Martin Luther King Day rally and march

Martin Luther King Day Rally & March

January 19, 2015
Garfield High School
23rd & E. Jefferson


  • Workshops 9:00 am – 9:50 am
  • Rally 10:00 am – 11:00 am
  • Pre march speakers 11:00 am – 12:00 pm
  • March leaves Garfield 12:00 pm
  • Rally in front of Federal Courthouse at Seventh and Stewart.

The day’s events are sponsored by the MLK Celebration Committee
For a full list of workshops go to MLKSeattle.org


Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party will be participating. Stop by our literature table at Garfield High in the morning, then look for our signs during the march.

Some highlights of the day:
The rally at the Federal Courthouse will include speakers Sarah Scott from the Freedom Socialist Party, and José Luis Avila, who is Nestora Salgado’s husband.

Workshop – Room 226 at Garfield, 9:00am
Fighting for Justice from Ferguson to Guerrero, Mexico:
The Case of Nestora Salgado

Nestora Salgado is a naturalized U.S. Citizen and a political prisoner in Mexico. The workshop will have a brief history of Nestora’s community work in Guerrero, Mexico, where she helped to organize against violent drug cartels who were in collusion with corrupt government officials. A basic human right is to live in a crime free community. Although she has been cleared of all charges by a Mexican federal judge, she has been held in a maximum security prison since August of 2013.

The workshop will, after a brief history, lead a discussion about the military and police forces that are being used to suppress communities of color and progressive communities both in this country and in Mexico.

Panelists: Su Docekal, Freedom for Nestora Committee
Grisel Rodriguez, daughter of Nestora Salgado
Patrick Burns, Carpenters Local 30
Jacquie Jones-Walsh, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists

Follow the money and fix the state budget

Now that the Legislature is back at work, they have to find the revenues for K-12 education, for higher education, for foster kids, for the mentally ill, for the state patrol, for home care workers and early childhood teachers and caregivers.  They also need to confront a fundamental reality of current state financing:  we just don’t have the money to pay for high quality education and good and appropriate public goods and services.  So our legislators could punt, ignoring the State Supreme Court’s ruling in the McCleary case that they have already violated the paramount duty of government – the education of children.  They could ignore the people’s vote for Initiative 1351 to reduce K-12 class sizes  and just kick the almost empty bucket down the road for another year.

Or the Legislature could fully fund both McCleary and Initiative 1351 first, and then figure out how to fund other public services and expenditures.  Not all state expenditures make sense, especially what are classified as  tax expenditures.  These are big and little holes drilled into the budget to benefit one special (and usually well-heeled constituency) or another.  Take dealers in precious metal, like gold.  A former state senator was very interested in the precious metals retail industry and he arranged a tax exemption through the Legislature that has now been on the books for three decades.  It funnels about $23 million a year from public services, like higher education, to precious metal dealers.    Microsoft has benefitted from a special tax giveaway for research and development.  In 2011 alone, Microsoft received a $145 million tax waiver.

Microsoft also gets away with not paying taxes on any of the profits it makes from investments in the stock market.  When you count up all the mega-corporations that take advantage of this one tax break, the bill to our state runs to $175 million a year. Oil companies get a special $30 million a year tax break in our state.  The only other state to give this tax break to Big Oil is Alabama.

If we simply stopped using public money to fund private interests, we could make a dent in the getting education funding up to the level we need to truly prepare all our kids for life in today’s rapidly changing world. But ultimately, it is time to go to where the money is…

Where is that money?  It is not in the pockets of middle class families.  You can’t find it in the pay day loans of minimum wage workers.  So if the economy is doing well, where is that money?  It is in the bank accounts of the very wealthy citizens of our state.

In Washington, the income of the top one percent grew by 45% between 2009 and 2012, more than all combined  income growth in the state.  How did they receive more than all income growth?    This bonus came from the working families. The bottom 99% saw their average real income fall by 3.5%.  It gets worse:  from 2007 to 2012, income for the average household in the bottom 99% fell by $8,500.

So show me the money!  The average income for the top 1% of households in our state was $1,272,313 in 2012 (estimated from IRS tax data.)  These households, about 30,000 of them, saw their annual income increase by almost $400,000 since 2009.  You can bet it has gone up more in the past couple of years, so it is closer to $1.5 million now.

