HorsesAss.Org

The P-I reports on arrests in Pike-Pine. A Honduran gang apparently was bringing people here illegally to sell crack. Scary stuff, and I’m glad the police are on it. Still, these arrests don’t ever seem to do much to deter the next group of people selling on the street corner. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m quite certain it isn’t more of the same.

It’s an absolute disgrace that we still need this sort of thing, but Seattle Center is hosting a health fair this Sunday. If you need any of the services below, you can avail yourself.

As a part of The Next Fifty’s Global Health Month, a Health Fair will be conducted on July 15th, 2012 at Key Arena. The Health Fair will focus on the health of our communities by providing free health services to the general public.

Services include:
Dental
Screenings for diabetes and cholesterol
Vision and hearing
Mammograms
Physicals
Educational programs about nutrition and general health,
Much much more!

I’m going to be generous to Mitt Romney today. But first some context.

As his primary opponents predicted earlier this year, Mitt’s Bain Capitol record is coming back to bite him in the assets. The latest (which probably isn’t really the latest in the few minutes it takes me to write this post) comes from The Boston Globe:

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Here’s the generous part: Mitt’s account may be correct! It very well may be that he left Bain for Salt Lake City, and psychologically detached from Bain, leaving all of the management in the hands of his trusted partners.

I can imagine a departing speech, perhaps held on a yacht in Boston Harbor:

I’ve got an Olympic-sized corruption scandal and fiscal problems to deal with in SLC. So, I’m taking a leave. I’ll have nothing more to do with running Bain through the end of the Olympics. I leave it to you, my trusted friends, to maximize shareholder profits. (And as the only shareholder, I demand it! [forced laugh.]) If you make the shareholder fabulously wealthy, you will be generously rewarded when I move on to my post-Olympic project…. So for now, you have the helm.

(Exit stage right.)

And maybe Mitt lived up to this ideal. There is even some evidence consistent with this account. In some sense, then he shouldn’t be held accountable for decisions made during his leave. Right?

The political problem for Mitt is that, as Kevin Drum points out, the whole thing just looks icky. Denying responsibility for big decisions while at the same time being listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” on multiple SEC filings, makes Mitt look like he is dodging responsibility.

It feels weaselly. Apparently…the buck doesn’t stop with Mitt. (It’s spirited away to a Swiss Bank Account.)

Furthermore, pulling down a salary (even a paltry $100,000) while on leave makes it seem like he was either actively doing something for the company, or skimming without justification.

Either one may be true without tying Mitt to actual decisions (or knowledge of) embarrassing investments and politically damaging layoffs. But, either way, it still looks bad, and people will have to be excused for feeling misled by Mitt.

But here is the deal. I think this Bain thing has left Mitt in a precarious position…and with a much bigger problem.

The problem is that any evidence of decision making at Bain during his leave will make a liar out of Mitt. The evidence so far is good for Mitt. And thousands and thousands of pages of additional documentation may well be released. But proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger.

The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.

And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.

The race is on!

– The distinction between the nuns on a bus and the bishops making demands is quite telling.

– The wingnuts sure know their history.

– “There is a clear business case for supporting equal access to civil marriage rights,” said George Allen, the Chamber’s vice president for government relations.

– Men aren’t going extinct.

– The City of Seattle is supporting a court challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

– If, however, you insist on talking and writing things down, here’s a pro-tip: the terms “distraction” and “chronically ill and abused” don’t mix. Pretty much ever.

– Accused Burglar Incorporates Self

Queue the Red Cross telethon raising money for victims of recent wild fires. Mike Myers cringes as Kanye West breaks script and blurts out:

Black People don’t care for Mitt Romney.

That would pretty much summarize the response Mitt Romney got during his speech before the NAACP today:

(You can watch the whole awkward Romney speech here.)

Says CNN correspondent Jim Acosta:

I have to tell you… I’ve been covering the Romney campaign for a year now[….] I have not heard that kind of sustained booing for Mitt Romney during the course of this campaign. […] This was, perhaps, one of the most negative reactions Mitt Romney has had in the course of his 2012 presidential campaigns.

