You lost me at "fascist haircut normalizer". Delete your account.

Have you guys read Teen Vogue lately? As Slog gets ever shallower, they've really upped their game and put out some serious analysis. The wheel turns, right?
@1, Right?

Didn't Morrissey have that same haircut in the early '90s?
But couldn't Mayor Murray put forward a change in the land use code to stop the project?

The mayor does not always keep land use code issues separate from policy. His budget includes extra spending of $5 million to expand the Asian Art Museum into Volunteer Park, even though that project is prohibited by the single-family zoning. Part of the proposal is to change multiple parts of the municipal land use code to add specific exceptions for the museum expansion.

If the mayor wants to change the code to allow a project, he could also change it to stop one, right?
far more complex than as you describe
When DiCaprio had this haircut in Titanic or Clooney had it in O Brother Where Art Thou or Damon or Pitt or basically anybody in any movie set from 1900 through 1945, nobody said "Nazi haircut!" It was just period costuming, and you went with that cut because it looked cool. Plus Bowie. Prince. Cobain. Uh... literally ANYBODY.

The "vegetarian = Hitler" association makes more sense than this steaming turd of a meme.

But some rando on the Internet in 2016 makes up this alternative haircut theory that contradicts what you have SEEN WITH YOUR OWN EYES and we all believe it because it's a meme. I hate it. We don't think any more.
Yes, that's just what we need. A Mayor who can stop building permits based on politics.

If it's within the power of a politician to do it, then exercising -- or not -- exercising that power will be based on politics. Every time the mayor refrains from interfering in a permit process, he does so to please his constituents. Why don't we call that "politics"?

It is a classic example of unexamined privilege.

When the politicians are sitting back letting the machinery of government work in a particular way that just so happens to please the old, white, male, property-owning classes, it's mistaken for "normal" and never questioned. It's only when a politician exercises the same power they've always held in a particular way that doesn't please the usual class of constituents that all of a sudden it looks "political" to that class. Who instructed the bureaucrats to do their jobs in a certain way? Who told them to interpret the building permitting code this way, and not that way? Politicians, with a privileged constituency to please.

From the point of view of those locked out, the old habits look "politicized". Politicians working the levers of power to curry favor with the privileged, who are so used to it they only squawk when anybody dares to speak of taking it away.
What an archaic reference-Macklemore! Oh, let me clog broadway with video-makings (probably while higher than a kite) and meet with the President about drug addiction and Value Vill-age' closing while pee-peeing on the mayor's future photo-op with the White House and discussion of his city's "issues", before we Lib-iots alienate ourselves as a state with a Trump White House. Seattle politics cracks me up - it really does rank up there with The Borgias - well - except without the class and being effectual in any sense of the word!
If we could move beyond the histrionics for a moment, I would like answers to these questions:

1) I understand that we want to get to zero youth detention. In the meantime, where should we house violent children - in the current facility, downtown at King County Jail, or at some other secured location?

2) In the zero youth detention world, what will we do with violent children, particularly if they have no parents, unsuitable parents, or parents who have disowned them? Are we planning on replacing jail with commitment to a mental health facility, or are we just punting that one?

3) In the zero detention world, what is the framework for making sure that these children are not falling through the cracks or coming under the influence of some undesirable individuals or institutions? Is there no place for a Children and Family Justice Center?

Histrionics is believing that there are seriously up to 112 kids at a time when are so dangerous that they must be locked up. We're more afraid of teenagers than Trump is of Muslims.

Somehow we have answered these zero detention questions if the "violent" kid is white. Whites arrested for the same violence somehow are released when non-whites "have to be" locked up. I want to know why. Precisely.

If they come clean with the answers to those questions, the number of youth jail beds we need goes from 100+ to single digits.

They should have provided straight answers to this from the start.
14 dear. I didn't ask for you to recite your catechism. I asked for some answers.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.