Ok, so I've read the crazy back and forth that has been going on over the smoking ban and I have to admit I was torn over this iniative until today. Today for the first time I spoke with someone about Selective Prosecution and the smoking ban. As if it wasn't hard enough to be homeless in places like Pioneer Square, the smoking ban will give the cops one more reason to harass those folks. They are just one of many populations of people I can see being adversely ticketed or worse with this as the starting point. I can imagine conversations that begin with a ticket for smoking on the street, progress to a conversation about a weapon or negative comments being made back and forth and the next thing you know people are being arrested. This doesn't sit right with me. I want a smoking ban in public places, I can't support the 25 foot rule, and I am going to vote against this initiative.

First and foremost I think it goes without saying that Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans is a tragic event that will have ripples in aspects of our lives we haven't even imagined yet. My heart goes out to the people of that beautiful city, wherever they might be.

This back and forth about who should and could be blamed for what happened there is making me crazy. I have a couple of questions however that have stuck with me. Do you have any burning questions you'd like answered? Here's mine:

What about the school buses? I would not want to travel for long periods of time on a school bus, but high school students manage to survive that all the time. Was there a window of opportunity where they could have used the school buses to take people from the Superdome to a safer place between realizing how bad Katrina was going to be (Friday-Saturday) and when she hit (Monday am). Where would they have gone? I don't know, but it seems to me that when you issue a mandatory evacuation order for a city where 1 in 3 people don't have a car, you need to provide some options.

As the lazy days of summer gradually wind down, our fearless...or should I say feared...leaders will be headed back to our nation's capitol to continue the business of partisan bickering, selling out to interest groups, and raising more money than you can shake a stick at. They'll probably also appoint someone to the Supreme Court, they have to pass their Appropriations bills, and they'll get the BRAC recommendation to approve.

My question to you is if you could put one thing on the national agenda for this next session of Congress, what would it be? How would you like to see your issue resovled?

On January 6, 1941 FDR gave a State of the Union Address where he not only gives a great bit about foreign policy we should still be using, he also discusses the need for the focus of domestic policy to center around the Four Freedoms: Freedom of speech and expression; Freedom to worship God in your own way; Freedom from want; and Freedom from fear. What a radical notion, these four things, and perhaps what a great way to provide over-arching philosophy to the various issue areas we focus on.

In reading Ben's previous post I thought about how that applies to both Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. If we are seriously preserving these freedoms, then we have to start with those children. We have to deal with their reality where neither home nor school nor anywhere in between is free from fear. We have to deal with their reality that neither home nor school nor anywhere in between is free from want.

As a Democrat, as a progressive I am trying to think of ways that we can move towards solutions to this problem that are politically viable.

So in case anyone doesn't watch the Daily Show every night, Senator Rick Santorum will be Jon Stewart's guest on Monday, July 25. I really, really hope Jon will ask him how he feels about Dan Savage's definition of "santorum" but somehow I think that will be overlooked. At any rate it should be an interesting conversation...

After the show, I would love to hear what people think about Tricky Ricky. Do you like him more? Do you hate him more? Is that possible? Will he be re-elected in Pennsylvania or will even the Amish say this dude is way to 16th Century?

I've just finished reading "To America" by Stephen Ambrose. What a beautiful love song to this country. If you haven't had a chance to check this book out, Ambrose uses it to give his personal reflections on the history he's written. He talks about how much the country has changed since he started paying attention to it. He talks about how his opinion on events changed as his research gave him a new insight. He talks about his love and admiration for Dwight Eisenhower and distaste for Richard Nixon.

In the end he sums it by saying:

"Consider what the United States has accomplished since 1776. We began with some severe problems--slavery, the condition of women in the body politic, the terrible way we treated Native Americans, using our natural resources like they were inexhaustible, then colonialism in Panama and the Philippines,a virtual ban on immigration from outside Western Europe, and so much more. Nor have we solved them all--racism is still with us, as is sexism . We now face new foreign threats--terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist.

