Majority Rules Blog

Promoting Citizen Awareness and Active Participation for a Sustainable Democratic Future

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Ingraham High School Trees to "Scream" on Friday!

The Seattle School District is going to cut down 27 trees tomorrow Friday Jan 28, 2011 (about one quarter of the NW Grove) at Ingraham High School. For several days the School District has been assembling equipment and preparing to cut down the trees. Tomorrow students have the day off.

Tonight just before dark I went over to check things out once again and asked a worker in a hardhat when they were going to cut the trees down.  His response was that "tomorrow the trees would be screaming". It's strange but I could not think of a more apt response for the trees.

If Seattle Mayor McGinn has his way, no trees in Seattle will be protected from destruction. Ingraham is only a precursor to many more trees being lost because Mayor McGinn is proposing to deregulate all tree protection in the city. Strange that someone who supposedly ran with a label as an environmentalist has no love for protecting Seattle's green infrastructure. When we tried to talk to McGinn and his staff about saving the Ingraham trees he choose to ignore us and wouldn't even schedule an opportunity for us to discuss the situation with him.

McGinn instead has signed off on an initial draft proposal by his Department of Planning and Development to literally remove all protections for trees in Seattle, including tree groves and exceptional trees. The proposal claims that it increases tree protection when it would take us back to before we had any laws to protect trees. The proposal says that instead of laws to protect trees we should trust that education and incentives will protect trees. As if that worked to convince the Seattle School District to save the Ingraham trees. Meanwhile other cities like Lake Forest Park and Kirkland and Issaquah have moved to strengthen their tree ordinances in recent years.

Unfortunately, even with current regulations,trees already have no standing in Seattle and no voice because DPD (Seattle's Department of Planning and Development) gives priority to helping people build whatever they want rather than saving trees and green space. The benefits of trees to clean the air and provide oxygen and reduce storm water runoff and provide habitat to animals and screen noise and pollutants and provide visual delight is given no value when DPD says that trees can be saved except when they limit the development potential of a lot.

DPD has a conflict of interest in both trying to help people develop their lots and save trees. Trees almost always lose because DPD assigns them no economic valve despite the services they provide the city. Trees need a voice of their own and should be protected by assigning tree regulatory authority to another city department like Seattle Public Utilities which sees their value in dealing with storm water runoff. They know that as we lose trees we increase man made infrastructure costs to make up for the lost services of our urban forest trees.

. Neighbors and others who want to keep our city green with trees must become a more vocal advocate for trees. Save the Trees - Seattle is working with a city wide  group of tree advocates called "Save Our Urban Forest Infrastructure" to enact stronger protections for trees and our urban forest so we don't become the Emerald City in legend only.

Of course the School District has been quiet on specifically when they were going to cut the trees down. At 9:37 PM tonight I got an e-mail from School Board member Sherry Carr in which she said she was just told by facilities that the trees would probably be cut down tomorrow.

One of our members, an arborist, told us that the trees can probably be cut down in 2 hours or so. After 70 years of life and good service to the City of Seattle, it's weird and sad how quickly it can all so needlessly end.  The Seattle School District had prepared an Ingraham Master Plan showing they could build the addition on the open lawn on the North side without having to remove any of the tree grove.

Yet the School Administration under Superintendent Goodloe Johnson and the Seattle School Board has turned a blind eye to environmental issues, choosing not to help increase Seattle's tree canopy but instead gouge a chunk out of it by removing some of the city's oldest trees. What a great lesson for Seattle students about how to live in a world where we are increasing threatened with drastic climate change and environmental degradation as our population and use of the world's resources increases to have an ever expanding economy based on consumption.


Steve Zemke
Chair, Save the Trees - Seattle

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Why aren't Senators Cantwell and Murray Co- Sponsors of the Resolution to Change Filibuster Rules?

by Steve Zemke

Good question. Why aren't Washington State Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray co-sponsors of Senate Resolution 10 introduced earlier this month. The filibuster has been used effectively by Republicans to stop legislation the Democrats supported. Then the Republicans turned around and blamed the Democrats for not addressing critical issues facing America. It's past time to change the rules to allow the Senate to do the people's business. Let's do it now.

