HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Archives for August 2009

Don’t Run, Ed, Don’t Run

by Carl Ballard — Thursday, 8/27/09, 9:48 pm

Goldy and I believe the exact opposite thing about the possibility of Ed Murray running for Mayor. While I would absolutely support Ed if he decided to mount a write in campaign, I hope he sits it out. I voted for McGinn in the primary, although “for” is probably too strong a word: I voted against that self funded asshole, Mallahan. I wouldn’t say it was the strategic decision described here, McGinn did make the best case for the next 4 years, and was the least reflexively corporate whore of the pack.

Mike McGinn would definitely be a better mayor for the environment, and for public transportation than Mallahan. Less concretely, he would not feel the same sense of entitlement as someone who bought his way into the office. The liberal position ought first and foremost be to beat back Mallahan, and the polling shows Ed Murray in second right now to Mallahan; he’s probably taking away more votes from McGinn. Although you can ask the right questions and get Murray up to first, that won’t be how the write in ballot is worded.

So while I hope he sits this one out, I’ll also gladly support Senator Murray if he does make the foolhardy decision to run. While I don’t always agree with him, Ed Murray is one of the few politicians I trust in this state to have people’s best interest at heart, and he’s the only member of the Seattle delegation in Olympia I’d be sad to see lose a primary. He has been a real champion for education and for public transit, two things that the delegation is bad at in general. Of course his work on gay rights has been outstanding.

In November, I’d hate to both have Mallahan as mayor and to say I didn’t do everything to elect an actual liberal, so if Murray runs, I’ll do my damndest to get him into office. If not, it’s McGinn all the way. Still, I’d like to have someone to vote for, not just someone to be against.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Spokane man accused of threatening family of Colorado doctor

by Jon DeVore — Thursday, 8/27/09, 7:41 pm

The Spokesman-Review reports that prosecutors allege a Spokane man threatened a Colorado doctor’s family not long after the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

A man said people from Utah were going to travel to Colorado to kill the family of William Hern, founder of the clinic and one of the few doctors in the country known to perform late-term abortions.

Authorities traced the June 23 phone call to Spokane.

Two days earlier, The Spokesman-Review had published a front-page story detailing Hern’s practice, Boulder Abortion Clinic, and the increase in business he’d seen since Tiller’s murder.

Prosecutors say Donald Hertz, 70, made the threat after he read that story, said Hertz’s lawyer in Spokane, Russell Van Camp.

And before anyone excuses this as just the rash bluster of some old coot, let’s remember that the asshole who walked into the Holocaust Museum with guns blazing was 88 years old.

What we are witnessing in this country is the sad end result of decades of right-wing lunacy. Here’s a little factoid from the S-R story that leaves you shaking your head. (emphasis mine)

A retired real estate developer and insurance salesman with no criminal record, Hertz was taken into federal custody Wednesday morning and appeared in U.S. District Court in Spokane that afternoon.

He’s not in custody now but is scheduled to appear in federal court in Denver next month. Van Camp said he’ll try to move the case to Spokane.

Good thing he wasn’t wearing a pro-Constitution t-shirt at a Republican rally, they might have locked him up while he awaits further legal proceedings. I mean, did this guy even have to post bail? Wouldn’t want to trouble the old gent too much.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Open thread

by Darryl — Thursday, 8/27/09, 6:11 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5QaIRZuf1I[/youtube]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Run, Ed, run!

by Goldy — Thursday, 8/27/09, 2:15 pm

As a blogger, I’m thrilled by the possibility that Sen. Ed Murray might launch a write-in campaign for Seattle Mayor, and welcome the news that a new poll shows him right in the mix.  I mean, what a great story.

As a voter, not particularly enthralled with either Mike McGinn nor Joe Mallahan, I’m definitely intrigued.

But as a political observer, I’m still a bit dubious, especially now that Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter is urging Murray to jump in. I’m already concerned about whether there might be a massive disconnect between the political establishment and the electorate in regards to the acceptability of the two mayoral finalists, and uber-establishment Balter’s endorsement, well, that can only be viewed as a giant red flag.