The Dems just took the floor in the Owens nomination. Our boy Byron Dorgan from North Dakota is currently holding it down. The Republicans got up and made up some numbers and tried to make their nominees look like innocent victims and the Dems like corruptors of the Constitution. This is history in action!

So I've been doing some thinking lately on Democrats and National Security. It occurs to me that everytime a Democrat has to show he's tough on security we look a little bit like Dukakis in the tank, way out of our league and a little bit stupid. I have a new idea about this though and I wonder if it would work, I'm hoping you Better Donkey's will have a thought about it.

Whenever a Democrat is asked about National Security and how seriously they take it, could the answer be, "How dare you?" How dare you question my commitment to the safety and security of this nation? How dare you insinuate I wouldn't do everything in my power to defend this nation from its enemies, either foreign or domestic? I have the utmost confidence in our professional military to communicate to me what they need and how I can help, and I am committed to making sure they have the tools they need and want to get their job done. There's not even a discussion here, I would assume my opponent takes this as seriously as I do.

So I'm having one of those mornings, sweet friends, where I'm starting to wonder about Colville. Why in the world would I be wondering about a tiny town in eastern Washington when Britney Spears is pregnant? How could anything in in Colville possibly top that you might wonder? Well, it goes a little something like this.

In today's NY Times, I read an article about Senator Frist joining a number of high profile religious conservatives in a "Justice Sunday". They are making the case to literally millions of Americans that the filibuster of judicial nominees is in effect declaring war on Christians in this country. Now, sitting in my corner of our urban archipelago I thought to myself that that whole arguement was just bullshit and would be yet another shot in the Republican strategy to throw everything at the wall hoping something will stick. But then I started to think about Colville. I started to think about good Democrats that I know who also are Christians who do believe that while the Dems feel them on their values, the GOP feels them on their faith. The Dems reaction to Frist, he's just another DeLay.

"That's the problem, you know, Republicans eat their own. ... Democrats stand by their own until hell freezes over," said Lott, who was ousted as Senate majority leader two years ago after making controversial race-based comments at a birthday party for the late Strom Thurmond.

Republicans eat their own? Has he met a Republican? I think Democrats are far more prone to eating their own and we tend to do it with some fava beans and nice Chianti. When the GOP is starting to worry about this, I think the Dems chances aren't half bad for 2006.

Today, in just the latest sign that we must be near End Times, I found myself agreeing with a Republican. Not just any Republican mind you, but a former Bush appointee and the man who eulogized Reagan. Here is one of the most compelling arguments about where the Republican Party is now written by John C. Danforth. If people would listen to him, I don't think I'd be so scared for our country. I wouldn't like the Republicans being in charge, I'd have substantive problems with their policy but at least I'd feel like they had the best interest of America in mind. The current manifestation of the GOP is not in that place. Hopefully this editorial means that we'll see a move back in this direction from the GOP but I'm not holding my breath.

As we meander our way to April 15th, Americans who submit to the IRS are forced to look back over the last year and take stock of their financial lives. After trying to determine whether or not that hooker you picked up when you were really depressed counts as a medical expense, you might work your way through to your charitable giving receipts. I often think of charitable giving as my symbolic effort to be a part of a losing fight. I know the $15 I gave to America's Second Harvest isn't going to cure hunger in America, it won't even make a dent, but I feel like I should do something to register my sense that hunger in America is a problem.

Lately I've started to wonder if giving to the Democratic Party isn't my most charitible act of the past year. Will my $25 a month help Democrats stand up in the face of Repubilcans? Demonstrably no. Will my $25 a month encourage the party to focus on local elections to get a deeper bench going forward? Survery says No. Will my $25 pay for my part of the keg at the next "Please George, let me take my pants off first" party in D.C.? Well yeah!

