Archives for January 2011

In the hours after Naveed Haq went on a shooting rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in July 2006, Jim Miller wrote the following at Sound Politics:

In this post, I argued that the Seattle Times should not have published a letter saying that “neocons” should be weeded out, especially under the inflamatory headline they chose: Eradicate those who have put us in the Middle East. The editor, Jim Vesely, seemed not to understand my argument, judging from his reply.

Perhaps Mr. Vesely does not know that “eradicate” and “weed out” are terms commonly used by some of the bloodiest dictators. Perhaps he did not know that some, especially on the left (and among the followers of Pat Buchanan), use “neocon” to mean Jew. And it was absolutely clear that the letter writer thought that supporters of Israel should be weeded out.

Perhaps now, after the shootings at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Mr. Vesely will understand my point. Perhaps he will even realize that publishing a letter that advocated weeding out a group, and appeared to advocate eradicating them, was wrong. Perhaps.

A few days later at his own blog, he wrote:

When Naveed Haq forced his way into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, he told the people working there that he was a Muslim-American and that he was unhappy with Israel. He then began trying to kill them.

Even before he gave himself up to the police, our local journalists were ready with the excuses. Haq was a lone gunman (as if that made him less dangerous). He had a history of mental illness (many terrorist are not quite right in the head). He had a minor criminal record (many terrorists do). And so on.

As we’d soon find out, the local journalists’ “excuses” weren’t really excuses, they were the facts of the case. Haq was a lone gunman with a history of mental illness and a criminal background. But at the time, Jim Miller wasn’t satisfied with that explanation: Naveed Haq was acting as an agent of a larger force, intent on eliminating Jews from society. He saw this shooting as the natural consequence of the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that often emanates from those who radically oppose Israel.

Of course, after a mentally unstable lone gunman in Arizona shoots a Democratic Congresswoman in the head, Miller points to this passage from Instapunchline Glenn Reynolds, saying that it’s “worth reading”:

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I realize that a moron like Jim Miller is an easy target, but this level of hypocrisy seems to be extremely commonplace on the right. With the Haq case, Miller was right to point out that the kinds of extreme rhetoric against Jews can often have consequences like this. And Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is similarly correct in pointing out the exact same thing regarding Arizona’s right-wing crazies.

From what we know already about the Tucson case, alleged shooter Jared Loughner is a mentally unstable loner who doesn’t fit neatly into any political profile. This is similar to Haq, who was clearly not an Islamic radical, and had even tried to convert to Christianity. But just because a mentally disturbed person doesn’t fit a particular profile doesn’t mean that they’re not influenced by the political atmosphere that surrounds them. Haq was clearly influenced by anti-Semitic eliminationist rhetoric that has a long history in numerous places around the world, especially among Muslims. And I find it nearly impossible to believe that Loughner wasn’t influenced by the eliminationist rhetoric against progressivism, multiculturalism, and government in general that’s become more commonplace within America’s far right in recent years (and especially in Arizona).

As with the aftermath of every terrorist attack, I cringe at the natural impulse to respond with stupid symbolic legislation. The answer here isn’t to ban anyone’s right to speak their mind. But if there’s one rallying cry that’s worth listening to, it’s the call to improve the state of mental health treatment in this country. That’s really the common thread between the Haq shooting and this past weekend’s tragedy. Of course, when it comes to providing help to the mentally ill, it appears that our fiscal situation leaves us with only enough money for rhetoric.

When the state Supreme Court tossed out I-722 in 2001, and it’s arbitrary and unworkable two percent cap on growth in local property tax revenues, did initiative sponsor Tim Eyman give up? No, he just came back the next year with I-747 and its even more arbitrary and unworkable one percent cap, a measure that is as much a cause of today’s local government budget woes as the Great Recession.

Vindictive and irresponsible? Sure. But you gotta give Tim credit for playing political hardball. In fact, as hard as it is for me to type this, I kinda wish that Democrats in Olympia could be a little more like Tim.

For example, take last year’s tax on candy, bottled water and carbonated beverages, which was projected to raise $216.8 million in the coming biennium. This was a sensible, reasonable, temporary tax on nonessential items with known negative health impacts, intended to help offset cuts in healthcare spending. But in an effort to send a loud message to legislators and governors nationwide, the American Beverage Association cynically spent an astounding $16 million successfully repealing the tax with their incredibly dishonest and self-serving Initiative 1107.

In response, Democrats in Olympia seem to be hanging their heads in despair, bemoaning how voters sent a message or something about being opposed to taxes—as if taxes are ever an easy thing to put past voters statewide, even without $16 million in anti-tax lies flooding the airwaves. But that’s not how Tim Eyman would react. No, he’d just come back with pretty much the same proposal the next year. Only this time, he’d double it. And in fact, that’s almost exactly what I propose our Legislature should do.

If Coke and Pepsi want to play hardball with the welfare of our state’s children, then I say it’s time to swing the bat, and aim for the fence. Forget about candy and bottled water, let’s just pass a tax on carbonated beverages, and instead of a mere two cents a 12-ounce can, let’s up it to a nickel.

What’s that mean in actual tax revenue? Well, according to I-1107’s fiscal note, the two-cent per can tax on carbonated beverages would have brought in more than $41 million a year over the coming two-year budget. So up that from two cents to five, and you’re looking at about $205 million over 24 months… a not inconsequential amount when the alternative is, say, eliminating tens of thousands of children from our state’s health care rolls.

So if Coke and Pepsi want to come back and spend another $16 million or so arguing that a nickel a can is too much to pay to provide basic health care to children, well, I say let ’em. It would be an economic windfall for our state’s TV stations, but this time around with none of that bullshit about it being a tax on food; we’re taxing just carbonated beverages.

And best of all, even if the beverage industry runs another initiative and succeeds in repealing the nickel a can tax, we’d still collect more during the six months from June through November that the tax would be in place—over $50 million—than last year’s carbonated beverage tax would have brought in over an entire year!

And that’s the kinda win-win-win that comes from playing political hardball.

[In a fit of nostalgia (and laziness), I’m marking my remaining days here on HA by posting links to some of my favorite and most influential posts. If you have favorites you’d like to see, please let me know.]

10/20/2005: Raging Bullshitter: the sad twisted tale of the Irons family feud

David Irons Jr.’s mother has mixed emotions about her son. On the upside, she says he’s “very good with his hands.” On the downside, she claims he’s used them to beat her.

In addition to sporting perhaps my favorite lede ever, it was this controversial post that cemented my early reputation as our local blogosphere’s most devastating muckraker. Posted just weeks before the election, and a day after polling showed Republican David Irons closing within the margin of error against incumbent Democratic King County Executive Ron Sims, the ensuing media storm caused Irons’ support to plummet virtually overnight. Sims went on to win a third term by over 16 points. Read the whole thing.

An angry reader sent me the the following email:

From: Lu G
Subject: Shame!!!
Date: January 9, 2011 6:29:11 PM PST
To: Dan Savage, Goldy, Joel Connelly, Joni Balter

Dear third-rate journalists:

Don’t wait for the facts to emerge before expressing speculations and opinions.

As I write, the facts about the shooter are coming out from classmates, teachers, etc., and the nature of the gunman doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived notions.

Oh man, just to be mentioned in the same breath as Joni Balter and Joel Connelly, not to mention Dan Savage… my sudden rise in stature from fourth-rate to third-rate journalist has me feeling all tingly. At last, I finally know what it feels like to write for an actual newspaper.

Anyway, my reply:

You’re right Lu… even more outrageous and tragic than the shooting itself is the gall of commentators to suggest that violent political rhetoric and symbolism could ever lead to violent political action. It’s a good thing our nation has patriots like you and Mr. Loughner to protect our liberties from dangerous wordsmiths like me.

Goldy

Just doing what I can to maintain the integrity of my fellow third-rate journalists everywhere.

Last week’s contest was won by Darryl. It was in Simpsonville, SC.

This week’s is related to a TV show or a movie, good luck!

Deuteronomy 19:21
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Discuss. (Possibly within the context of yesterday’s political violence in Arizona.)

It was only a matter of time…

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, was shot today at a public event outside a grocery store.

A spokesman for the Pima County sheriff says that at least 12 people were shot. The Tucson Citizen reports that Rep. Giffords was “shot point blank in the head.”

New reports now say that Gifford is dead, and her district director and two other staffers were also shot, all three in critical condition.

UPDATE:
There are a lot of lessons to learn from this tragedy, but one, unfortunately, is that assassination can be a very effective political tool.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
NPR is now reporting six seven dead.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
SarahPAC hits a target:

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
There are now conflicting reports, with at least one news outlet reporting that Giffords is not dead, but still in surgery. So I’m going to stop updating for now, and save it for a subsequent post.

OKAY, JUST ONE MORE:
Some folks in the comment threads caution me that I shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions, but as I’ve frequently written on the subject, words have consequences, and when it comes toviolent, right-wing, eliminationist rhetoric, one must accept that those consequences might ultimately include violence.

So when Giffords own Republican opponent uses rhetoric like this and holds a symbolic campaign event like that, well, what did he expect?

I’m just sayin’.

Hey Ryan… it’s not like I’ve signed a contract or anything. You top the Stranger’s offer, and give me a spot on your editorial board, and I’m all yours. I even promise not to use the word “fuck.” (You know, in print.)

Come on… you know it would be fun, at least, for your readers. Think about it.

(And there are 40 more links to media from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)

It’s been a difficult few months attempting to keep enough quality content up here on HA while also contributing almost daily to Slog, especially once the election season ended. So I’m both pleased and wistful to announce that this experiment will soon be coming to a merciful end. Starting February 2, I will give up my part-time gig on Slog… and join the Stranger staff full time.

Part of what this means for HA—a blog into which I’ve invested over six years of my life—should be kinda obvious: come Feb. 2, I simply won’t be writing here much anymore, if at all. I’m working on some plans to try to keep HA going as a relevant, independent voice in the post-Goldy era, but I can’t share any details until I know them.

As for me, I know it’s the right move. The Stranger will give me a larger audience and a steady (if relatively modest) paycheck, plus, after years of toiling under the mixed blessings of my “Horse’s Ass” brand, I’m probably the only political writer in Washington state for whom the Stranger’s masthead would provide a boost in credibility. There’s a part of me that regrets giving up one of the best-read, independent state blogs in the nation to take an MSM job, but in spirit, you can’t get any less mainstream than the Stranger, and I mean, fuck… a newspaper job in this crappy, imploding newspaper market? How could I possibly turn down the opportunity? I’d have to be crazy.

Anyway, I had hoped to put a little more time and care into this announcement, but goddamn Dominic scooped me, so here it is. It’s been an absolute honor serving up dish and rants and whatnot to all of you these past six years. Well… most of you. Okay, some of you. The point is, a blog isn’t worth anything without its readers, and as bloggers go, I know that I’ve been incredibly fortunate to find such a loyal and passionate audience.

So, well, thanks.

If you haven’t already had the chance, Brendan Kiley’s fourth and final installment in his series on tainted cocaine is excellent. The entire series was easily one of the best pieces of local journalism from the past year.

UPDATE: And in other must-read news, Matt Taibbi’s latest on our new Speaker of the House is the usual great mix of hilarious and infuriating.

Yeah, I sure do enjoy poking a little fun at Crosscut—kinda a friendly rivalry—but really, Roger Valdez’s piece on waste in government is a must read.

As I’ve long said, a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, public or private, and anybody who has ever worked for or with a large, established corporation knows what I’m talking about. Think there’s no waste, fraud or abuse at Microsoft or Boeing? Talk to a few longtime employees, and then tell me how it’s any worse in the public sector.

I’m not saying there aren’t any efficiencies to be gained in government. Of course there are. But all this perennial talk about waste, fraud and abuse is just a way of avoiding the more difficult conversation about policy priorities.

The GOP wins control of the US House in November, while making big gains in the Senate, and just a month later the unemployment rate falls to 9.4 percent, the lowest rate in 19 months. Wow, those Republicans sure did move fast to turn this economy around… even before they actually took office.

Of course I’m joking, but if unemployment continues to fall, dollars to donuts the GOP will attempt to take the credit during the 2012 election. See, that’s how it works. Booming economy and budget surpluses by the end of the Clinton administration, and that’s thanks to the policies put in place by Ronald Reagan. Near historic economic collapse and record deficits after eight years of Bush administration mismanagement, and that’s all Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress’ fault. Any recovery we see between November 2, 2010 and November 6, 2012… well clearly, it’ll be all the House Republicans’ doing.

And the funny sad thing is, a lot of Americans will buy it.