HorsesAss.Org

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Rob McKenna: This law is not going to be repealed…

Jim Bruner: Do you support it being repealed?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.

Do you have an offshore bank account?

The Health Care Killing Floors:

• Bill-O-The-Clown fesses up….
• Ann Telnaes: The Republican solution to fixing our health care system.
• Susie Sampson: Health Care and Independence Day.
• Young Turks: MittFlop #1,712, “Obamacare mandate a tax”.
• Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Rhode Island edition:
• Sam Seder: “Katherine Harris” calls to chime in on Obamacare, SCOTUS + More!
• Even Bill-O-the-Clown mocks Rep. John Boehner.
• Mark Fiore: RepubliBliss.

Maddow: Ron Paul not out until Nebraska sings.

Obama kicks off a campaign tour.

Pap: The fracking industry’s dirty secrets.

Tom: The Good, The Bad and the Very Very Nasicornously Ugly!

Growing Up:

• Young Turks: FAUX News rips kid for turning liberal.
• Lawrence O’Donnell talks to fallen conservative Jonathan Krohn.
• Young Turks: Conservative Kid Jonathan Krohn evolves into a Liberal.
• Sam Seder: 13 YO conservative kid pundit Jonathan Krohn…now a 17 YO liberal.
• End of a Teen Dream (photo essay): The Conservatives who once loved Jonathan Krohn (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Slate News: Jonathan Krohn responds to the responses.

The Daily Show explains Wall Street.

Alyona: Rhode Island’s new disclosure act.

Young Turks: Conservative Judge says GOP has become ‘goofy’.

Slate News: Ron Paul’s new crusade.

Sam Seder: Florida Congressman Bill Young (R) pulls a McKenna; tells minimum wage worker to, “Get a job”.

The Onion Week in Review.

Romney’s Romper Room:

• Slate NewsRomney’s Spanish advertisement FAIL.
• Thom: Mr. 1% and his offshore millions.
• Mitt explains the free rider provision.
• Pap: Romney is in deep with oil lobbyists.
• Newsy: Murdoch criticism suggests rift with Romney.
• Sam Seder: Lemon. Wet. Good.
• Gov. Strickland calls on Mitt to release tax returns.
• Young Turks: Romney’s abortion clean-up service…investment
• Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Washington state edition:
• Thom: Pirate capitalist Romney vs the average Joe.
• Newsy: Romney camp confused in tax penalty.
• Sam Seder: Everyone deserves a fair shot if they can afford it.
• Ann Telnaes: Mitt Flips.
• ONN: Romney’s numbers skyrocket after prostitute reveals she paid him.
• Young Turks: Murdoch tweets on Mitt.
• Liberal Viewer: MSNBC’s false edit of Romney immigration stance.

Obama likes the kid’s hair.

Sam Seder: Rush Limbaugh, “The country went downhill when we let women vote!.

Young Turks: Anti-tax movement burned in Colorado fire.

Thom: more of The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Mother Pitt:

• Young Turks: Brad Pitt’s mother.
• Buzz60: MOOoooOmmm!
• Slate News: The strange case of Brad Pitt and his mother.

White House: West Wing Week.

Maddow: Thaddeus McCotter resigns… weirdly.

Young Turks: Koch brothers helped by ear marks from tea party Congressman.

Thom: Will RI disclosure bill keep out the super PACs?

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

I assume most people reading this blog are already registered to vote. But if you’re not, and you’re eligible in Washington, go here. As Shaun says, “Don’t suppress your own vote!” You’ve got until Monday.

If you’d have told me a Washington State city had the 4th worst gap between the rich and poor, my first guess would have been Seattle. Maybe Tacoma or Everett. Possibly one of the gaudy suburbs has a large needy population hit by the economic downturn. So I was surprised to read:

Using the Gini Index, a statistical measure that determines the amount of economic equality within a community, Cle Elum was ranked the least equal of any Washington community, and fourth most unequal in the nation, in terms of the gap between the wealthiest and poorest residents.

The article doesn’t do much to explain why that might be the case. It may have something to do with the housing bust in a former drive until you can buy community. But that still doesn’t explain the wealthy part of the equation.

In this post (the third in my series on LD redistricting), the topic is still another Seattle-area Legislative District with an open seat. I have a lot of connections with the 36th, not least of which is that my sister and her family live there. Also, as we’ll soon see, my own precinct used to be — but is no longer — right on the border between the 43rd and the 36th.

NOTE: a click on the “Click to continue” link below will open the key to definitions of the meanings of the various colors and other symbols on the maps.

Location — northwest Seattle, from Belltown to Crown Hill
   Senate: Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), 2014
   House 1: Reuven Carlyle (D)
   House 2: Mary Lou Dickerson (D), retiring

The 36th District is quite compact, and its borders didn’t change very much in the recent redistricting. It still encompasses most of Belltown and all of Queen Anne, Interbay, Magnolia, and Ballard. Like the 43rd to its east, but now unlike the 46th to its northeast, it lies entirely within the city of Seattle. Not only that — the 36th LD is also entirely within Jim McDermott’s Congressional District (WA-07) and entirely within Larry Phillips’s King County Council District (KC-4). The map below displays the 36th District as it was defined on the 2001 map, prior to the recent redistricting. The map’s scale is 60,000:1.