It's been said on this blog that there is no scenario in which Hilary Clinton could win the Presidential election in 2008 or, you know, ever. I still believe that, but today I read this, and maybe I've been too quick to judge. It seems to me anytime Republicans have to prove their conservative credentials by proving they've never breathed the same air as a liberal, there's a change a-coming.

There's a great editorial by Paul Krugman today that seems like it might be another indicator of that shift in the wind.

So Jeb Bush is going to run against Bill Nelson for his Senate seat in 2006. Evidence points to the fact that although Jeb isn't wildly popular in Fla, he's going to have more money than anyone has right to. The Republicans are focused on their continued take over of that state. Is this Terri Schaivo case going to backfire on him? If he can't save her, will that be what's remembered? Especially now that the line from the Schindlers is that there is more that he can do? Hardliners don't except anything but success when they think they can get it, I'm wondering if the GOP is going to find themselves burned by the fire of religious conservatives over this.

So from time to time I have the experience of reading a book that totally changes the way I look at the world. Today that book is by the fantastic Fred Moody and it's called "Seattle and the Demons of Ambition: A Love Story". It starts with the WTO mess and tries to tell the story of this city from it's founders, to it's "Next Big Thing" syndrome, to the politics that shape it. After reading this book it seems like so much of what we've talked about on the blog that's local fits into Mr. Moody's hypothesis that Seattle is a city that always walks right up to it's potential and then somehow finds a way to fall flat on it's face. I learned so much about the characters that shaped the development of the city from Doc Maynard to Ivar Haglund to Coach Knox and Paul Schell, it gives me a much better understanding of what Seattle means. After reading that book, I still want to push Seattle into being the city of my dreams, but I have a far better understanding of what that might take.

When The Merchant of Venice is taught in this country there are some very important pieces of education that are done first to help any students of the Bard understand the context of the story. One of the first things that needs to be taught usually is the definition of usury. Today that's really easy because we see usury every day in the attitudes and business practices of credit card companies and banks. Today instead of putting the people who commit usury into a ghetto or forcing one segment of the population into an illegal business because of their religious beliefs, we see our government pass legislation making it easier for usurers to make money at the expense of families. Usury has historically been a big no-no in Europe because of it's place in the Bible and the power of organized religion, especially before the Age of Reason. Usury actually gets condemned in ten books of the Bible, spanning both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Here's an example of what it has to say on the subject, this is from Exodus 22:25-27:
"If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take a neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries out to me I will hear because I am Gracious."

Today I find myself mystified donkeys. My conservative foes seem to be convinced that it is possible to have both a good election and to cut taxes. Well, I hate to break it to these poor souls, but having good elections costs a lot of tax dollars, and the folks that foot that bill are you and me.

When dedicated Americans run around the county with voter registration forms in hand, people will register who shouldn't. They probably don't know the law, the person who registers them might know the law but they are more interested in getting a voter than checking ID. This is true for Republican and Democratic canvassers. The canvassing board had neither the time, nor the manpower, to make sure every registered voter has the right to vote prior to the election. They were far too busy making sure the primary and the general election happened at all and within federal guidelines.

In this country we seem to have decided that a voter is "Legal until proven otherwise". If you register and manage to correctly fill out the form, the canvassing board assumes that you have the legal right to vote unless or until evidence comes to light that says otherwise. Remember how it used to be? When voting was dependent on the whim of an elections official who could decide to not allow you to vote at all because you were a person of color? A woman? Poor? Thank Kennedy we've wised up.

I was going to post this after Ben's post, but decided that the content wasn't quite right.

You know I think to myself every now and again that it would be useful to understand the context of decisions made by legislatures that have passed. For that reason (and because history rocks!) I want to recommend to you "A Brief History of Social Security" that talks about how and why this program came to be and what it does for you and me ( www.ssa.gov ). Did you know that the precursor to Social Security was the pension system designed for widows, orphans, and disabled soldiers after the Civil War? Did you know that in 1934 they estimate that half of the nation's seniors were living in poverty? Did you know that Social Security marked a change from a welfare based system to a social insurance system? Did you know that only 1% of your Social Security taxes goes to paying overhead?

