HorsesAss.Org

Archives for March 2011

Drug War Roundup Open Thread

by — ,

– The medical marijuana bill in the legislature was modified in the House to fix some problematic amendments added in the Senate, and has moved to the House floor. And with the legalization bill going nowhere, signature gathering for I-1149 is underway.

– Bud Withers discusses the controversy surrounding the high profile arrests of Washington State basketball players this season, and notes that there are legitimate questions to be asked of the Pullman police. This is especially true now that it appears that the most recent arrest occurred following what appears to have been an illegal search.

– Pete Guither takes on well-known fraudster Andrea Barthwell and her attempts to dismiss the reality of marijuana as medicine. He also writes about Florida Governor Rick Scott’s attempt to violate the rights of state workers.

– Scott Morgan looks at the staggering amount of money New York City spends on marijuana enforcement.

UPDATE: One more link: All fifteen State House Reps and Senators from Seattle support a legalized market for adult marijuana use.

UPDATE 2: The rural Texas judge who’s presiding over Willie Nelson’s marijuana possession case wants him to sing a song in the courtroom as part of a plea deal.

Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

by — ,

The Republican War on Workers:

Liberal Viewer: Glenn Beck’s “China Syndrome” nonsense.

Maddow: Republicans are making it easier for terrorist to get nuclear weapons?!?.

Jon: When reporters attack (via Slog).

Thom with The Good, The Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Spitzer does Bill Maher.

ONN: Patriotic teen fails Spanish.

Running for President:

Republican AZ lawmaker defends racist teacher’s letter.

Newsy: One in six Americans are Hispanic.

Thom with The Good, the Bad, and the Very Very Ugly.

Cenk: Mike Pompeo—The Congressman from Koch.

Thom: Is the US Chamber spying on activists?

Bombs Away:

Young Turks: SD abortion bill becomes law.

O’Donnell: GE paid $0 in taxes!.

Pres. Obama on U.S. and Latin America.

Cenk: Glenn Beck concludes MSNBC is the anti-God network.

Newsy: “Anchor baby” is deported.

Young Turks: Is James O’Keefe broke?

Pap: Right wing militias gaining power in America.

O’Donnell: The NY Indian Point nuclear power plant.

Dan Savage gives college girls orgasms?!?

Health Care Reform at One Year:

Ed: Who will stand up for long term unemployed? (Via Crooks and Liars.)

ONN: CIA’s ‘Facebook’ program dramatically cut agency’s costs.

O’Donnell: Most American Catholics back gay rights in survey.

What do you think of Seattle police officers?

Young Turks: Obama executive order on Miranda rights.

Thom Hartmann with another episode of The Good, the Bad, & the Very Very Ugly.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Weekend planner

by — ,

A few events for your weekend:

  • Tomorrow (Saturday) at 10:00 AM, Rep. Jim McDermott will host a “Coffee with your Congressman” event in West Seattle (more info) at C & P Coffee; 5612 California Avenue Southwest. “Please RSVP if you can to 206-553-7170.”
  • Also tomorrow is a community festival and fundraiser for Seattle’s Alternative School 1—Pinehurst:

    seattle_gig

    I’ll be at the festival playing bass with the Flying Blind Blues Band (we’ll be on stage about 5:00 pm).

  • Another school fundraiser…the Lakeside school spring rummage sale on Saturday (9:00 am to 4:00 pm) and Sunday (9:00 am to noon).

The Humanitarian Expectation

by — ,

E.D. Kain is one of my favorite bloggers and someone who I respect for his ability to get beyond simple partisan talking points, but I think he’s in denial about this:

As far as I’m concerned there are no good arguments for intervention in Libya. Reports that we’ve saved 100,000 lives there strike me as no better than propaganda.

As soon as Libyans began gearing up for their February 17th protests (which were supposed to mimic the successful Egyptian protest movement), I began to follow the situation closely. It’s a country (and a regime) that I’ve been fascinated by since I became friends with a Libyan who was given asylum in the U.S. in the early 90s. To this day, I’ve never been able to get the whole story out of him on why he had to flee the country.