Still, as much as I hate to agree with Joni Balter… I agree with Joni Balter: Run, Ed, run! I’m not exactly sure if you’ll get my vote, but it would certainly make covering the race a helluva lot more fun.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

RNC “survey:” Dems will deny care to Repubs

by Jon DeVore — Thursday, 8/27/09, 1:15 pm

From The Plum Line:

In case you missed it, the RNC sent a mailing, obtained by a local paper in Washington State and now rocketing around the political world, that contained the following loaded question:

“It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person’s political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?”

RNC spokesperson Katie Wright concedes to me that the question was a foul-up, though she says there are still legit reasons for Americans to worry about privacy.

And they sent the mailer to Washington state, where we don’t have political parties voter registration by party.

UPDATE (Goldy):
The Washington Independent has obtained a copy of the survey from 64-year-old Raymond Denny of La Center.

question

You can view the whole survey here.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

After too much crazy

by Jon DeVore — Thursday, 8/27/09, 7:04 am

You start imagining warning stickers at certain dark corners of the Internets and the YouTubes that read like this:

warning: the national Communo-Fascist Government wishes to inform You that reading this Web Site may have Unintended side affects upon your Ability to capitolize, punctuate and other righting skills.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

R-71 Update

by Darryl — Wednesday, 8/26/09, 11:59 pm

Today’s release of R-71 data has the total signatures examined at 117,069 (85.0% of the total). There have been 13,815 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.80%.

The invalid signatures include 11,178 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,477 duplicates, and 1,160 that did not match the signature on file. There are 56 pending signatures. With 1,477 duplicates, we expect a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the petition.

The V2 estimator gives the projected number of valid signatures as 121,129, a surplus of 552 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate for the total petition is now expected to be 12.03%.

A few more details can be found after the fold.
[Read more…]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

This I Believe

by Goldy — Wednesday, 8/26/09, 4:17 pm

I believe that there are many legacy journalists, like Seattle Times Crown Prince Ryan Blethen, who are just itching for some demi-prominent blogger like me to be hauled into court on a lengthy and expensive libel suit. It would serve us right, I suppose Blethen must think, and it would serve as a warning to other bloggers to hold their tongues lest, win or lose, they too suffer the same devastating financial consequences. At least, I believe that this is the sentiment that guides the younger Blethen when he warns bloggers against the potential legal consequences of speaking our minds.

There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.

The common refrain from bloggers is that they have a right to say what they want, especially if it is their opinion. Whatever that opinion is, it needs to be grounded in fact. If it is not then the writer runs the risk of being sued for libel, which is a false statement that damages a person’s reputation.

Of course, I assume that Blethen also understands that unlike he and the writers in his employ, bloggers like me have no corporate parent to shield us from the legal costs of a libel suit, and that even successfully defending ourselves against such a charge, even a legally weak one, could cost us our savings, our house and our children’s college tuition.

And Blethen apparently believes that, not only could we bloggers be subject to such an asymmetrical use of legal force, but that we should be subjected to it, if only to compel us to “check [our]selves, and use a modicum of restraint.” For why else would he issue such a haughty exhortation?

If bloggers don’t learn to check themselves, and use a modicum of restraint, then not only will people get hurt but free speech could be irreparably damaged.

Yeah, well, thanks for the sage advice Ryan, but I don’t need the editor of one of the most poorly written op-ed pages I’ve ever had the displeasure to read, opining to me that “words matter,” and in light of your ed board’s penchant for harnessing lies of omission in the service of advocacy, I certainly don’t want any lectures from you about opinion needing “to be grounded in fact.” But what really galls me here is the notion that the editorial page editor (and son of the publisher) of a major American daily appears to be arguing in favor of forcefully using our libel laws to rein in free speech. This is a status quoist argument of the worst kind, and its only possible consequence would be to encourage and embolden those contemplating the use of legal intimidation to chill dissent and cut short the public debate.