What strikes me about this is that there are ways that Social Security could be better. There are groups of people who don't get the full benefit out of it because they don't work as much (women) or they don't live as long (black men) or the system is just plain unfair (military retirees), but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is hardly going to fix it. Considering there is yet to be a solution proposed we can actually afford we do ourselves a great disservice to rush to change on this program. Don't let the Administration and it's minions convince you Social Security needs to be fixed this Congress, but do let them convince you it needs to be fixed. Bringing this issue front and center and forcing legislators to pick a side (aside from Social Security and American Flags are things I think are good) might just be the best thing Bush does with his Presidency.

So I have a little confession to make my little donkeys. No, no, not that kind of confession, but still something I haven't told anybody. I am a member of a West Wing Josh and Donna discussion community. Yes I am one of those hopeless fools who tunes in every week on the vain hope that these two crazy kids will get it together and find true love, or at least great sex, in the halls of power. Why am I telling you this? Because for all of my opinions and feelings on the issue, I have never posted to the group. I am, how do you say, a lurker. Being a member of the group allows me to read other people's opinions and arguments about issues while I'm bored at work and I don't have to worry about anyone disagreeing with my opinion since I never share it.

We here at Better Donkey think it's great if our site provides amusing content to read at work, or at home, or...well anywhere really now that we have wifi so prevalent in the city. This post is just to remind you that our website is also a discussion forum and while we can discuss things with each other all day long, we'd love your input! Are we crazy to think that there are good and noble ways to reform social security? Let's talk about it! Are we on the right track when we suggest you urge your lawmaker to do something about cleaner burning cars? Tell us! Have you taken our suggestion and written to your representative and did you get an interesting response? Post away! Is there another burning issue we haven't touched on yet? Oh please don't let us be ignorant of it!

I know it can be intimidating to take that first move and comment on a post you read, but you can do it! All points of view as valid so long as they are honest and we want to know what you're thinking about these issues. I'll even go you one better. The first person to comment to this post can have a beer on me. See, you get to be opinionated and rewarded! Nothing is more thrilling...

South Lake Union is in a state of upheaval that is more frustrating than trying to read a Seattle street sign at night. We currently have a gem of an attraction called Northwest Seaport down there that is in dire straights. In the collection of the Northwest Seaport there are a number of ships that serve as floating pieces of our past. In an effort to inject some needed jobs and attractions down there the City, in it's infinite wisdom, has issued an eviction notice for a tall masted wooden ship named the Wawona. If you've ever been down to that area, you can't miss her she's got 110-foot logs in the air to mark her presence. The other ships in the care of Northwest Seaport might very well be next. Now there are a lot of problems with the ships and getting them the care and attention they need, but if we lose them, there is a very high probability we'll never see them again. I feel like there has to be a way to solve all of these problems through a public-private partnership that will help stabilize their revenue and provide for their continued preservation. The City of Seattle has got to decide that saving these ships is just as important to the tourism industry here as Pike Place Market and the Seattle Center.

What can you do about this? The first thing you can do is call Northwest Seaport at 206-447-9800 and volunteer with them. They need all kinds of help from fundraising to event planning to restoration projects. Do you have a Saturday where you don't have plans? Go on down there and visit the ships and spend a little money in the gift shop. Got $10 leftover from your last trip to the casino? Take it down there and donate it towards paint or caulk. Got any knowledge or ideas about how they can get tourists interested in trekking all the way out to South Lake Union, give them your tip!

What politically can you do about this? Write a letter to parks superintendent Kenneth Bounds and tell him you think it's important to preserve Seattle's maritime history. CC your letter to the Mayor and the City Council and the various papers in the area.