For a while, it did appear as if Libya would follow the script of both Egypt and Tunisia. Protesters took to the streets across the country and in many cities were able to raise the tri-colored flag of pre-Gaddafi Libya. At one point, only Tripoli, Sirte, and a few other tiny pockets of the country remained loyal to Gaddafi.

As in Egypt – and in Cairo in particular – this required that people “lose the fear”. In Benghazi, this happened, and while some troops stayed loyal to Gaddafi, many didn’t (they were found bound and burned alive). Fighter pilots that were sent to bomb the city flew to Malta and demanded asylum. Many other Libyan diplomats defected and joined the ranks of the protesters. Benghazi was able to overrun the few Gaddafi supporters left and raise the rebel flag. But in the capital, none of this happened.

When protests started to break out in Tripoli, Gaddafi had enough fighters (along with paid mercenaries from other countries) who began terrorizing the populace. They fired from tanks and aircraft into crowds of peaceful unarmed protesters. At this point, the internet was still available and people in Libya were posting pictures and videos of the truly gruesome carnage. And my friend (who was still in communication with his large family back in Tripoli) was still optimistic when I talked to him, but Gaddafi’s assaults on the populace brought the fear back in Tripoli and allowed for him to project to the world that he still had support in the capital.

It’s hard to really get into the mind of someone like Gaddafi, but it’s not hard to see that from his speeches that it matters to him deeply that he’s loved by his people. And here he was faced with his entire nation standing up and telling him to fuck off. It was very similar to Mubarak, but Gaddafi isn’t Mubarak. And the Libyan Army isn’t an institution capable of rejecting a diseased head of state bent on massacring his populace in order to project an image to the world that he’s beloved.

At this point, there was still hope that the protesters could arm themselves and take on Gaddafi’s loyalists and paid fighters, but that hope was dashed in a flurry of intense military retribution on the general public. Tens of thousands started to flee to the Tunisian border. Gaddafi then started consolidating his military assets to reclaim cities that had raised the rebel flag. He repeatedly attacked Zawia, just west of Tripoli, by shelling residential areas. After several days of fighting, Gaddafi achieved his objective, to be able to set a scene where western reporters could broadcast to the world a scene of pro-Gaddafi supporters waving green flags and holding up his picture. It’s nearly impossible to know how many people died in order to set up this photo op. As was the case throughout the battles in Libya, dead bodies were picked up from the streets and taken away by the military. Hospitals were attacked and ambulances were often hijacked.

In the east, Gaddafi forces were able to continue along the main highway between Tripoli and Benghazi. Having the ability to fire from the air made it impossible for the now-armed but largely untrained opposition to stop them, especially in sparsely populated areas where it’s tough to hide. There was nothing stopping the advance on Benghazi, the second largest city in the country – and the heart of the newly formed revolution government. It would’ve been enormously wishful thinking to say that we weren’t staring down the possibility of a massacre that could’ve taken 100,000 lives. The Obama Administration had the military means to prevent a significant loss of life. And if Obama had not acted to wipe out Gaddafi’s troops and they did in Benghazi what they did in Zawia, you can be sure as hell that everyone would lay the blame for that massacre at Obama’s feet.

I recognize that there are a number of good counter-points to our intervention in Libya, and I’m still worried as hell that this situation will continue to deteriorate, but any argument that tries to dismiss the idea that a huge massacre was about to occur in Benghazi is not dialed in to what was going on there. And ultimately why I fall into the camp of the interventionists here is along the same lines of why these uprisings have managed to be so successful to this point. The citizens of the world are far more aware of what happens outside of their communities than ever before. And while this phenomenon can lead to greater understanding of one’s own state of being oppressed (as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East), it can also lead to greater expectations for those world powers who have the means to intervene on behalf of those being most oppressed. Of course, it would be considerably better if the Obama Administration were a little more consistent on when we intervene (see: Ivory Coast). But I still believe standing alongside the Libyan people here was still the right move, even if the outcome isn’t as triumphant as we’d all hope for.