Not that they need much encouragement.

It was during the very early days of HA, before the gubernatorial recount, at a time when my daily readership rarely climbed into triple digits, that I received my first threat of legal action, a behind the scenes heads up from a “friendly” intermediary who cautioned that I would be wise to heed the litigious nature of one of my frequent subjects, and instead focus my efforts somewhere else. Our local media for the most part chickened out and buried the story, but I followed through in the only way that I know how—full throated—while my subject eventually contented itself with suing media outlets in its native Canada. (Canadian defamation law is much more favorable to the plaintiff.)

In the years hence I have been threatened with legal retaliation again and again—sometimes in my comment threads, sometimes via email, and sometimes to my face—from joyous trolls celebrating the thought that I had finally and recklessly “crossed the line,” from anonymous scolds masquerading as attorneys, and from scolding attorneys betting that I would be too stupid or too cowardly to stand up for my rights, or like them, too rationally self-interested to risk my financial security for the sake of a mere ideal. And never once have I come close to backing down.

Oh, I take these threats seriously, and when I receive a specific complaint about a specific post, I scour it for demonstrably erroneous statements of fact. But my opinions… the dots I connect and the conclusions I draw… the beliefs I profess… even the invective I hurl… I defend my right to free expression in the same way that I defend the right of my vile, hateful trolls to refute, insult and threaten me in my very own comment threads. And that is what Blethen, heir to a dead tree publishing throne, obviously doesn’t understand about this new medium. HA isn’t a “publication,” and my words aren’t “spun off the press” in some inviolable, datelined tome. A blog is an ever evolving dialectic, a give and take, a living conversation between writers and readers, and readers with each other, and between one blogging community with the blogosphere as a whole. HA may be my own personal realm, but the world is my fact checker.

Under the old paradigm, where the scarcity of the airwaves and the huge financial barriers to market entry left the bulk of the media in the hands of a powerful and wealthy few, the libel laws were often the best or only defense against the indiscriminate, negligent, and malicious misuse of the power of the press. But in this new medium, this distributed, democratic and decentralized paradigm of the Internet, the best defense against bad journalism is more journalism, the best remedy for falsehood is the truth, and aggrieved parties should only look to the courts as a desperate and last resort.

Disagree with my conclusions? Don’t sue me… participate! Engage in the comment threads, demand a guest post, enlist the help of my rivals to publicly kick my ass, that is, if you really have the goods to do some real ass kicking. Refute my arguments, prove me wrong, hell… destroy my credibility! But in a media landscape increasingly dominated by freelancers, contractors and lone wolves outside the protection of deep-pocketed corporate overlords, the mere threat of costly legal action to resolve disputes threatens the viability of the medium itself, potentially shielding those able to afford attorneys from legitimate criticism by those of us who cannot.

So when Ryan Blethen, a child of the media establishment, warns us upstart bloggers to “understand the consequences of free speech,” I can’t help but suspiciously view his admonitions within the broader context of the struggling newspaper industry, and the perhaps unrelated but increasingly hotter legal climate in which my blogger friends and I have recently found ourselves. For in addition to the usual background noise of threats and half-threats, actual (ugh) lawyers have suddenly started crawling out of the woodwork.

It was only last year that Michael at BlatherWatch received a series of escalating threats from (since disbarred) attorney Bradley Marshall to pull a two-year-old post or else, an ultimatum Marshall only backed down from after a heartening show of force from Michael’s friends in the local blogosphere. And it was merely a couple months ago that local attorney and vocal Death With Dignity opponent Margaret Dore presented me with a deeply furrowed brow and 143 pages of rambling legalese demanding I pull Lee’s thorough fisking of her weakly argued guest column in the Seattle Times. (It occurs to me that Blethen’s sudden bloviation on defamatory blogging may have partially come at Dore’s insistent urging; I dunno, but I believe that would be consistent with both of their characters.)

But perhaps a classic example of the kinda everyday harassment to which we bloggers routinely subject ourselves is playing itself out right now in a comment thread on a post by my friend Carla at Blue Oregon, in which a horde of anonymous, code-word spouting finger-waggers are attempting to pressure her to back off from the sort of value-added, conceptual journalism that has become her hallmark, and that has become so crucial in recent years in keeping our local media and political establishment honest. The irony apparently lost on Carla’s critics, and which stands out as so pertinent to me in the context of Blethen’s blogger-beware pontification, is that the “not-so-idle speculation” for which Carla is being attacked and threatened was a direct response to equally speculative reporting in the pages of the Oregonian:

The appointment, announced Wednesday, raised some eyebrows among Salem insiders because Galizio made a dramatic about-face and provided the crucial vote to bar a resort from being developed near the Metolius River — an outcome Kulongoski desired.

See that? The Oregonian impugned the reputation of a government official based merely on raised eyebrows and unsupported speculation, but that’s okay, because as Blethen points out, professional journalists are “trained” to know the “difference between fact and opinion.” But when Carla, who has arguably covered the Metolius controversy and the political maneuvering around it more thoughtfully and thoroughly than any other journalist in the state, reaches deep into her reservoir of knowledge, lays down the facts as she knows them, and then dares to suggest that it is her “belief” that this damaging story was fed to the press by lobbyist Hasina Squires… she’s suddenly accused of crossing Blethen’s “line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done.”

Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 22, 2009 9:56:43 PM
Carla – One specific thing you seem to not have a grasp on with regard to what actually separates investigative journalism from slander: You’ve run with a story making a specific accusation against a person without any confirmed facts.

Posted by: Richard | Aug 22, 2009 11:05:22 PM
Carla Rove is judge, jury and smear merchant.

Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 23, 2009 9:25:35 AM
I have no idea whether Carla’s accusation is defamatory in any actionable sense. But insofar as Oregon’s defamation standards are concerned, there is really no reason to suppose that there is a different standard for bloggers than there is for journalists. I think that the main reason why some bloggers have avoided legal action for defamation in the past is not that there is any special protection for bloggers relative to journalists, but that the pockets of most bloggers and their publishers are usually not deep enough to make it worthwhile to sue them.What matters is whether a defamatory statement was published, did the statement cause damages, and was the statement defamatory per se. This was couched as a matter of opinion, which is usually protected unless the opinion implies the existence of some undisclosed “facts”.

All things considered, I’d be surprised if Ms Squires doesn’t ask for a retraction.

Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 23, 2009 10:20:39 AM
Why do you think having just the basis for just a suspicion, no matter how factual that basis might, protects you if you cross the line into making a specific accusation against someone if you don’t actually have specific facts identifying the person you accuse? … The fact remains that you have made an accusation that impugned a person in a public forum…

Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 24, 2009 8:09:03 AM
It’s up to the system to decide if Carla has defamed the person she accused of a nefarious act if it were to come to that. … And, by the way, although it could be a whole lot easier to defend in a defamation action if they could prove the accusation were true, it still could be defamation if the jury decided it was defamation based on other considerations. Tricky business, and it’s part of where the whole movie cliche of having ‘two confirming sources’ before going with a story comes from.

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 25, 2009 2:11:34 PM
[I]f Hasina had her lawyer write to Carla and to BlueOregon demanding a retraction, I’d strongly urge you to consult a lawyer before ripping off a hot-headed response, especially in the form of a BlueOregon post.

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 24, 2009 10:40:06 AM
Oh, and Carla, the legal standard for defamation for a “public figure” (which probably does not include Hasina) is saying or writing something that you know is false or with reckless disregard for its truthfullness.

[…] There is a reason that newspapers keep defamation lawyers on retainer.

And so on and so on… but I end with and emphasize that last comment because it gets to the heart of the issue as I see it, for there are indeed reasons why newspapers keep defamation lawyers on retainer, not the least of which being that it acts as a deterrent against the sort of frivolous lawsuits Carla’s commenters would like to scare her into thinking she has opened herself up to. This thread, particularly the comments of Jack Roberts and the anonymous “Just Saying,” is nothing if not an act of intimidation intended to bully Carla into thinking twice before she ever publicly criticizes the likes of Squires and other establishment stalwarts again, and in this service the commenters employ the sort of shameless and selective legalistic bullshit that lawyers often use to buffalo laypeople into submission.

[As an amusing aside, actionable defamation requires evidence of harm, but accusing a lobbyist of successfully planting stories in the press is like accusing a clown of making people laugh, and would actually enhance her professional reputation, not hurt it. Hell, I wouldn’t want to hire a lobbyist who couldn’t influence the media—it’s part of the job description—so what’s Squire’s gonna argue in court? That Carla has damaged her ability to surreptitiously plant stories in the press by accusing her of surreptitiously planting stories in the press? For all their helpful advice, that’s a subtlety of defamation law which Roberts and Saying conveniently ignore.]

This thread isn’t about journalistic ethics; if it was, the commenters would be just as outraged at the Oregonian’s speculation as they were about Carla’s. And it certainly isn’t about defending a lobbyist’s honor; even if the Oregonian piece wasn’t retribution for crossing Squires, it’s sure as hell in the interest of her future clients for legislators to think so.

No, this thread is about bullying bloggers, pure and simple. And that’s one of the reasons why I find Blethen’s column, with its non sequitur anecdotes of online transgressions, and its patronizing advice to all us untrained journalists, so goddamn irritating, because bloggers are more vulnerable to defamation suits than the corporate press, and everybody knows it. And people with money and/or law degrees don’t need any further encouragement to use this vulnerability to their unfair advantage.

Now, to be perfectly honest, demi-prominent bloggers like Carla and me, with our relatively high profile and strong connections to the national Netroots, aren’t nearly as vulnerable as some others might be. No doubt if a Margaret Dore or a Hasina Squires were to actually file suit, we would likely find more than adequate pro bono First Amendment defense, while the plaintiffs would quickly find themselves the subject of national ridicule at the hands of our outraged colleagues. And as fellow blogger Dave Neiwert (Orcinus, Crooks and Liars) routinely responds when he’s threatened with a defamation suit of his own: “My attorney and I look forward to discovery.”

But the blogger-beware meme put forth in Blethen’s column and in Carla’s comment thread and in any number of threads like it, advocating that libel laws that evolved to fit the contours of the old media can and should be used to cow and control the practitioners of the new, is a very real threat to the viability of the blogosphere as a meaningful and credible medium for disseminating dissent and facilitating public debate.

The letter of the law be damned, as a non-attorney I’m arguing that our defamation statutes should not apply to bloggers in the same way that they apply to the corporate media because given the nature of the medium, the limited financial resources of the defendant, and the many new avenues of recourse available to the plaintiff to address perceived wrongs outside the purview of the courts, to do so would upset the careful balance our legal system has heretofore carved out between the rights of the aggrieved and the fundamental constitutional right to free expression.

The fact that bloggers like Michael, Carla, Dave and I routinely receive vague and not-so-vague threats of costly legal action is testament not to the poor quality of our journalism, but rather to the lack of protection we are guaranteed under established law. None of us are afraid of losing a libel suit, but all of us are rightly concerned with the potential cost of fighting one. The irony is not lost on me that in breaking the feudal grip of the corporate media masters, our new generation of independent journalists has lost the feudal protection of our former lords as well, putting our personal financial security at risk with every critical word we write.

And to what end? Carla’s critics are right that couching a statement with “I believe” is not a defense in itself against a legal finding of defamation, but look how petty they are in pushing their case. “It’s my belief that Hasina Squires fed the Galizio story to the Oregonian,” Carla writes after laying out the facts that led her to come to this conclusion, and for this they would cheer on a civil prosecution that could ultimately bankrupt Carla and her family? Is this really the proper balance the framers of our defamation laws sought to strike?

I don’t think so, but if that is the law, then I adamantly believe that the defamation laws should be changed to reflect the shifting balance of power between plaintiff and defendant in the decentralized media that is coming to dominate the Internet. Blethen is right that there is a line that is too frequently crossed when it comes to bloggers and defamation, but he’s wrong about who is crossing it, and in what direction.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

“Atlas Shrugs” author says yelling Marine is fan, sent her military swag

by Jon DeVore — Wednesday, 8/26/09, 11:07 am

A right wing blogger named Pamela Geller, who is known for her extreme anti-Muslim views, has claimed that “Yelling Marine” David Hedrick is a frequent reader of her blog, Atlas Shrugs. Hedrick has drawn national attention, including appearances on Fox Noise, for his condemnation of Baird.

Geller also claimed that Hedrick recently sent her a box of assorted military-type swag. From Atlas Shrugs on Aug. 22, the same day that a YouTube video surfaced of Hedrick berating Baird at a town hall earlier that week:

That great American is a regular Atlas reader, David Hedrick, who recently sent me such a great box with CFSOCC-A (Combined Forces, Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan) stuff: tee shirt, baseball cap, patches and Don’t Tread on Me stuff.

There’s some interesting comments in the thread, including some that appear to come from Hedrick’s father, which would tend to support Geller’s claim that the younger Hedrick is a reader/swag sender. If, of course, it’s true, which on the Internets you can never know for sure.

The entire breadth and scope of Geller’s um, anti-jihadism or whatever it is cannot be detailed here. But just before last year’s presidential election she did publish an incredibly lengthy screed, apparently written by another author, that bears the rather unwieldy all-caps title “HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?.”

And today, in a column at NewsMax objecting to Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to investigate abuse of detainees, Geller makes the wild claim that the Obama administration is creating a “stateside army” disguised as a community service corps. What’s interesting to me about that is that a similar accusation was made by an audience member at Baird’s town hall, although not by Hedrick.

If it is true that Hedrick is actually a devotee of Geller, it could throw some immediate cold water on the rash of enthusiasm that has been generated by his outburst against Baird. Today The Columbian profiled Hedrick in an above-the-fold front page story. It’s only natural that flattering attention might cause someone to think about running for office, so I think this bit is understandable.

What will Hedrick do with his newfound notoriety?

“If I can spread this message, I’ll do it as long as I can,” he said.

After thinking over that question, he called back to say, “If Brian Baird votes for this bill, and if we don’t have a true constitutional conservative libertarian candidate that runs against Baird in the next election, I am considering running against him myself.”

It would be interesting for The Columbian, and other outlets, to ask this potential candidate and sudden national spokesman for the anti-health-care-reform movement about his views on a variety of subjects, perhaps starting with the basic question of what he thinks of Atlas Shrugs and Pamela Geller.

If Geller isn’t telling the truth about Hedrick being a fan who sent her military swag, or if she is fabricating comments from Hedrick’s parents, she needs to be stopped.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

More Random Stuff

by Lee — Wednesday, 8/26/09, 5:00 am

– I just finished reading David Neiwert’s new book The Eliminationists. It’s a very timely book, especially with all of the ridiculous comparisons people are making to Nazi Germany these days. Very few people seem to know the reality of what fascism was and how it came to power. At its core, it was a movement about cultural purity and national renewal. It was fed largely by a militant opposition to modern democratic ideals, civil liberties, and multiculturalism. The idea that it’s comparable to modern American liberalism is a notion so absurd that it really doesn’t even warrant serious discussion, yet it remains a constant theme on talk radio and even cable news. David is careful not to use the term fascist too broadly to describe the elements in our society that tend to exhibit traits similar to what bubbled to the surface in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century, but his book is a must-read for Americans who really want to understand that time in history and to be mindful of what could happen here.

– The idea of boycotting Whole Foods over CEO John Mackey’s somewhat clueless op-ed is probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard from progressives since they confused Don Imus with David Duke. For a good rebuttal to Mackey, Ezra Klein has a nice analogy here comparing markets for food with how we should approach health care by integrating public assistance with free market competition. But even though I don’t agree with Mackey’s ideas, he really wasn’t being an ass. If I boycotted every company with a CEO who bought into goofy libertarian groupthink, I’d quickly die of either starvation or boredom.

– On Sunday, The Seattle Times’ Ryan Blethen wrote the following:

Journalists have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. This is never done lightly and must be backed up with fact. What we do can alter somebody’s life for better or worse. Almost every professional journalist is careful not to abuse this right of free speech.

There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.

I’m surprised that Goldy hasn’t responded to this yet (and maybe he still will), but I wanted to point out one thing. Everyone – not just journalists – have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. For some reason, though, I always thought that journalists had an obligation to do it. I’d always thought that journalists exist to expose the corrupt, to explain the elusive, and to tell the truth in a world where many powerful people find comfort in lies. Journalists are supposed to be unpopular to the powerful, not their spokespersons. Maybe if the Times actually understood how profoundly they’re failing in their role as journalists, it would be easier to understand why so many bloggers are trying to fill the gap.

– Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s against their Constitution to arrest people for the personal use of cannabis. This is following the long-awaited decriminalization of drugs in Mexico, something that Bush Administration officials had actively prevented them from doing in the past.

– I haven’t written about it much, but I’m very concerned about the overuse of Tasers in what should be normal law enforcement activities. That said, I have no problem with repeatedly Tasering the people at TLC who brought us Police Women of Broward County.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Sen. Ted Kennedy, RIP

by Goldy — Tuesday, 8/25/09, 10:26 pm

A great American statesman has passed away. (Please be respectful; we will delete all inappropriate comments.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOi8eDkTTE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

R-71 marches to the ballot

by Darryl — Tuesday, 8/25/09, 6:31 pm

I wasn’t able to post these results yesterday, but today’s batch of R-71 data has been released. The number of signatures examined is now 110,288, (about 80.1% of the total signatures). There have been 12,983 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.77%.

The invalid signatures include 10,580 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,314 duplicates, and 1,089 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 44 signatures “pending” that I am simply ignoring.

Great big caveat: A new third-stage check is now being conducted using the most current voter database on signatures not found in the older database. They have made it through volume 220 of the 510 completed volumes. This means that some of the 10,580 “not found” signatures will be found in the next few days.

The 1,314 duplicate signatures suggest a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the total petition.

Using the V2 estimator, and ignoring the third-stage check, the number of valid signatures is projected to be 121,070, giving 493 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate should end up at 12.07%. Of course that third stage check will likely add another 500 valid signatures to the total, making qualification highly likely and the rejection rate lower.

Here is a crude history of the projected totals since August 11th. The vertical bars give 95% confidence intervals for the projected number of signatures. The red line shows the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.

r71_vsigs_11_aug_to_25_aug

For some unexplained reason, the rejection rates were increasing through the 20th (leading to a decreased projected number of signatures). The third-stage checking started on the 20th, and I would have expected to see a decreasing rejection rate from that, leading to in increase in the number of valid signatures projected for the petition. Instead we see a flat line for the past three analyses. Perhaps an increasing rejection rate is being canceled by the third-phase check. Who knows.