Here are some photos of the audience reaction.

Last night, the twittersphere was all a-tweet with the hash tag #ThingsRomneyShouldntSayToNAACP‬. You know, things like

Freedom of Teach ‏@FreedomofTeach
My wife drives a couple of Cadillacs, so we have that in common. ‪#ThingsRomneyShouldntSayToNAACP‬

Er. D.-OBAMA2012 ‏@esd2000
‪#ThingsRomneyShouldntSayToTheNAACP‬ I’m a big fan of the Basketball contests you guys all love.

Shrink’g Mdl Class ‏@alohaGOP
“I had a dream too – but mine came true, obviously.” ‪#fakelaugh‬ ‪#ThingsRomneyShouldntSayToNAACP‬

Who knew the ‪#OneThingRomneyReallyShouldntHaveSaid‬ is written into his day-to-day stump speech.

(BTW: You can follow my twitter feed here.)

Walking through downtown the other night I came across a couple looking like they were on a date. When I passed them, they were trying to figure out the boot on their car. I’ve seen boots on cars before, but I think this was the first time I’ve seen people trying to figure out what to do about one.

It got me thinking about some consequences of the boot. I’ll reiterate my position, that I’m generally supportive, but worried about some of the consequences to people who can least afford to pay their parking tickets. That didn’t appear to be the case here, so I’ll ignore it and focus on the consequences a few rungs up the economic ladder.

This couple may look elsewhere for their next date. And they might be less likely to come downtown (I obviously don’t know where they’re from) generally in the future. On the other hand, parking is still tight downtown, so whoever parks in that spot next probably is more likely to pay for their space before the boot gets used. Or maybe they’ll learn their lesson and pay for their spot. And when they get a ticket, they’ll pay it promptly, and won’t have this problem.

As you may know, our state’s Attorney General, Rob McKenna takes credit for co-founding the state attorneys general lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Apparently, McKenna lost control of the lawsuit, because he repeatedly claimed that he only wanted the “mandate” and the Medicaid provisions thrown out. Indeed, his own official web site claimed that, “This suit will not ‘overturn’ or ‘repeal’ the new health care reform legislation.”

His co-conspirators colleagues saw it differently. The lawsuit ended up asking the courts to strike down the entire law.

So…remember a couple of Thursdays ago when the Supreme Court found the PPACA “mandate” constitutional? That very day, McKenna gave a press conference in has capacity as Attorney General and as one of the instigators of the ill-fated lawsuit against PPACA. Here is a excerpt from the Q&A (video here):

Jim Brunner: Do you support Congress repealing this law […]?

Rob McKenna: This law is not going to be repealed…

Jim Bruner: Do you support it being repealed?

Rob McKenna: No. There are a number of provisions in this law that ought to be maintained.

Okay…he had to be asked a second time when he tried giving a non-answer the first time, but…pretty clear answer, no?

Yesterday, McKenna further “clarified” his position when speaking before Chamber of Commerce in Yakima :

…McKenna said the reports were a misinterpretation by “Seattle media” and that his position on the Affordable Care Act hasn’t changed.

“I wish I had been better prepared with a better articulated response than the one I gave at the press conference,” McKenna told the luncheon audience after an attendee accused him of changing his stance. “Frankly I didn’t think we were going to lose so I wasn’t ready for that question.”

McKenna insisted he was only asked whether Congress would go forward with repealing the act, not whether he thinks it should be repealed.

Huh. The media clearly reported that McKenna didn’t want Congress to repeal the PPACA. So…um, now, under criticism on the other side of the Mountains, McKenna claims the “Seattle Media” misinterpreted him? So…he is suggesting to a more conservative audience that he believes it should be repealed?

So…to further “clarify” exactly how McKenna feels, his campaign manager, Randy Peeple points out:

…McKenna’s position has not changed and that his [forthcoming] op-ed will not be calling for repeal of the health-care law. Instead, he said McKenna will more fully lay out the parts of the law he still has concerns with and how he’d responsibly approach them as governor.