Bongs and Bullets

by — ,

This may be a few days old, but I just saw it today. Guy Lawson’s story in Rolling Stone about the two marijuana enthusiasts who managed to win a $300 million DoD contract – then got busted for trying to re-package illegal Chinese ammo in Albania – is well worth the read.

It’s Time to Spite Back

by — ,

Will (who you may remember used to write here, and could theoretically once again) has a piece on Slog where he argues that Seattle needs to be afraid of what the Olympia might do if we reject the tunnel. Bold mine because bolding on Slog seems mostly random.

If we reject the tunnel, the money will go away, and will be turned in to a north-south freeway in Spokane, or added lanes on I-405. Or part could be used to widen I-5 under the convention center, which might be the best-case scenario. Or it could be moved to the 520 bridge replacement project, which is short of funds. Or, just to spite us, they could give us a brand new viaduct, a wider, bigger, quieter replacement of the current structure complete with downtown exits and grand views of the harbor.

First off, the cost of a gallon of gas is rising just as quickly in the Eastside and Spokane as it is anywhere else. It’ll probably come down a bit off this high, but the trend is in the wrong direction. If they want to continue to tether themselves to foreign oil it’s not Seattle’s business, but good luck attracting skilled workers to the 21st century economy. Second, and more important, it’s past time Seattle (and frankly the rest of the urban-suburban Puget Sound, since the rest of the state hates them almost as much as Seattle) starts fighting spiteful bullshit with spiteful bullshit.

In 2009 when a few Tacoma legislators decided that they wanted to make sure that Tacoma Power could pollute more, they were able to gum up the works of the whole state. There’s no reason that the Seattle legislators who oppose the cost overrun provision couldn’t start demanding cost overrun provisions in any project (not just any road project) outside the net donor counties until the tunnel cost overrun provisions are repealed. And if they don’t get that to gum up the works. Seattle gives away our hard earned tax money to those counties and doesn’t see much of a return on their investment.

Partly this plan is out of spite for the state trying to saddle us with a freeway we don’t want, and then trying to make us pay for it. But you’re never going to get good policy until you’re willing to put your foot down against bad policy; while putting cost overrun provisions on counties that don’t pay their fair share is bad policy, it’s better policy than putting those provisions on a city that does.

And yes, the plan relies to some extent on the Seattle delegation asserting themselves. Relying on Seattle legislators to have any backbone is like relying on jelly fish to have any backbone. Still, if the tunnel loses an election in August and a few City Council members lose their jobs in November, it might put some steel in the legislature’s resolve.

***

Also, just as a side note, I supported Roads and Transit. Given how easily the Transit portion passed the following year, it’s probably fair to say that I’m more pro having the Seattle area pay extra for car infrastructure than the average urban King County resident. So call me a dirty hippie or whatever but if the state antagonizes Seattle enough, you can look forward to mayor for life Mike McGinn.

Did Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME) fail an art exam or something?

by — ,

Under the guise of “budget crisis” measures, anti-worker legislation is popping up all over the country. But this mean-spirited move shows the arrogant contempt with which Republicans hold workers:

Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor.
[…]

Acting labor chief Laura Boyett emailed staff Tuesday about the mural’s pending removal, as well as another administration directive to rename several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.

According to LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt, the administration felt the mural and the conference room monikers showed “one-sided decor” not in keeping with the department’s pro-business goals.

Umm… Removing a mural and renaming conference rooms is going to fix Maine’s budget problems?

Pure and simple…this is another salvo in the Republican War on Workers™.

The mural was erected in 2008 following a jury selection by the Maine Arts Commission and a $60,000 federal grant. Judy Taylor, the artist from Seal Cove, said Tuesday that her piece was never meant to be political, simply a depiction of Maine’s labor history.