Senate Resolution 10 - A resolution to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters and nominations in the Senate was introduced Jan 5, 2011 by Senator Tom Udall and has 24 other co-sponsors. Washington States two Senators are not among the sponsors.

The other Senators besides Tom Udall supporting Senate Resolution 10 are:

Mark Begich [D-AK]
Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Robert Casey [D-PA] Chris Coons [D-DE]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Al Franken [D-MN]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Kay Hagan [D-NC]
Thomas Harkin [D-IA] Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Joe Manchin [D-WV]
Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Joe Manchin [D-WV]
Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
John Rockefeller [D-WV] Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]
Jon Tester [D-MT]
Mark Udall [D-CO]
Mark Warner [D-VA]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

A post on Daily Kos gives more details on what Senate Resolution 10 would do in changing the rules of how the US Senate operates. Every two years the US Senate has the opportunity to change their rules at the beginning of their current session.
Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed

Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.

Eliminates Secret Holds

Prohibits one Senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.

Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority

Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.

This provision addresses comments of Republicans at last year’s Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats raised concerns about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the Majority Leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution – it guarantees the minority the right to offer germane amendments.

Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate

Following a failed cloture vote, Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.

Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time

Provides for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees.

Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments -- something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.
Washington voters should contact Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray and urge them to support Resolution 10 now!

Send an  email to Senator Patty Murray

Send an email to Senator Maria Cantwell

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Sarah Palin & Tea Party Rhetoric Contribute to Arizona Shooting of Congressswoman and Six Deaths

Words have consequences. And words from Sarah Palin and Tea Party fanatics contributed to the tragic shootings in Tuscon that killed 6 people and wounded a number of others including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who appears to have been specifically targeted by the shooter.

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party fanatics rallied their supporters with violent rhetoric and images. And while they will deny it, I agree with the Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik that the hate and violent talk contribute to an atmosphere that promotes violence being acted out, not just being voiced.

As Sheriff Dupnik states:
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
When asked by a reporter if Giffords being shot could have been motivated by "prejudice and bigotry," Dupnik responded, "All I can tell you is that there's reason to believe is that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol."
Last year Sarah Palin picked 20 Congresspeople to try to defeat out of 435 Representatives. One of these was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona.  Palin graphically and pictorially didn't just target Giffords.  She put together a map and put gun sights on each of her targeted members of Congress.  The image is and was offensive and got her lots of attention and didn't seem to hurt her image among her supporters. Many unfortunately accepted it as just part of the politics of today. I think the media unfortunately gave Palin a pass on this one when really  they should have challenged her.

You can see the images on Huffington Post in an article entitled "Sarah Palin's PAC puts Gun Sights on Democrats She's Targeting in 2010". These images crossed the line of rational political discourse and I believe have contributed to the tragedy that occurred in Arizona.  They have no place in politics in America.

Sheriff Dupnik's comments are right on about the dangers of inciting violent imagery in politics.

And as the Huffington Post reports:
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

Gifford's Tea Party opponent also contributed to the tragedy in Arizona with his radical brand of violence inciting imagry and deeds. In the same article cited above it is reported that:
During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.
We need as a people and a nation to reject this violent hate promoting type of politics as expoused by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. It has no place in a civilized society. It time to return civility and rational discussion to politics and reject the hate mongering and negativity currently being promoted by the conservatives.

Conservatives in the past used similiar outrageous imagery and hatemongering against the blacks in the South to put conservatives in office. Enough is enough.

Update - Jan 27, 2011

I came across this excellent post by Joe Brewer of Cognitive Policy Works. It includes a video entitled "Thom Hartmann on the "Becking" of America". I think it adds an excellent perspective on the use of violent rhetoric by the right wing and its implications for political discourse and its consequences.

Labels: , , , , ,