggest that it's just about volume (though that certainly doesn't help). But this study (and my own anecdotal experience) suggests that it's a brain function thing. You can't will yourself to be less distracted; your brain simply can't filter out the half-alogue as it can a dialogue.

Sitting in a public place and making it impossible for those nearby to think is rude, and insisting on your right to do so is selfish.

About the time we settle on new social norms for these devices, those norms will become outdated when everyone switches to implantable chips for telepathic telephony.
Feb 27 Solicitor Expliciter commented on Dreadful Medical Cannabis Bill Clears Senate Committee.
Also, just reading through the bill--the 3 plant maximum can be exceeded with a doctor's recommendation. Seems like an important detail.
Feb 27 Solicitor Expliciter commented on Dreadful Medical Cannabis Bill Clears Senate Committee.
If we're talking about stories told to the voters, why don't we go back to when medical marijuana was sold to voters as a purely home-grow law with no chance of California-style dispensaries? The law turned into something it was never intended to be: a completely unsustainable, unregulated free-for-all. My able-bodied stoner friends with their MMJ cards prove the absurdity of the current system. What we have now is a small number of medical patients being used to justify a huge number of recreational users who are pissy that they'll have to pay taxes and buy from a commercial storefront. If there is another way forward that better serves the legitimate medical patients while shutting down most of the fraudulent use of the medical card system by recreational users, I have yet to hear about it from you or other activists.

If we're going to have medical marijuana, sooner or later we're going to have to regulate it like medicine, prescribe it like medicine, and quality-control it like medicine. It's going to take some steps to get there. Hell, it would be a good start to get the medical research really going so we can move toward truly medical-grade extracts of completely controlled strength with known medical uses and side effects--but that won't happen until we get the federal government on board to allow the research. The best thing that could possibly happen long-term to end the war on marijuana and ease toward reclassification would be for Washington to establish a model system in which the end of prohibition is handled carefully.

The political reality in D.C. is that DOJ is not going to allow recreational pot to move forward as long as our MMJ system makes it impossible to properly regulate the market. And the political reality in THIS Washington is that this bill, or something very much like it, is going to pass and be overwhelmingly popular with voters. The best thing for true-believer MMJ activists to do--if it's not already too late--is to suggest thoughtful changes to the bill that have major benefits for legitimate medical users at a minor cost of additional diversion of the recreational market. If this bill is really the calamity you make it out to be, even small degrees of improvement would be major public policy wins.

But by all means "just say no" to the bill if it makes you feel better to rage against the machine.

Thanks for the legislative hotline number. I'm calling to let my legislators know how strongly I support reining in our clownishly unregulated MMJ system.
More...
Sep 15, 2012 Solicitor Expliciter commented on Advocates Warn Gregoire that Appeal Could Allow Conservative Supreme Court to Reverse Disability Rights.
@1: relative to other states. For instance:
This AARP-sponsored study rates Washington the 2nd-best state for long-term care services provided to the elderly and persons with disabilities. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/sitecore…

And according to NPR, Washington devotes a higher portion of its disability services budget to community-based care than any other state. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131570266/…

Regardless of how much of the state budget you think should be devoted to Medicaid services, it seems pretty strange to me that the Ninth Circuit would call it "discrimination" when a state simply reduces the services it funds--especially when that state still provides more services than most other states. Are all those other states discriminating by failing to provide services as good as those in Washington? Is it really "discrimination" to slow the growth of Medicaid spending?
More...
May 9, 2012 Solicitor Expliciter commented on SL Letter of the Day: Make Your Own Family.
My fiance (!) and I went through a similar period in his parents' evolution. The first couple times he brought me home to his folks' place in Illinois, I had to stay in a separate bedroom. Same reasoning: none of the kids would be allowed to have a mere boyfriend or girlfriend stay the night in the same room, and they weren't going to treat us any differently. But you know what? After we were together for a few years, that requirement quietly dropped away. At a certain point it became clear that we were as good as married--in fact, it was about the time we ourselves stopped saying "boyfriend" and started saying "partner"--so they started treating us like it. In doing so they showed a certain amount of faith that our relationship was built to last; I'm looking forward to making good on their faith by marrying that boy later this year, just as soon as Washington voters give their approval.

My advice to FARM: suck it up, with as much love and understanding as you can muster. Maybe at a certain point you'll stop calling this boy your "boyfriend" and start calling him your "partner", "fiance" or "husband". Once you've made that level of commitment to each other, it will be reasonable to expect your family to act accordingly. And maybe, once they see that you're as good as married, they'll come around all on their own.
More...
Sep 3, 2011 Solicitor Expliciter commented on 40-Year-Old Codification Error Leads to McKenna Win in Seattle v. McKenna, but Little Practical Impact.
I'll step in for "Lawyer" here, Goldy, to point out that you get at least one detail exactly wrong in your drive to prove your thesis that McKenna didn't really win anything worth winning. You say:
Since there was nothing "nondiscretionary" about McKenna's actions, it is not clear that mandamus would be available even if the court found that McKenna lacked the authority to join the anti-HCR lawsuit.