Why are Republicans threatened by Maine’s history? Let’s examine the threat. From the web site of the artist, here is a selection of captions from the eleven mural panels:


1. The Apprentice: Here, a Cobbler trains his young Apprentice. In the background, are scenes from that era.

Oooooh…cobbler apprentice. Scary. (And, Donald Trump…this doesn’t look good for your presidential aspirations…)


2. Lost Childhood: Child labor was common in Maine. They frequently performed dangerous tasks for long hours.

That is offensive to LePage, who is trying to roll back child labor laws:

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Debra Plowman (R) and “backed by” LePage would roll back the state’s child labor laws…. Her original bill would have removed all protections on the number of hours 16 and 17 year olds could work during the school week, and allow them to work until 11 PM.
[…]

In response to opposition from labor and education groups, Plowman revised her bill to cap hours at 32 per week….


3. The Textile Workers: Young women were often sent to the mills by their families, who could not, or would not support them.

Clearly, this is offensive for the same reason as the previous panel. A young woman’s place is in the sweatshop.


4. The Secret Ballot: For the first time, workers were allowed to vote anonymously in 1891.

Yeah…Women’s suffrage still gets under their skin.

“Wait. What? Vote?!? We thought ‘suffrage’ meant something else.”


5. First Labor’s Day: In 1884, Maine celebrated it’s first “Labor’s Day”, a day for the workers to celebrate.

This factoid, no doubt, is a great stain on the psyche of Maine Republicans.


6. The Woods Workers: A member of the IWW or “Wobblies” tries to organize the Maine woodsmen.

History lesson be damned…I’m pretty sure Republicans consider the word “organize” a vulgar obscenity.


7. The 1937 Strike: Scenes from an unsuccessful strike attempt to create better conditions for women workers.

Ewwww…”strike”? “better conditions for women workers?” For the G.O.P., the vulgarity of it all must trump any potential historical interest.


8. Francis Perkins: FDR’s Labor Secretary, and untiring labor activist, a Maine Labor icon.

You can imagine how a mural of the first woman appointed to a Presidential Cabinet could induce in Republicans indigestion, foaming at the mouth, and the heartache of psoriasis.


9. Rosie the Riveter: Maine’s version of WWII women workers participated as ship-builders.

You see…in the eyes of the wingnuts, Rosie the Riveter is the kind of uncomfortable situation that leads to Rachael Maddow.

Hey…you know another leader who took down art that he found threatening?

Hitler.

Happy birthday Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

by — ,

Today is the one-year anniversary of the contentious health care reform law. How do American’s feel about it? The story you get depends on (1) your media source, and (2) how carefully you scrutinize the numbers.

David Weigel points out that the following two headlines are simultaneously true:

  1. Most Favor Health Care Law or Wish It Was More Liberal
  2. Time Doesn’t Change Views on Health Care Law

Headline 2 is from a CNN article about its new poll released today:

Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That’s basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

But that is only half the story:

“In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill’s opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough – the same as today. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal.”

The final tally from the poll (pdf here) is that an estimated 50% of Americans want the law or a more comprehensive version of it, and 43% want the law gone. Seven percent have no opinion. The pattern is the same in three previous CNN polls taken over the last year—thirteen percent “disapprove” because the law doesn’t go far enough, and 37%-43% oppose the law as “too liberal”.

One must keep the “liberal 13%” in mind with looking at polls that do not distinguish between those who think the law doesn’t go far enough and those who think it goes too far. So when a Gallup poll with a somewhat different question reports that 46% find the law “a good thing” and 44% find it “a bad thing” (with 10% offering no opinion), I have to wonder what fraction of the 44% wanted universal health care, single payer, a public option, or just think the law is a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

Also, I have to wonder how much of the ~40% who oppose the law do so because they were sucked into the bullshit that it “includes death panels.”

Besides being the one year anniversary of the law, it is also the one year anniversary of the Republicans offering no alternatives. Even Juan Williams has a hard time not noticing:

…House Republicans have not passed a single alternative health care reform bill since they have been in charge but they have passed bills to repeal and defund the law. All of these bills, however, are dead on arrival in the Senate making the whole exercise futile and symbolic.

