Last Tuesday's Seattle City Council vote on a selective purchasing ordinance that would have barred contracts with companies that did business with the military dictatorship in Burma (ETS!, May 12, 1998) failed on a narrow 5-4 vote. But the debate preceding the vote, and the way the vote split, was a nauseating spectacle of corporate liberalism and an ominous portend of the next 18 months of solidified 6-3 and 5-4 votes on behalf of The Forces of Evil.

The Burma ordinance, drafted by pro-democracy Burmese groups and introduced by Nick Licata, was countered by a toothless pro-business resolution backed by Council President Sue Donaldson. For two weeks prior to the vote it was recognized that Tina Podlodowski would cast the deciding ballot; and it was Tina, who some think is already running for mayor in 2006, who--despite heavy pro-Burmese lobbying--rambled on prior to the vote as to how, while we all oppose oppression, this isn't the best way to express our opposition blah blah blah. Margaret Pageler did Pod one better by claiming that as a personal witness to oppression, nobody knew better than she blah blah blah that this isn't the best way blah.

According to fucking whom, Tina? The people struggling to be free, or the business partners of the drug-dealing military dictators themselves? We found out which side Podlodowski, Pageler, and their cohorts stood on, as Licata's proposal failed and Donaldson's passed. (See ETS! May 19, 1998 for details of Donaldson's proposal.)

That Tina stood with the city's business elite on a measure that cost the city nothing, and defended it when it was essentially indefensible, bodes poorly for the future. While Richard McIver sided with the three newest council members on this vote, it suggests that getting a majority to support progressive legislation, or stop bad legislation, will be very difficult over the next year and a half.

Much can still be done; we are light years ahead of a year ago, when there was only the erratic Charlie Chong to consistently represent community interests at City Hall, or two years ago, when there was nobody at all. But the question remains the same as when the Burma ordinance was first introduced last summer: if a law can't be passed that is based on human rights--or any criteria other than potential profitability to business interests--in this case, when the cost is absolutely nil, when can it be passed? Ever?