What would happen if our state levied an income tax of 4% on these households?  Instead of a $400,000 increase in household income, the 1% would have realized a $350,000 increase over the past four years.  On the other hand, the revenue from the 4% income tax would equal about $1.5 billion a year.  What could that pay for?  It would completely cover tuition for all community college students.  We could reduce the tuition at four-year public universities to $5,000, and still have $400 million to fund foster care, home health care, and early childhood education.

We elect the legislature.   But do they work for us, or are they more concerned about protecting the deep pockets of mega-corporations and the fabulously wealthy?  We will find out!

Originally published at the Everett Herald

Who Aborts the Most Fertilized Eggs? Families Like the Duggars

blastocystA woman who values fertilized eggs or who believes her deity does should use the most highly effective contraceptive available.

Most fertilized eggs spontaneously abort during the first weeks of life. Estimates of death before implantation range as high as 80 percent and bottom out around 45. More than thirty percent of those that do implant later die on the vine. This means that unprotected sex produces more dead fertilized eggs than live babies. Reality TV’s Duggar parents are fundamentalist Christian opponents of contraception and abortion who have produced “19 Kids and Counting.” Based on the live births that Michelle Duggar delivered, we might estimate that Michelle and her man-on-a-mission flushed somewhere between 17 and 75 precious little bundles of joy in order to get the herd they have.

Any woman who leaves family planning to chance or her deity probably has a fertilized egg in her Diva Cup most months. Gross image, I know. But you know what’s really gross? The cup of righteous ignorance that fetus advocates are asking us to swallow when they claim that every hollow ball of human cells is sacred to whoever or whatever created the universe.

The Reproductive Funnel

The fact is that nature’s god designed reproduction as a big funnel. A lot more eggs and sperm get made than will ever hook up with each other. Many more eggs get fertilized than will ever implant. And more zygotes implant than will ever grow into babies. The world’s major religions, including the most extreme forms of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, tacitly acknowledge that these reproductive false starts are not people by declining to name or baptize the ones that women’s bodies expel on a regular basis.

If we are honest, even the most conservative Baptist or Bishop claims personhood status for the human embryo only when the decision making of women is at question. No religious sect, even Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, argues that we should save as many embryos as possible among the hundreds of thousands that die daily. No religious hierarchy dedicates its formidable financial resources or political clout to making this a global priority on par with, say, ending starvation.

In his now classic Discover article, “The Good Egg” science writer Stephen Hull lays out what is known about the process of conception, and he points out the difficulty that biology poses for those who want embryonic life legally protected:

The high failure rate begs challenging ethical questions. If life begins at conception, as many believe, why are so many lives immediately taken? If, as some ethicists argue, nascent life must be protected, how do we assess the degree of moral entitlement due a nascent entity that fails to pass nature’s own muster perhaps 80 percent of the time? And if the fate of an organism is indeed inscribed in the earliest biological inklings of an egg, does life begin with the gametes [the egg and sperm]?

Ethicist Toby Orb at Oxford says that if embryos have the same moral standing as persons, then spontaneous embryonic death should be the most horrendous moral problem of our time. He compares it to a plague that he calls The Scourge:

The Scourge struck swiftly and brutally. This terrifying new disease, more deadly than any before it, left no part of the world untouched. From the poorest countries in Africa to the richest countries in the West, it killed with equal, horrifying efficiency. It struck quickly, killing most of its victims within a few weeks of onset, and silently, for there were no detectable symptoms prior to death. Before the Scourge, the global death rate was 55 million per annum. That is, all causes of death—old age, war, murder, disease, and so on—conspired to take 55 million lives each year. The Scourge changed this dramatically. It alone killed more than 200 million people every year. . . . . Compared with the Scourge, all other problems seemed insignificant. . . . Other projects had to be put on hold and a major international effort directed toward loosening the Scourge’s grip upon humanity.

Religious groups that claim moral equivalence between embryos and persons and then fail to treat spontaneous embryo death as The Scourge are hypocritical, at best. That said, there is wisdom in their failure to walk the walk.

The Wisdom of Abortion

The processes that knit together the beginnings of life are incredibly effective in the long run, but at least at the start, they optimize for quantity over quality. Fertilized eggs and multi-celled blastulas and even more complex embryos wither for many reasons, not the least being that reproduction is hugely imperfect and a lot of egg-sperm mergers are defective. Alternately, they may flush out because the slow journey from fallopian tube to uterus got interrupted, or the mother’s womb wasn’t quite ready, or her immune system treated the embryo as a foreign invader; or for reasons yet unknown. Contraception researcher Dr. David Grimes describes the fascinating beginning stages of human life, how things go wrong, and how impressively nature eliminates most of the faulty embryos in his book, Every Third Woman.