McKenna has continued to warn about the expense of the law’s Medicaid expansion and has said its individual mandate is problematic despite the court’s ruling. (At his June 28 news conference, however, McKenna said the mandate should remain in place “for now” because it is so closely tied to key positive parts of the health-care law.)

So…the “mandate” is problematic (East) but he wants it to remain in place (West).

Come on. He’s just fucking with everyone now!

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics and conversation over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, WA chapters meet, and Thursday night Drinking Liberally Bremerton meets. Next Monday there are meetings of the Olympia and Yakima chapters.

With 227 chapters of Living Liberally, including eleven in Washington state and four more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s a chapter near you.

ESPN Radio’s Mike Salk continues to unload on the Seattle Times over the incoherent nonsense they’ve been writing about the proposed arena deal.

– Jay Inslee’s first ad.

– I’ll blink when you register.

– The 7 PM Rule

– Publicola is back.

– In truth, the Lethal Presidency is a burgeoning manifestation of the executive branch that finds no adequate counterweight in either Congress or in the courts. It repeatedly asks for our trust, and gives assurances that it is using its awesome powers judiciously and wisely. Has it earned our trust? We don’t know. We are told that we can’t know. But we give it what it asks for, because it seems to keep us safe, and besides, it leaves us barely any choice..

– The problem, at least in part, probably has to do with the “wrong” people having secure, decently paying jobs that they don’t “deserve” which are paid for by taxes. Same old shit.

Gubernatorial, gubernatorial, and US Senate loser Dino Rossi will get to fill in the rest of Cheryl Pflug’s term in the Washington State Senate until the election. I mean fine and all, she resigned and if he wants it, sure. But is this really necessary? There’s probably not going to be a special session between now and then. And I don’t know the constituent services at the legislative level, but can’t this sort of thing be done by one of the representatives? Is anyone in the 5th district feeling more represented because a lame duck has been appointed to a caretaker role?

– Seriously, Seattle. Stand on the right; walk on the left. I don’t know why we can’t master that one.

– Mitt Romney Venn Diagrams may be the perfect combination of political nerd and math nerd.

– America is now a bunch of semi-smart people pretending to be stupid to convince even stupider people that helping people is an awful idea.

– Shaun is having a fundraiser.

– Any questions Goldy asks would be considered abrasive by our differential press corps and political class.

– Big money donors are hilariously out of touch [h/t].

– Seventeen magazine isn’t going to use airbrushing. Or at least will explain when it is.

– I imagine there may be some tense negotiations ahead with Mr Rushdie’s representatives over image rights

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Montpellier, France.

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

Zephaniah 1:2
I, the Lord, now promise to destroy everything on this earth.

Discuss.

Jacob Sullum writes in Reason about the reasons to be skeptical of the recent reports claiming that Obama will have a shift in drug policy in his second term. Jesse Walker has also written about it here and Mike Riggs here. The reality is that Obama could be doing more to move us away from waging a war on drugs, but he’s not. He hasn’t even been able to keep the promise he made on the campaign trail about respecting state medical marijuana laws.

These “leaked reports” feel like a half-assed attempt to pander to the left-leaning folks like myself who are considering supporting Gary Johnson over Obama’s horrendous record on all types of civil liberty issues. And they’re also very detached from what the reality is very likely to be in November. Both Washington and Colorado have full legalization initiatives on the ballot, and both are ahead in the polls. And Oregon may join them.

If any of these initiatives pass – and Obama wins a second term – we’ll know pretty quickly whether or not he’s going to “pivot” on the drug war. The federal government has the power to shut down any state marijuana regulations, but despite what Marc Ambinder claims about Obama’s powerlessness, his DOJ clearly has some discretion about what it considers a priority, and Obama is certainly free to appoint someone to head up the DEA who actually knows if heroin is a more dangerous drug than marijuana. Even if Obama doesn’t take a position in favor of legalizing marijuana at the federal level, he can take the position that he’ll tolerate a state’s voters making it the law. If he’s not taking that position, there’s no pivot.