In fact it's entirely clear that mandamus would be available. On p. 5 of the slip opinion, the Court cites a case from 1980, State ex rel. Burlington Northern, for the obvious notion that "The nondiscretionary act may be to undo an action unlawfully done." Let that be a small reminder that even bright people who deal in words for a living should probably grow a bit of humility and consult with an actual attorney if they want any level of certainty about what the law says.

Now what is quite unclear, which a hyperpartisan like yourself has no reason to report on and a nonlawyer like yourself probably missed, was whether the City of Seattle had any business bringing this case to begin with--that is, whether they were a proper party to sue. And there, it looks like Pete Holmes's office was making an almost frivolous argument that most lawyers would be embarrassed to file, that the city counts as a "taxpayer" but that it didn't have to follow the taxpayer lawsuit procedures prior to suit. The Court avoided answering the very simple "standing" question (which is normally considered a threshold issue), perhaps because they too are elected officials and they wanted this political hot-button issue to go away rather than simply inviting someone else who DOES have standing to sue all over again. Still, the Court's little procedural trick doesn't make Seattle's case any less embarrassing; it's pretty clear that Holmes instituted this suit as political grandstanding, since it was such a terrible legal argument. THIS is what a "stupid" legal argument looks like, much more than the arguments McKenna's office made in the Goldmark case. Not that I expect you to point out that a Democrat did something stupid or viciously partisan.

I get that hyperpartisan is your style, and that you're probably giving some of your readers exactly the preconception-reinforcing analysis they want. I get that you're not an actual journalist or lawyer who aims for unbiased analysis (getting past your own bias and seeing the strength of the other side's arguments is one part of formal legal training that you don't have the benefit of). But just in case you care about such things, you're starting to run the real risk of lulling your readers into a false sense of security about the Republicans' best shot at the governor's mansion in a generation. I'm a solid Democrat, but I'm well aware that Rob McKenna is not a garden variety WA Republican clown. Almost everywhere he goes, he is the smartest guy in the room. He is a good lawyer and an even better politician. Don't blind yourself to that, don't underestimate him, or we all may end up calling him Governor for years to come.
More...
Sep 1, 2011 Solicitor Expliciter commented on State Supremes Hand McKenna Big Defeat in Goldmark v. McKenna.
Two comments: (1) If you think that Rob McKenna himself wrote the brief in this or any other case, you're very mistaken. He certainly would have reviewed it, but his Solicitor General's Office was responsible for the legal arguments the AGO made, since they're the ones who signed the brief and appeared in court. The arguments made in this case tell you nothing about Mr. McKenna's intelligence or lack thereof. (2) I don't think the arguments were stupid at all (though obviously they weren't good enough to convince the justices currently sitting in our high court). There's good reason to ask why we bother separately electing an attorney general if we simply expect him to play lackey to other executive officials. If he's just there to take orders, why not let the other elected officials choose their own attorney? The arguments McKenna's office made are good enough that other states follow exactly the rule that McKenna was arguing for, and were good enough to convince Justice Stephens, who is quite possibly the most thorough and intelligent of the justices currently on the bench. For the policy arguments on both sides, William Marshall's article "Break Up the Presidency? Governors, State Attorneys General, and the Divided Executive" in Yale Law Journal (115 Yale L.J. 2448 (2006)) is a great overview.
More...
Nov 2, 2010 Solicitor Expliciter commented on Squeeeeeeeak!.
That's the King County numbers. Statewide results currently have it losing, 48.35% to 51.65%. The conservatives in the rural counties are largely voting against 1100; they have a strange idea of smaller government.
Oct 24, 2010 Solicitor Expliciter commented on State Gives Away Millions of Dollars More to Retain Tunnel Bidders.
I'm interested in how we should properly account for the $100,000 per day bonus for an early finish. Obviously, if the project doesn't come in early then that concession costs the state nothing. On the other hand, megaprojects go way over budget in part because of delays, so it seems like a project with huge bonuses for early completion might be less likely to go as much over budget as is usually the case. Do other megaprojects tend to offer that high of a bonus for early completion? Any indication of whether it helps rein in the tendency toward late/overbudget?

I don't think it's a good sign that the guys who would actually have to build this thing seem to think that the project is so difficult that they need millions more than the state planned to make it worth the risk. But maybe the fact that they pushed for a big early completion bonus means that they at least think the plan is plausible? Presumably if they thought it unlikely to finish on time, they wouldn't have used a portion of their bargaining power to push for contingent payments.
 
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy