Archives for May 2010

State Rep. Chris Hurst (?-31) has started identifying himself on his campaign website as an “Independent Democrat,” which I suppose as far as bullshit, swing-district, campaign rhetoric goes, isn’t so remarkable. (Cowardly, disloyal and whiny, yes… but remarkable, no). But word is he’s planning to take his pouting subterfuge to the next level by identifying himself on the ballot as “Prefers Independent Democrat Party”… and he’s reportedly urging several colleagues he presumes to be equally cowardly, disloyal and whiny, to join him in pissing on their own caucus.

Yeah, well, that sorta transparent gamesmanship may be acceptable from the lying bastards in the Prefers Grand Old Party Party, but if Hurst and his cohorts want to deny the Democrats, then I say turnabout is fair play. Any candidate who refuses to identify himself as a Democrat to voters simply can’t be trusted to uphold Democratic values and unity, and thus should be denied any party support during the election. Furthermore, should Hurst or others follow through with their petty little game, I wouldn’t mind seeing them stripped of their caucus rank and committee chairmanships.

After all, it would be unfair to voters to allow Hurst to run as an “Independent,” yet serve as a Democrat.

Playing games like this with the ballot is both a disservice to voters and an insult to the rest of the caucus, so if Hurst and others are so disgusted with their fellow Democrats that they can’t bear to identify themselves as one, then I suggest they man up and start their own party.

UDPATE [Lee]: Hurst also happens to be the biggest roadblock to getting even basic drug law reform passed through the House. If being an “independent Democrat” means putting law enforcement union special interests over fiscally responsible and morally sound progressive policy, then it might be worthwhile for the voters of the 31st District to send someone else to Olympia.

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by even earlier and enjoy some dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 352 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

David Frum tries to fill the pair of clown shoes that have been sitting around the CNN offices since Lou Dobbs left:

Many Americans carry in their minds a family memory of upward mobility, from great-grandpa stepping off the boat at Ellis Island to a present generation of professionals and technology workers. This story no longer holds true for the largest single U.S. immigrant group, Mexican-Americans.

Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in their scholarly work, “Falling Behind or Moving Up?”

They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third.

If these results continue to hold, the low skills of yesterday’s illegal immigrant will negatively shape the U.S. work force into the 22nd century.

Ignoring for a second the obvious flaws in this argument – that the poor educational results aren’t necessarily a result of ability, but of circumstance and environment, both which can be improved upon – you can click through to the report to see that Mexican-Americans do about as well as African-Americans. In other words, David Frum is arguing that African-Americans and Mexican-Americans negatively shape the U.S. work force. The overall argument he’s making regarding immigration is no different than if he was arguing that we need to save the U.S. economy by keeping black people from having children.

Of course, this sentiment among conservatives shouldn’t be surprising to hear. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina specifically pointed to his state’s large African-American population as a “problem” facing his state. Conservatives often like to claim that the racism of the 1960s is dead. And in a way, they’re right. But a different racism has taken its place. What was once a more individualized contempt for any and all people of a different color has just transformed into a more subtle belief that people of a different ethnicity are collectively a burden on greater society.

My DSL stopped working at about 9:30 am this morning, and I’ve been on and off the phone with Qwest ever since. So I’ve been reduced to pecking stuff out on my iPhone.

Just thought you should know.

UPDATE:
So here’s the scoop.

Last week, a Qwest sales rep called me, trying to sell me their new 12 Mbps service, up from the 7 Mbps I have now. I’m always interested in faster broadband, but the woman didn’t quite seem to have a handle on how much more it would cost, and whether I’d need to spend $70 on a new modem, so I told her to call me back in a couple days so I’d have some time to check out the costs and specs and think about it. The next day a different Qwest rep calls with the same pitch, and I told him I’d already spoken with somebody, and would let them know.

Well apparently, I didn’t say “no” definitively enough, and somebody at Qwest decided to pad their commission by putting through the order anyway.  So at about 9:30 AM, my line was re-provisioned, and no, my old modem doesn’t handle the higher speed connection.

It took about an hour with tech support to figure this out, and another couple hours to try to reprogram my modem to get it working — apparently, they couldn’t just throw a switch and bring back my old profile — at which point the rep promises to get this fixed and call me back. An hour and a half later, I call back Qwest and get tech rep number four on the phone, who assures me that everything has been fixed, the 12 Mbps order has been canceled, and the I’ve been switched back to the 7 Mbps service.

So then, why doesn’t everything work? The modem is now successfully synchronizing, a positive sign, but refuses to actually connect.

Oh, the tech rep explains, that’s because this new order won’t go through until 5 PM tomorrow. That’s just how long it takes to re-provision the line, and there’s nothing he can do about it.

So essentially, I’ll go the better part of two days without Internet service, all because some asshole at Qwest either couldn’t understand the word “no,” or simply didn’t care. (I say “asshole” rather than “idiot” because I assume the latter.) And the land line companies wonder why they keep losing customers?

Honestly… fuck ’em. Comcast offers similar speeds at similar prices (I think… I mean their website is incomprehensible when it comes to ordering broadband without cable TV), and even Clearwire looks like a reasonable alternative, so it’s not like I don’t have options. So if I’m gonna lose a couple days of service at their whim, I might as well lose it playing the special offers, getting discounts to switch from one to the other and back again.

On the bright side, I’m surfing the web now from a window seat at the Columbia City Alehouse, enjoying a $3 Happy Hour imperial pint along with a side order of free WiFi. If anybody reading this is in the neighborhood, stop on by and join me in raising a pint to the demise of Qwest.

Former Washington State Republican Party chair and failed 8th Congressional District candidate Diane Tebelius has a poll in the field testing the waters against 48th Legislative District Democratic incumbent Representatives Ross Hunter and Deb Eddy.

From all accounts the questions are pretty typical for this sorta poll: right/wrong direction, favorables/unfavorables, descriptions of the candidates followed by head to head match-ups and then some demographics. It is being conducted by Fallon Research.

The 62-year-old Tebelius has long been a party drudge with little to show for her efforts, having repeatedly been passed over or urged out of races in favor of fellow Republicans perceived by the powers that be to have more political upside. Following the GOP’s disastrous showing in 2006, a wave election for which Tebelius can hardly be blamed, she was unceremoniously ousted from her brief tenure as WSRP chair in favor of McKenna cabin boy Luke Esser. “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” and all that.

I know GOPers are hoping that 2010 might produce a wave that washes in their direction, sweeping a few Republicans back into control of key Eastside seats that until only recently were solidly red, and there are a few vulnerable Dems who come to mind. But neither Hunter, the Times-endorsed candidate in last August’s King County Executive primary, nor former Discovery Institute fellow Eddy, come across to voters as representing the liberal wing of their party, and thus neither would provide much of an ideological contrast for Tebelius. And having watched Tebelius represent the KCGOP during their misplayed 2005 mass voter registration challenge, both Hunter and Eddy just come across as, well, smarter.

I’m not saying that Tebelius would make a bad candidate (though from past performance she hasn’t come across as a particularly good one), but one of the keys to success in politics, as in many other endeavors, is being in the right place at the right time… and once again Tebelius can’t quite seem to line the two up.

No doubt neither Hunter nor Eddy would prefer to draw Tebelius as a challenger, but I’m guessing neither is particularly awed by the prospect either. This may be the most favorable political climate local Republicans have enjoyed in years, but if they’re just going to throw old-timers like Tebelius at the Dems, it doesn’t say much about the WSRP’s strategy for exploiting it.

Last week’s winner was mlc1us. The correct location was in Kent, WA, where a woman was saved from being crushed by a car because of her decision to add more cheese to her chili. My in-laws live right near there and sent me this picture from on the ground.

As I mentioned last week, the secret locations each week will now be related to something in the news. I should also mention that the views are no longer guaranteed to be at the default orientation. By default the Bird’s Eye Views are facing north, but you may have to rotate the view to match the picture below. Good luck!

Exodus 22:21
“Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.”

Discuss.

Despite the amount of inadvertent entertainment value he provides for this site, I haven’t been very familiar with the work of Ted Van Dyk. But in looking around at various items related to the new law in Arizona, I came across his column from yesterday in Crosscut.

In providing some context for why the law has enjoyed widespread popularity, Van Dyk writes:

The middle-sized central Arizona city, where I spend time, until recently was best known for its small colleges, farming, and ranching. It is a conservative place but populated as well by California and Midwest retirees drawn to the city’s natural setting and authentic old neighborhoods with Victorian homes. In recent years, however, it has been flooded by inflows of illegal Latinos far different from the family- and church-oriented, hard working Latinos familiar to Arizonans over many decades. Violent crime, drug production and trafficking, burglaries, and road accidents have skyrocketed. Burdens (and costs) also have mushroomed for local law enforcement, social service, and education agencies. Citizens no longer take casual night strolls they once did.