Virtually all sexual reproduction, whether of plants or animals, follows a similar pattern, with lots of false starts built into the equation and a fertility rate that compensates. No farmer expects every seed to grow. Somewhat ironically, the Christian Bible reminds us of this in a story known as the Parable of the Sower:

A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain. (Matthew 13: 3-8 NRSV)

How Contraceptives Prevent Conception And Spontaneous Abortion

The fact that fertilized egg death is so common means that all birth control methods available today reduce the rate of embryonic hari-kari, and the more effective the contraceptive the more this is true. Top tier contraceptives, including the IUDs so hated by the Hobby Lobbyists, prevent more egg death daily than every pro-life picketer in America combined. And that’s not even counting how much therapeutic abortion decreases when women have access to better birth control.

Here is how they actually work:

  • The etonogestrel implant (Nexplanon) categorically shuts down ovulation. It has a published annual pregnancy rate around 1 in 2000 but in reality every pregnancy that occurred during clinical trials was conceived after the implant was removed. No egg, no fertilization, nothing to implant or abort. The fact that it also thins the uterine lining and thickens cervical mucus is largely irrelevant because women on the implant basically don’t ovulate.
  • The levonorgestrel IUD (Mirena, Skyla) thickens the mucus plug at the entrance to the uterus, so that sperm can’t get through. No access, no fertilization, nothing to implant or abort. Once settled into place, it has an annual pregnancy rate around 1 in 800. Secondarily, a hormonal IUD also thins the endometrium, which is why periods decrease by 90 percent over time—which, incidentally, has some serious health benefits. A sperm that managed to get through and fertilize an egg would meet an unprepared uterus, but preventing implantation is not the big way this IUD prevents pregnancy. We can be confident that fertilized egg death in this case is less common than it would be without the protection—or with less effective protection like the Pill, which in real world use, has a 1 in 11 pregnancy rate.
  • The nonhormonal copper IUD (Paragard; annual pregnancy rate 1 in 500) releases ions that act as a spermicide impairing a little egg-seeker’s ability to swim. They may alter the surface of the egg as well, preventing penetration. In other words, the primary and intended mechanisms of pregnancy prevention—despite all squawking to the contrary—are anti-conceptive aka contraceptive not abortifacient. IUDs may also heighten an immune response in the reproductive tract. Lastly, of the top tier birth control methods, the Copper IUD is least effective and most likely to end up with a situation where a fertilized egg might bump up against the IUD itself and then flush out. But this happens far less often than when a women is not contracepting or is using a less effective family planning method. That includes the Pill, the condom and especially—Are you listening Hobby Lobby?—the rhythm method or “let go and let God.”

So, for the record let me say it again. A woman who values fertilized eggs or who believes her deity does should use the best birth control available. She also might want to do a little reading on the biology of beginnings.

Originally published at AwayPoint

DelBene betrays the Democratic Party, apparently

Which 35 House Democrats Just Joined the GOP to Try to Gut Dodd-Frank?

lists Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene among the turncoats.

Ultimately, the GOP-sponsored bill to roll back reforms failed, when enough Democrats voted against it to prevent the 2/3rds majority needed for it to pass as a suspension of rules.

Last I heard DelBene hasn’t committed to opposing TPP or the fast-tracking thereof, despite the Washington State Democratic Party platform’s opposition to TPP.  This is especially concerning because DelBene and her husband were senior executives at Microsoft, so presumably they still have stock. Shouldn’t they recuse themselves from vote concerning TPP, which would benefit Microsoft?

Obama saved the economy — and the GOP

Obama gave a priceless gift to the GOP: immunity from prosecution for war crimes, torture,  disastrous wars, politically motivated prosecutions by the Justice Department, widespread corruption, and other criminality.

In 2008, it appeared that the GOP was destined for many years of repudiation. They’d proven themselves corrupt, incompetent, and imperialistic.

But Obama nursed the GOP back to life by refusing to prosecute criminality, thereby hiding the wrongdoing from the American people.   Obama tried to be bipartisan. He compromised early and often. The GOP almost never compromised and often voted unanimously against the Democrats’ bills.