Whatever the reason, if there are no last minute surprises left to perturb the pattern, R-71 will qualify for the fall ballot.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by Darryl — Tuesday, 8/25/09, 5:53 pm

DLBottle

Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Perhaps tonight we can all bring our bound and gold-foil bordered copies of “Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions” and group-plan our grizzly Jonestown-style mass suicides for the next time one of us gets depressed or an ingrown toenail.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dz1e-Wo88[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Mayor Ed Murray?

by Goldy — Tuesday, 8/25/09, 11:01 am

Over on Publicola there’s been some speculation about State Sen. Ed Murray launching a write-in campaign for Seattle Mayor, an idea which at first glance sounds a little stupid. Write-in campaigns are exceedingly difficult things to run, and in a citywide, top-of-the-ticket race, nigh impossible. And Murray is nothing if not a savvy politician who wouldn’t dare risk his reputation on a farce or a folly.

But on second thought…

I’ve got no polling data to back this up, but there’s a strong argument to be made that, considering their lack of name ID and zero experience in public office, a goodly sum of the votes for both Mike McGinn and Joe Malahan were really votes against Mayor Greg Nickels. I’m less impressed with Mallahan buying his way into public consciousness than I am with McGinn’s grassroots success, but I’m still not all that impressed with either campaign; Mallahan has proven himself uninformed on many city issues, while McGinn has yet to make a strong case that he is qualified in both experience and temperament to serve as chief executive. The well-known and well-respected Murray, on the other hand, would have instant credibility.

But the real wildcard that makes the goofy notion of a mayoral write-in campaign just a little less goofy is our new, all vote-by-mail format. Voting at our leisure at the kitchen or dining room table, it really doesn’t take that much more effort to write in “MURRAY” than it does to completely fill in that little circle. And, as Josh points out, with R-71 likely to be on the ballot, Seattle’s strong and politically activated gay community will have extra incentive to send a message by electing our city’s first openly gay mayor. And, the sheer novelty and drama of such a challenge would draw oodles of valuable earned media, and if properly played, national coverage as well.

Could a Murray write-in campaign be perceived to be credible enough to, say, earn an endorsement from the self-proclaimed arbiters of credibility at the Seattle Times? My spider-sense says yes.

So… should Murray run? Only if he’s willing and able to raise the money and commit the time and energy to make it a real campaign, and only if he’s got some reliable polling data telling him that he’s got better than a snowball’s chance in Hell. What he shouldn’t do is kinda-sorta run, just to make a statement, or to drive turnout for R-71. I know from running joke campaigns, and somebody with Murray’s ambition and potential shouldn’t make the mistake of lowering himself to my level.

That said, if Murray does declare as a write-in candidate, and does make a serious effort to win the race, there’s no shame in losing, and probably no long term political cost either, as long as he’s perceived to take the challenge seriously. After all, as any self-respecting pundit will tell you, a mayoral write-in campaign is nigh impossible.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

We’re all teabaggers now

by Jon DeVore — Tuesday, 8/25/09, 10:00 am

What David Waldman says:

Maybe I’m just not sufficiently wonky on the health care subject, and after all, this isn’t likely to happen to me right away, because I have insurance through my wife that I’m pretty sure we’re keeping as long as we can. But I don’t get how you can possibly hand me a health care bill with an individual mandate and no public option. If I’m uninsured or poorly insured, and the answer coming out of Congress is that I now have to buy crappy insurance from some private company that has no plan to actually help me pay for my health care without raking me over the coals, then I’ve gone into this fight an ardent supporter of strong reform, and come out a teabagger.

You’re going to force me to pay an insurance company for shit insurance that as a free market actor I decided not to even try to buy?

And the insurance companies that paid for organizing the clown shows are just drooling.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 12
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Friday, Baby! Friday, 5/9/25
  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 5/7/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 5/6/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 5/5/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 5/2/25
  • Friday Open Thread Friday, 5/2/25
  • Today’s Open Thread (Or Yesterday’s, or Last Year’s, depending On When You’re Reading This… You Know How Time Works) Wednesday, 4/30/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 4/29/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 4/28/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 4/28/25

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky @goldyha.bsky.social

From the Cesspool…

  • Vicious Troll on Friday, Baby!
  • Vicious Troll on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Vicious Troll on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread
  • Roger Rabbit on Wednesday Open Thread

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

© 2004–2025, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.