At a meeting of the nation’s governors last month, President Obama called the GOP’s bluff on health care. He challenged GOP governors […] to come up with their own health care plans that meet the goals of the Affordable Care Act.

He challenged the governors, saying, “I am not open to re-fighting the battles of the last two years, or undoing the progress that we’ve made. But I am willing to work with anyone — anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican, governors or member of Congress — to make this law even better; to make care even better; to make it more affordable and fix what needs fixing.”

That includes not driving up the deficit. So the president opened the door to the states, as what he called the laboratories of democracy, putting their own ideas on the table for reducing costs, increasing access and improving quality.

Since then, the silence has been deafening and the American people are beginning to see that the GOP really doesn’t have any alternative ideas on health care that fit the bill.

A shorter Juan Williams: Republicans…all Repeal an no Replace.

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by — ,

DLBottle

Spring has arrived! And that’s the only excuse you need to 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. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but feel free to join some of us earlier for dinner.



Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 217 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Shared Sacrifice

by — ,

Now that we’re in the middle (or, probably at the beginning) of our third war, can we maybe do the things we’re supposed to do during a war? Start with a tax increase. After all, those cruise missiles and fighter jets aren’t free. If this war is worth it, (and I have my doubts) then it’s worth paying for.

Of course the people risking their lives, not to mention their health and their relations back home, are the men and women in the air and at sea, and possibly in the future on the ground. We need to make sure that when they come home, the VA is in as tip top shape as possible, and that when people come back, they have the physical health, mental health, and family support they’ve earned. We need to make sure they have jobs to come back to. Especially since so many of the people deployed are in the National Guard and Reserves, it means we need to do everything we can to make sure they can return to the lives they’ve left, sometimes two and three times. It means their jobs have to still be there for them government agencies like ESGR need support and private businesses need to be willing to hire and to go above the bare minimum required by law in retaining and supporting their service member employees.

But those of us who don’t ever suit up ought to sacrifice in other ways. We need a renewed push away from oil in the short term because that’s where Gadhafi gets his money and in the longer term because we’ve been in a hot war in the Middle East for a decade, and it doesn’t show signs of stopping. We ought to consider rationing, to force us to use less oil.

Finally, it’s not the time for business to make profit. They can return to that when our 3 wars are over. Now is not the time, as FDR said for, “that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.” We need to tell all military contractors (including Boeing) that they’ll be delivering quality products, and doing it at cost. If they don’t like it, we’ll have to nationalize the factories at least until our wars are over. Same with the extraction industries. We really ought to nationalize oil drilling. At least enough that the operations in our 3 wars aren’t dependent on corporations. If the oil companies don’t like it, well there are wars on.

How to repeal Washington’s “tax preferences”

by — ,

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-23) makes the case for ending some of the 567 special tax preferences on the books in Washington:

Faced with a deep state deficit and deep cuts to vital services we should look first at ending unjustified tax breaks.

Many breaks on the books subsidize a privileged few at the expense of ordinary citizens. The notion of tax fairness, that everyone pays his or her fair share for core services that benefit everyone, has been trampled under the feet of special interest lobbyists.

These tax breaks are conveniently embedded in obscure tax law and routinely ignored, yet they divert billions of dollars into wealthy pockets. As a result, essential public services like education and health care are starved for funding.

Rockefeller admits that passage of I-1053 make the task more difficult. Given the widespread opinion that the 2/3 majority requirement of I-1053 would not pass Constitutional muster, if only we could get into the courts, why not use the budget crisis to force a showdown?

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

But would they sue? The reality is that I-1053 is most potent when it stays out of the courts. The threat to I-1053 is serious enough that, perhaps, a bill to repeal tax preferences might just get that 2/3 majority as a way to avoid Judicial scrutiny.

As a certain Mayor-elect puts it:

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

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!

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.