Obama had a chance to reorient America to a new paradigm of Democratic progressivism. Instead, he hid Bush-era criminality from the populace; surrounded himself with Bush holdovers and Wall Street cronies;  prosecuted the whistle blowers; expanded the power of the military, and governed as a centrist.  Obama didn’t fight.  As a result, in 2010 and 2014 the GOP roared back to life.   Americans were confused about who was to blame for the mess we’re in.

Indeed, Obama is a Wall Street Dem and a great friend of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

In 2008 we needed an FDR or at least an LBJ.  Instead we got a centrist Dem who said of himself, “My policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies … back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.”

No wonder people didn’t turn out to vote in 2014.

From 2009 onwards I tried to submit resolutions to local Democratic organizations critical of Obama’s sellouts.  As you can imagine, those resolutions didn’t go over very well. “Are you crazy? Are you trying to help the GOP?”

There are those who would say that impeachment of Bush, Cheney and others would have been too divisive and would have led to a backlash against Democrats similar to what happened in 1999 when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton. The analogy doesn’t hold. Clinton was impeached for (lying about) sex. Bush and Cheney could have been impeached for torture, deception about the grounds for invading Iraq, and other crimes. See Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment.

In 2007,   members of the Washington State legislature were working on bills calling for the impeachment of President Bush.  Senator Patty Murray ordered them to stop.  See D.C. Dems want to stop legislative impeachment talk.

During the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, there were women aside from Anita Hill who were willing to testify that Thomas had sexually harassed them.  Then Senator Joe Biden did not allow the women to testify. See The Injustice Of Clarence Thomas.

Well, the Democratic leadership got the shellacking they deserved.  They don’t fight the good fight.  Unfortunately, millions of grassroots Dems are truly progressive but repeatedly get sold out by the leadership.

It all makes me sick.

Forum on Expanding Social Security in Seattle Monday 2/23

Nancy Altman will be one of the featured speakers in a forum on Monday, February 23, in Seattle entitled “Social Security – Why It’s Not Broke and How We Can Expand It”. Joining Ms. Altman on the program will be Seattle City Council member, Kshama Sawant, and Washington State Labor Council President, Jeff Johnson.

Social Security Works! Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All, is the recently released book by Ms. Altman and her co-author, Eric Kingson. Ms. Altman has a thirty-five year background in the areas of Social Security and private pensions. She is co-director of Social Security Works and co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security coalition and campaign. She previously authored The Battle for Social Security: From FDR’s Vision to Bush’s Gamble (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

The Seattle forum is part of a campaign to expand the growing chorus of voices in Congress and elsewhere calling for the expansion of our Social Security system. We know that Social Security is not “going broke” and also does not add a penny to the national debt. We are fighting against the three-decade-long, billionaire-funded campaign to make us believe that Social Security is destined to collapse.

With the decline in defined benefit pensions and the total inadequacy of 401(ks), there is a looming retirement crisis that will affect more than two- thirds of today’s workers. Social Security is a powerful program that can help stop the collapse of the middle class, lessen the pressure squeezing families from all directions, and help end the upward redistribution of wealth that has resulted in perilous levels of inequality.

All Americans deserve to have dignified retirement years as well as an umbrella to protect them and their families in the event of disability or premature death. At stake are our values and the kind of country we want for ourselves and for those that follow. From the Silent Generation to Baby Boomers, from Generation X to Millennials and Generation Z, all of us have a stake in understanding the real story about Social Security.

Ms. Altman is the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of beneficiary rights. She is also on the Board of Directors of the National Academy of Social Insurance, a membership organization of over 800 of the nation’s leading experts on social insurance.

From 1983 to 1989, Ms. Altman was on the faculty of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and taught courses on private pensions and Social Security at the Harvard Law School. In 1982, she was Alan Greenspan’s assistant in his position as chairman of the bipartisan commission that developed the 1983 Social Security amendments.

Please plan to attend this exciting, movement-building forum on Monday, Feb. 23, from 7:00-8:30 p.m. at Joe Crump Hall, UFCW 21, 5030 First Avenue S., Seattle.

Thoughts on Governor Inslee's climate proposal… and UW forum on Jan 14

The past week has been dominated by Governor Inslee’s climate proposal (and by the Seattle Times editorial board arguing for a revenue-neutral alternative!), so here are some thoughts, with a preface that Divest UW and Green Evans are organizing a climate policy forum for Wednesday night Jan 14 featuring KC Golden from Climate Solutions, yours truly, and hopefully others. Details TBD!

