First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign on childhood obesity may do some good, but I don’t like the feel of it. What makes the fatness of children the business of federal authority?

The White House's announcement tries to make that connection without clearly saying so. One way it does this is with the word, “epidemic.” Using that word compares the gaining of weight to diseases like malaria, SARS or the bird flu. The federal government clearly has a responsibility to try to protect the nation from epidemics of contagious disease. But fatness is not a disease, except in cases of unusual metabolism, which are in any case not contagious.

Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is a feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Lynne and Bruce discuss a federal court ruling that African American farmers were discriminated against by the federal government, and deserve restitution.

Lynne Varner, left, and Bruce Ramsey

Bruce Ramsey: Lynne, I am not in favor of racial “restitution” generally. But from what I read, the judge’s ruling in Pigford v. Glickstein, (U.S. District Court, D.C., 1999), is much more clearly focused on real victims.

The case is about racial discrimination in government farm loans from 1981 to 1996. The racial favoritism was practiced by county agricultural commissions, which are elected by local farmers. Because they were acting in the name of the government, the liability is the government's.

The ruling gave them the black farmers two options. In option A, they would have to show “substantial evidence” they had suffered from discrimination. If they did, they would have their debt to the Department of Agriculture forgiven, they would get preferential treatment for a new loan, and they would get $50,000 in cash.

Option B had a higher standard of proof—“preponderance of the evidence”—but no cap on the amount of money that could be won.

Lynne, I’m not going to argue with this outcome. What I don’t like are proposals to grant amounts of money based on a general history of discrimination against an entire race of people. In my mind, blame and guilt are individual, as is loss. Once the perpetrators and the victims die, the fairness of trying to remedy the act starts to fade. I am responsible for what I do, not what my grandfather did, or what people who looked like my grandfather did. If I suffer a loss, it is felt by me, and much less, if at all, by my grandchildren.

In the future, my way of preventing the problem in this case would be for the government to get out of the farm-loan business entirely. Let farmers get loans the same way as the rest of us--and let commercial bankers bear the liability for racial favoritism.

Lynne Varner:Bruce, we agree. Ding ding!
Actually we do not.
I join you in heralding the outcome of this class-action suit. Plaintiffs proved that eligible black farmers traditionally were denied loans by the federal Department of Agriculture while their white peers went to the head of the line. As much as we feign to be a colorblind society, there was not equal treatment for black farmers.

But I'm troubled by two things. One, the federal government hasn't paid up. The suit was settled in 1999!. Failure to pay smacks of judicial disrespect as well a lack of regard for the plaintiffs who waged a long and expensive suit.

Secondly, I disagree with you about lawsuits based on a history of discrimination. Accountablility for discrimination can span generations just as the benefits of a discriminatory system often spanned generations. Example: when the Japanese were interred in 1942, non-Japanese families benefitted from cheap and even free land. Descendents rightfully argued over this injustice. The same with Jews whose bank accounts and properties were seized during the Holocaust. In addition to reparations paid by Germany to that era's remaining victims, descendents are waging successful fights against individuals and institutions to regain property.

Some of the black farmers in Pigford v. Glickstein have died or sold their farms. They deserve compensation for the injury done to them. If they are dead, the money will go to their heirs.

Panicky Republicans are clucking and cackling like the anxious chickens in the Super Bowl ad for Denny's pancake emporium. President Obama has invited Rs & Ds to chat about health care in a televised meeting this month. Pandemonium in the hen house.

Rooster-less Republicans have proven themselves masters of broad political slander. They whine about the deficit they built over eight years under President Bush, but offer no constructive solutions. Two wars have not made the country any safer at home, and the GOP scoffed at the use of diplomacy. Out of ideas and completely without a political game plan, Republicans hurl insults.

Obama is properly calling the GOP out on health care. The challenge - the dare - is to go live on national television and not only say what they do not like about the Democrats' health plan, but also lay out an alternative. Articulate a direction for a country that has lost medical coverage along with employment.

The GOP has nothing, except a willingness to pass the buck buck, buck buck, buck buck. So righteous and so chicken.

I watched Sarah Palin’s speech to the Tea Party convention, and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike watched it, and we saw it differently. She wrote that the former Alaska governor “gave the Tea Party crowd exactly what they wanted to hear.”

I don’t think she did. She gave them some support-our-troops patriotism and some warnings about Obama’s spending and deficits, and they cheered and applauded her on those. And she made a vague reference to the Tenth Amendment. But none of it added up to much.

If a Christian divorces an atheist, and they have joint custody of their kids, should the court give sole authority over the kids’ religious education to the Christian? That’s what Judge James Allendoerfer of Snohomish County Superior Court decided in 2008 in the dissolution of the marriage of Dimitri and Vicki Balashov of Bainbridge Island—and what has just been reversed by the state Court of Appeals. (Hat tip to Volokh Conspiracy.)

Mixed reaction to the court decision in favor of school districts that sued the state over funding.

Advocates cheer the ruling as vindication of their decades-long contention that the state Legislature knowingly and willingly underfunds public schools. The result is a statewide system of uneven academic quality, high dropout rates and a appalling racial disparities. Oh, and paltry starting salaries for teachers.

My take is that no one should've been surprised by the King County Superior Court's sympathetic stance to the plight of public schools. But now that the state is under a court order to fully fund education, what next? It is estimated that at least $4 billion ADDITIONAL must be added to the K-12 budget each biennium. Where will that money come from?

One education advocate who assured me the state's $33 billion two-year budget could withstand the hit. Maybe, I argued, if it weren't already $2.6 billion in the red and if the state didn't have other funding mandates, health care, corrections, public safety, higher ed, etc. This advocates reply: "those entities aren't included in the state Constitution, we are." So there.

What do you think? Should the state appeal this ruling in the hopes the judge either got it wrong?
Or should legislators accept the verdict and begin a mix of squeezing other areas of the budget and findng new revenue sources to fully fund education?

Check out this breakdown of the state budget in 2009 dollars for an idea of where the money goes.

David Goldstein takes me to task on his blog, HA Seattle, for my column, here, defending the people’s right of initiative and referendum. He accuses me, and the Times, of hypocrisy because when he had an initiative seven years ago, the Times published this editorial criticizing it.

I remember that editorial. I wrote it.

It wasn’t exactly a thundering denunciation. It starts out by saying, “David Goldstein has accomplished something. The Seattle computer programmer has successfully placed the phrase ‘horse's ass’ into dozens of family newspapers,” and that this had offered the public “a ribald moment.”

The latest news about state Sen. Pam Roach and the Senate Republican Caucus should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed this spirited lawmaker's career. In case you haven't heard, the Senate Republican Caucus has banned one of their own from caucus proceedings and from directly contacting caucus staff. See the latest Seattle Times editorial,

So asks this article in The New Republic. My answer is, "Beats the heck outa me." I never could see what all the fuss was about J.D. Salinger's book.

I read "Catcher in the Rye" more than 40 years go. My English teacher thought it was a perceptive book about 16-year-old boys, which is what I was at the time. I didn't think it was perceptive about much in my world. I thought the main character was messed up, and kind of stupid. If I'd have known at the time that the author drank his own urine, I would have thought: "It figures. And I have to read his dumb book."

To compare the character in that book, a kid named Holden Caulfield, to Huck in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was preposterous, I thought. Huck was a character. He had a distinct American voice--probably the most memorable voice of any character in any book I'd ever read. I know Mark Twain said at the beginning of "Huckleberry" that it didn't have a plot, but it had a story enough for me. And I remembered it, and made a point to read it several times again. I could probably sit down with a kid and spend 20 minutes telling the story of Huck Finn. I cannot remember what happens in "Catcher in the Rye." Was there a story in it? I don't remember one.

Powerball is coming to Washington. I don’t welcome it.

On the Powerball Web page are stories of winner after winner. There is, for example, Roy Higbee of Savery, Kansas. Higbee is a worker for a former Boeing operation in Wichita. Higbee was out deer hunting one Saturday and bought a Powerball ticket. He won $200,000.

Like the crocuses already sticking their tops above ground, Republicans in Washington state are perking their heads up this balmy winter, hoping the election of Scott Brown as senator from Massachusetts is more phenomenon. than fluke. They're even trying to persuade two-time gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to run for senator against Democrat Patty Murray this fall.
Although Rossi told the (Everett) Herald "no way" last week, Republicans believe he might be more open to the idea.
With just nine months to go until the fall Senate election, Republicans have a few lesser-known candidates, Clint Didier and Chris Widener, but no one who could really beat Murray.
So Republicans are apparently talking to key players with a new, post-Brown attitude. Maybe Congressman Dave Reichert, who apparently has not completely ruled out a run but seems eager to hold onto his 8th District congressional seat.
A bigger push is on to convince Rossi to dive in. Rossi has to be wary of another race, but he does have statewide name familiarity and could benefit from a Republican tide, if there is such a thing.
A poll conducted by Republican pollster, Bob Moore, shows a statistical dead heat in a matchup between Rossi and Murray.

If there is a shortage of teachers of math and science in the public schools--which there is, because there are more opportunities in the private market for people who know math and science--then allow public schools to offer more pay for math and science teachers. All the business people say that, because that is the rule under which they live. It's the market. They're used to it, and they don't question it.

Unions think differently. It is part of the ideology of unionism that everyone in the group is paid under the same rules. No favoritism. And so, when the Editorial Board had a visit from Washington Education Association leaders Jan. 19, I expected a statement about fairness when I asked: Why shouldn't math and science teachers be paid more, if there is a shortage? And I did get something like that answer from WEA President Mary Lindquist: "We have traditionally not been supportive of singling out one group."

Then she had another answer. She said, "It's also a gender issue. It means you're paying men, by and large, more than you're paying women"--because a higher proportion of math and science teachers are men.

Out of a whole hour's talk about schools and funding and education politics, that was the statement I kept thinking about. The thing that struck me was that in the private sector, such an argument would never come up. You paid a certain type of employee more because you had to. Nobody would look at it as a fairness question. It would be a practical question only.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled on a medical marijuana case, State v. Fry, last week. It is a messy group of opinions, and a messy outcome.

A few facts: on Dec. 20, 2004, two police officers knocked on the door of Jason and Tina Fry of Colville, Stevens County. Police had been told the Frys were growing marijuana, and as they approached they smelled marijuana smoke. At the door, Tina Fry presented a document from a physician authorizing Jason Fry to smoke it for medical reasons.

The physician, Dr. Thomas Orvald, had written that Jason Fry had a scar behind his right ear and on his chin from injuries inflicted by a horse. Orvald wrote in the notes section of the document: “Severe anxiety!! Can’t function.” And he wrote, “Pt [patient] has found use of medical cannabis allows him to function [with] self control of anger, rage, & depression. Pt has been kicked in head 3 times by horse.”

Join opinion writers and community members from Seattle, Kansas City and Florida’s Atlantic Coast as they engage in a cross-continent discussion of President Obama’s State of the Union Address Wednesday.

Follow and participate on Twitter using the hashtag #OPEDSOTU in your tweets, or join the conversation on seattletimes.com. The speech starts at 6 p.m. Pacific time.

The Twitter conversation is a partnership between opinion pages of the Seattle Times, the Kansas City Star and the Scripps Treasure Coast newspapers. We’re hoping to make this an open discussion in each community that will represent viewpoints across the political spectrum. On the Web site, comments will be moderated.

Participants will be a mix of editorial writers and community members from politically blue Seattle to purple Missouri to the Florida's politically red Treasure Coast on the Atlantic. Expect more details about participants early next week.

Here are summaries of the three communities.

Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers serves the central Atlantic Coast of Florida largely known for spring training, citrus, fishing, retirees and businessmen from colder climates who would rather wear flip-flops than a three-piece suit. Two of the three main Treasure Coast counties are overwhelmingly conservative. Residents from Jupiter to north of Vero Beach suffer in an economy that has had among the highest foreclosure rates in Florida and unemployment rates of about 14 percent.

The Kansas City Star is in the heart of the Heartland, an area best known for jazz and barbecue, with red and blue voters in nearly equal numbers.  Missouri, among the nation's top bellwether states, is represented in the U.S. Senate by Republican Kit Bond and Democrat Claire McCaskill.  Just west is Kansas, a traditional Republican stronghold, even though the last elected governor, Kathleen Sebelius, is a Democrat now serving as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Kansas City Star has readers in both states. Take the pulse of the heartland here on Jan. 27

The Seattle Times, independently owned, is the largest daily newspaper in Washington, the most trade-dependent state in the nation that is home to Microsoft and Boeing and diverse agriculture industry. The state lately is decidedly blue, especially around Seattle, with a serious independent streak - usually one-third of voters identify as independents. Washington's governor and both U.S. senators are Democratic women, and the state's voters in November became the first in the nation to affirm by ballot an expansion of domestic partnership rights ­- the "Everything but Marriage" law.

Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is regular feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Lynne and Bruce argue about whether the U.S. should send troops into Haiti

Lynne Varner, left, and Bruce Ramsey

Lynne Varner: Bruce, the U.S. response to Haiti has been compassionate and appropriate. About 12,000 U.S. military personnel are on the island or just offshore and a $100 million American aid package is likely to grow. Early Wednesday, powerful aftershocks registering 6.1 on the Richter scale added to the devastation.

Some worry our military presence may morph into an occupation. This New York Times story says Haitians support our presence only if it is temporary. That's an understandable viewpoint for a nation that carved its place in the history books by launching the most successful slave rebellion ever.

But way more U.S. involvement in Haiti is necessary over the longterm to elevate the tiny island nation from disaster zone to self-sufficient neighbor. Everyone knows from the headlines that Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere. What they don't know is how this verdant half of an island (the other half is a separate nation: the Domnican Republic) became impoverished. This NPR story offers a short history lesson that is required reading for anyone who thinks Haiti is poor because Haitians don't work hard enough or just have tough luck. Western nations helped make the bed Haitians lie in.

In the coming weeks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ought to come up with a comprehensive aid package for Haiti that goes beyond feeding the hungry and addressing issues of governance, trade fairness and immigration. Only then can today's Band aid become tomorrow's cure.

Bruce Ramsey:Lynne, I'm all for sending Haiti emergency aid, in consort with other rich countries. In an emergency, you help out. But I don't buy the idea that it's the job of our federal government to "cure" Haiti or any other country mired in poverty. It's not government's job to do it, and I don't think they're able to do it.

Historical explanations for poverty often amount to excuses. Haiti was a colony of France, so blame it on the French. But Haiti has been independent for nearly two centuries, which is longer than most countries in the Americas--certainly longer than Canada. You mentioned to me that Haiti had a debt laid on it by France, and that it took very long to pay it. But there are many countries that have had much worse things happen to them. Japan was fire-bombed and A-bombed in the 1940s, and it is rich now.

Poverty is most of all a product of culture--the political culture, the legal culture, usually the whole thing. Countries are poor because they haven't created a rule of law, because people don't trust each other, because they are not future-oriented--lots of reasons. Being the poorest country in the Americas, Haiti no doubt has the lowest wages. Why haven't there been lots of investments by Americans? French? Canadians? What is the matter with the place--and how would U.S. government employees be able to do anything about that?

I am skeptical of my government's ability to do good in a place like Haiti--and am also thinking that it's not my government's primary job.

A Republican takes Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat. Amazing! Last summer, the talk was about passing "healthcare reform" (actually insurance reform) in Kennedy's honor. That Massachusetts, once the most liberal state in the union (probably now Vermont is) and still at the far end of liberalism, would elect a Republican--and not a wishywashy one, either--was a thought that did not dare think itself. And here we are. Obama loses his 60th vote in the Senate.

Some of the Dems are in denial. Jonathan Chait at the New Republic, for example. He says the reason for the Massachusetts revolt was the 10 percent unemployment rate. Denial, denial, denial. Voters know Obama didn't create the 10 percent unemployment. I don't hear people around me blaming that on him. The Republicans don't have any instant cure on offer for 10 percent unemployment, either. It is not about that.

I am not in Massachusetts, so I am not 100 percent sure of this. But from what I've read, the big issue is the national Democrats' health insurance plan--because Massachusetts already has such a plan, including an individual mandate like the one in Congress. And it has raised costs, not "controlled" them. It is several billions over the amount promised. Simply, it is not successful. And, I gather, the people in Massachusetts are not of a mind for any more social experiments.

This may be the end of Obamacare. Or there may be some quick moves in Congress before Massachusetts' new senator is seated. If that happens, just wait until November.

Nineteen days into his new administration, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn is learning that being mayor is sometimes a collaborative job.

Members of the Seattle City Council are shaking off the insult, real or imagined, from a mayor who proposed a property tax increase, on a special $1 million ballot, for a $241 million sea wall rebuild - without really talking to the council. The council can vote to put the measure on the ballot - or not.

Once the bad vibes wear off, and they will, the council wants the mayor to explain exactly why he views the sea wall as an emergency. The council sent a letter to the new mayor asking, in essence, Do you know somethng we don't know? And the council wants the sea wall to be rebuilt along with other changes along the waterfront accommodating the planned deep bore tunnel, which the new mayor opposes.

Many council members feel McGinn acted too hastily by announcing the sea wall project when he had spoken only to Council President Richard Conlin. The rest of the council was caught somewhat unaware and had a different timeline in mind for the project.

What were we thinking, all of us who walk, drive and talk, who walk, drive and text?
We have turned into a nation of distracted people. All of this talking, texting and use of I-phones and other gadgets --- we are accidents waiting to happen.
The New York Times ratcheted the discussion of such behavior up a notch, citing a growing body of evidence that we are a danger to ourselves and others with our distracted, multi-tasking behavior.
A nation of busy people is always looking for the next time-saver. But in doing so, we are causing unnecessary accidents.
All of which should make state lawmakers very supportive of state Sen. Tracey Eide and her entirely reasonable effort to make driving and talking on a handheld phone and driving and texting illegal in Washington and punishable as primary offense.