The home I share there with my life partner has been shaken twice in recent months by automobiles careening at high speed into its yard, both times driven by illegals high on drugs (who both fled the scene on foot, to be apprehended later). The drivers had no insurance and promptly disappeared, making restitution for property damage impossible.

Down the street, in this traditional neighborhood, a family residence became a notorious drug-distribution point, with autos driving through to make pickups, night and day. Couriers on bikes (Latinos, as it happens) made drug deliveries throughout the city. Law enforcement recently was able to stop the operation, after several years. But it was only one of many in the city.

The deterioration of Phoenix is not merely anecdotal. The amount of drug cartel activity and kidnappings has gone way up in recent years. But as Dave Neiwert points out here, this is a drug prohibition problem, not an illegal immigration problem. Going after illegal immigrants will do absolutely nothing to address what many Arizonans see as the justification for their new law.

The escalation in the violence has been a result of a number of factors. As I’ve written about previously, the strength of Mexico’s drug cartels was a result of our relative success in cracking down on Colombian cartels. In addition, the border crackdowns since 9/11 have forced those cartels to move more of their operations into the United States, especially by growing marijuana in public lands within America instead of trying to smuggle it across the border. Third, the nationwide efforts to restrict sales of over-the-counter cold medicines – making it much harder to cook up large quantities of methamphetamines – has shifted that trade from being small and local to being a more high-scale operation that makes its way from Mexico through the southwest.

All of these things have made Phoenix, which sits in an ideal location near the Mexican border, a major transit and operation point for Mexican-based drug distribution networks. This is wholly separate from the reality of the vast majority of illegal laborers within the United States, most of whom are still the “church-oriented, hardworking Latinos” that Van Dyk fondly remembers. He probably doesn’t see that so much now that the growing anti-immigration paranoia has painted targets on their backs.

Not surprisingly, none of this history shows up in Van Dyk’s column, despite the fact that it’s the reason for why there’s now so much crime there. Instead, what’s left unchallenged is the incorrect assumption that all of these bad things are simply the result of people coming here illegally to work. In reality, the cause and effect is reversed. Drug prohibition and the empowering of the cartels over the past 20 years is what has created the need for so many people in Mexico to seek low-wage employment in the United States. And now that the violence and economic devastation is starting to follow them across the border, we’re blaming them and continuing to ignore the real villain.

I don’t think I need to add anything to Jon’s sentiments from earlier this week. There’s little to no distinction between the actions of those behind the Arizona law and the kinds of things that real fascists were doing in the beginning of their rises to power. And the attempts to misdirect blame for the failures of drug prohibition onto some of the individuals who’ve been most negatively affected by it is appalling.

Of course, this isn’t a criticism of Ted Van Dyk. In his column, he recognizes the potential grave injustices that this law tries to normalize. But there’s a separate criticism that needs to be made. And it’s to all of those in the media who continue to discuss the topic of illegal immigration without even mentioning the central role that drug prohibition plays in it. Without that context, we will continue to remain angry at the wrong people and will continue to steer ourselves towards that more dangerous world where large classes of our fellow citizens lose the presumption of innocence that should be a right to us all.

Guess I shoulda posted this soon but there’s a May Day march today, rallying in support of humane immigration reform. It starts at the Judkins Park Playfield at noon, and marches to Memorial Stadium. Come show your outrage at Arizona’s anti-American new immigration law, and to demand that Congress take up the issue.

UPDATE:
A good suggestion from comment thread. Sign the petition urging the City of Seattle to boycott Arizona.

– Today is the Global Marijuana Liberation March, another great day to go out and sign the petition for I-1068. Ironically, today is also the day for a large pro-immigration reform march downtown as well. I say ironically because ending marijuana prohibition might do more than anything else to reduce the number of people fleeing Mexico’s tattered economy and violent war against the cartels in order to seek employment in the United States.

– A group called Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is taking the lead in putting out absurd arguments in favor of maintaining prohibition.

– Tom Schaller writes about why the Arizona immigration law remains popular, despite the scary reality of what it does and the clear parallels to other police states throughout history. Liliana Segura at Alternet gives the law enforcement perspective on why the law will end up undermining the safety of Arizonans, rather than improving it.