Carbon Washington’s position in brief: As we noted in our open letter to the environmental community, we think a bipartisan approach is a more promising path to climate action than pursuing what we called the Progressive Take-Over of the World. Consequently, while Carbon Washington is certainly not opposed to the Governor’s proposal, we agree with the Seattle Times editorial board when they write that “A revenue-neutral approach — one that would mitigate consumer’s costs of a carbon tax — would be both less financially risky and more politically viable in the divided Legislature.”

Additional thoughts:

Some policy details and analysis. The governor’s climate policy covers a lot of ground, but the focal point is carbon pricing, and his carbon pricing proposal is essentially a California-style cap-and-trade system, with auctioned permit revenue mostly going to education, transportation, and social justice. (It will also almost certainly include linking with California, although I’m not sure if that’s explicitly mentioned.) For all the details see this info from the Governor’s office; in particular scroll down to the policy briefs for the Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, which is the proposal relating to carbon pricing. For an enthusiastic analysis see Kristin Eberhard’s Sightline blog post, which includes this terrific revenue graphic. For a not-enthusiastic analysis see the blog posts from Todd Myers at the Washington Policy Center.

Think of it as a clever “Christmas tree”. It’s a Christmas tree because it’s got lots of ornaments: there’s a California-style cap-and-trade bil, there’s money for education, there’s money for transportation, there’s money for social justice… and that’s just one part of the Governor’s proposal. (See the links above for details about electric vehicles, clean fuels, etc.) And it’s clever because it makes for a compelling legislative strategy given the challengs that lie ahead: having different ornaments allows the governor to reach out to a variety of different interest groups for support and to claim (even if the bills don’t pass) that he tried to make progress on their priorities.

The expert consensus is that the governor’s proposal is unlikely to pass in the legislature. This is not intended to be a downer (and, for the record, unlikely doesn’t mean impossible, so if you want to contact your legislator then read this from Washington Environmental Council) but it is intended to be a reality check. There was an election last month, and as the Seattle Times wrote the day after the election, “The results mean it will be harder for Gov. Jay Inslee to act on an aggressive plan to reduce carbon emissions in the state, or to pass legislation that’s been a priority for Democrats including education and transportation funding.” And the story in last week’s paper was similar: “A tougher crowd waits in Olympia.” The truth is that the governor has introduced a bold plan that faces a very steep uphill battle in the legislature, especially the Republican-controlled state Senate.

Comparison with the latest iteration of our Carbon Washington proposal. The governor’s proposal is a California-style cap-and-trade system, with permit prices estimated to start at about $12 per ton CO2 and then grow over time at a rate determined by supply and demand and by minimum bid requirements for the permit auctions; our Carbon Washington proposal is a BC-style carbon tax with a tax rate of $15 per ton CO2 in the first year and $25 in the second year, increasing thereafter at about 5.5% per year in order to maintain revenue neutrality. The governor’s carbon price covers about 90% of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, with the major exceptions being agriculture and waste managment; our Carbon Washington proposal covers about 84% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state, with the major exceptions being agriculture, public transportation, and emissions of non-fossil-fuel GHGs. The bulk of the revenue from the governor’s proposal goes to fund education and transportation (see Sightline’s terrific revenue graphic
How Washington will spend the carbon revenue in 2017, in millions of dollars
).

The bulk of the revenue from the Carbon Washington proposal goes to fund a one-percentage-point reduction in the state sales tax. The governor’s proposal includes funding for the Working Families Tax Exemption (a state-level bump-up of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit) sufficient to provide a 10% bump-up of the federal EITC for low-income working families; our Carbon Washington proposal includes funding for a 25% bump-up of the federal EITC. The governor’s proposal includes a small chunk of money ($20m a year) to address impacts on manufacturers; our Carbon Washington proposal allocates a much larger chunk of money (closer to $200m a year) to effectively eliminate the B&O tax for manufacturers.

“Tax” versus “Fee” versus “Revenue”. Discussion of the governor’s proposal will be a good test-case for looking at the kind of language that gets used in public discussion. The governor is steering away from calling his proposal a tax (or even a cap-and-trade system) but the public discussion may go elsewhere; for an extreme example see the San Juan Islander, which flat-out calls it a “carbon tax”. Polling suggests that language differences may not matter all that much anyway—the recent G-Squared poll has carbon tax outpolling cap-and-trade—but in any case the weeks ahead will be instructive for learning about who gets to determine what language gets used and how much it matters.

As always comments welcome on the blog or via Facebook and Twitter.