Most legislation in Olympia is proposed, discussed, killed or passed without any mention in the media whatsoever. I was reminded of this Thursday while sitting through hearings on several bills I knew nothing about. One struck me as the ultimate in narrow subjects: changing the law concerning pipe tobacco.

There is already a law, RCW 70.155.140, banning residents of Washington from buying tobacco by mail-order without a tobacco dealer’s license. This was passed either to protect the people’s health or the state’s revenue—you can decide about that. It exempts one category of tobacco: large cigars.

I've been bracing myself for reports of scams or other efforts to take advantage of the outpouring of support for victims of the Haiti earthquake.

The first salvo comes from an unexpected place, the liberal political action group MoveOn, and points a finger in an unexpected direction, credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard.

MoveOn says that while Americans are pulling out the plastic and generously donating millions to aid organizations, credit card companies are raking in the dough because of a surcharge - typically around 3 percent - levied on all credit transactions.

Credit card companies routinely charge processing fees. Typically it is rightly seen by retailers and other businesses as an appropriate cost of doing business. But the American Red Cross or World Vision? I'm not so sure.

The issue got the attention of at least one lawmaker, Rep. Betsy Markey, a Democrat from Colorado who wrote to the credit card companies asking for a waiver on transaction fees for donations to Haiti.

Done. American Express, Visa, Mastercard and Discover announced they would waive fees charged on some Haiti-related charitable contributions for the next 6 weeks. American Express said it would rebate fees to about 65 agencies collecting for Haitian relief.

To be fair, American Express and some other credit card companies took a similar step for relief efforts after the 2004 Asian tsunami. According to the Huffington Post, Capital One Bank is one credit card company that waives fees for charitable donations made using its credit cards.

MoveOn isn't satisfied. The California-based lobby is circulating a petition to its 5 milion members nationwide demanding credit card companies permanently forgo fees on charibable deductions.

This idea isn't totally out of left field, so to speak. Special tax status for charities may set a precedent for separating these organizations from other regulatory and business-related requirements. What do you think?

Tuesday, we posted a voluntary and very unscientific poll asking readers what they think of President Obama's first year in office and we asked them to provide comments as the editorial board considers its Sunday editorial on the topic.

The editorial board's assessment will be printed in Sunday's newspaper but available around 3 p.m. Friday at seattletimes.com/opinion.

As of about 4 p.m. today, the 1,700 participants in the poll were very negative about Obama's first year. Although a CBS news poll Monday showed the president's approval rating had fallen to under 50 percent for the first time, about 68 percent of poll participants said Obama had a poor year. About 23 percent said he had a good year and only 9 percent said he had a mixed year.

That raised questions in the minds of some of us in the office whether people's votes were colored by their own fortunes during what has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. A Gallup poll today said that Americans have lost ground in five of six areas of the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index, although the overall rating remained about even.

So how are you doing? Let us know.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn made much of his bicycle riding prowess during the mayoral campaign. His supporters created a campaign issue about how he and other candidates traveled around town.
The discussion about how politicians get to work seemed ridiculous to me and my column at the time captures how I feel.
Flash forward to McGinn now in office. He clearly believes in his anti-car, small carbon footprint stuff, enough to drive his security detail a tad crazy.
Eli Sanders at the Stranger explained that the small footprint part of the equation is bit off because as mayor, McGinn has a sizable SUV full of security riding behind him.
You know the next question,, don't you. Why not a Prius? Come on, Mr. Mayor. Couldn't you have a Prius or some other more environment-friendly vehicle in tow? The answer, apparently is, no.
McGinn spokesman Mark Matassa says security uses a variety of methods, but the new mayor likes the private, thinking time on the bicycle. The SUV is just part of the deal.
I am not sure the biking matters either way, though if that form of transportation makes the mayor feel good, why not?
More important, though, is his agenda, and the citizens of Seattle are still waiting to hear more about that.

My column sums up my feelings about the hoopla involving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It all emanates from a new book, "Game Change,"about the 2008 presidential campaign. According to the book former President Bill Clinton also put his foot in his mouth where Obama and race are concerned.

Republicans are having a field day because finally someone else is on the hot seat concerning racism.

The 44th president was inaugurated Jan. 21, 2009, and faced the challenge of a shaken economy and two wars and began implementing an ambitious domestic agenda. When campaign promises collide with reality, the result sometimes leaves no one happy -- neither voters nor the candidates.

A CBS News Poll released Monday shows for the first time that Obama's favorable ratings have fallen below 50 percent. That's down from a high of 70 percent in April.

Check out this first-year report by CNN .

Let us know what you think.