It is immediately obvious that the new version of the 36th LD is quite similar to the 2001 map. Given the homogeneity of Seattle, and understanding that the LD’s and the city’s population growth was much the same as the state as a whole, there was little reason to make many changes there. We can’t look into the collective mind of the Redistricting Commission, but it appears that they generally chose to concentrate whatever changes took place in Seattle in the redrawn 46th District.

The map of 2011’s 36th District displays the boundaries of the Congressional Districts in its vicinity. Only one of those dashed blue lines is particularly interesting … the small piece of border in the lower right corner of the image. It demonstrates that the edge of WA-07 comes close to the 36th, but doesn’t quite get there. That piece of the CD’s border (WA-09 is southeast of that line) actually separates the 43rd District from the 37th; the core of Seattle is divided among the three LDs.

The great similarity between the 2001 and 2011 maps of the 36th Legislative District is quite evident when the two are superimposed on one another. Except for some very slight rejiggering in Belltown, the alterations consist of losing its portion of Fremont (to the 43rd) and gaining those parts of Greenwood and Phinney Ridge (from the 46th) that weren’t already in the District. The new 36th might possibly be a wee bit less Democratic than the old one — the western hillside of Fremont might be a tad bluer than the eastern hillside of Phinney Ridge — but there will be little change in the political nature of the LD. It remains a solidly Democratic bastion.

As a Fremont resident myself, I’m happy to see the new boundaries. Under the 2001 map, my precinct was smack-dab on the line between the 43rd and 36th, and at least one of the first-draft redistricting maps would have moved the border eastward, thereby transferring me into the 36th. Instead, the new 43rd covers 14 precincts that are home to quite a few former stalwarts of the 36th District Democrats, including a former LD chair and nearly half a dozen former Executive Board members of the old 36th. My precinct is now well inside the boundaries of the 43rd Legislative District, which extends around 10 blocks to my west.

When Mary Lou Dickerson decided to relinquish her House seat, a crowd of aspirants arose immediately. Of the seven declared candidates, one is a self-declared Progressive, one is a Republican (Paulista, actually), and the other five are Democrats. Sounds pretty typical for this solid blue LD.

There is general agreement among the Democrats on the issues. So perhaps the crux of the matter will come down to the candidates’ personal backstories. In alphabetical order, the Democrats are:

• Evan Clifthorne, legislative staffer for Senator Paull Shin (D-21) and native Washingtonian
• Sahar Fathi, staffer for Seattle City Councilmember Mike O’Brien and Iranian-American woman
• Noel Frame, state director of Progressive Majority, former campaign manager, native Washingtonian
• Brett Phillips, green building/energy efficiency expert, son of County Councilmember Larry Phillips, native of the 36th District
• Gael Tarleton, Port of Seattle Commissioner and national security analyst

In a very real sense, this election reminds me of the 2006 open-seat House race here in the 43rd. Back then, we had six excellent Democrats competing for the seat then held by Ed Murray, who was running for the State Senate. In that primary, Jamie Pederson won the Democratic nomination with just 23% of the vote. One difference between then and now is that in 2006 we were temporarily operating under the sensible Open Primary, Private Choice methodology (called Pick-a-Party by Sam Reed) rather than the ridiculous Top Two favored by the inane majority among us. Thus, winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to winning the general election. There was a Republican primary as well in 2006, wherein the winner drew far fewer votes than the sixth-place Democrat … but appeared on the November ballot.

There was no hint of negative campaigning in our 2006 primary in the 43rd. I’ve detected a hint of non-collegiality in the 36th, though there hasn’t been anything close to real mud-slinging. Perhaps the large number of candidates has prevented a repeat of the 36th’s ugly two-way 2008 race. Races actually, since the Top Two forced it to carry over from the primary to the general election. When there are lots of near-equivalent choices available, it wouldn’t be sensible to alienate any of the electorate. Assuming that two of the Democratic candidates will continue on to the November ballot, could the gloves come off post-primary? We’ll see…

[Read more…]

This is very interesting indeed [h/t].

[Alexander Hamilton] duly makes an appearance as the judges are warming up to denounce the individual mandate as constitutional overreach because it dragoons healthy young individuals into buying health insurance they do not want.

If Congress can do that, the dissenting justices write, “then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws … spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.”

Those are indeed the words of Alexander Hamilton, but, as they’re quoted here, it seems that he must have been warning against the ever-present tyranny of the federal government. But that was not what he was saying.

…

The relevant clauses of the Constitution, Hamilton wrote, had been “the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation…” He castigated his political opponents who had criticized the powers the Constitution gave to the federal government “… in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.”

Hamilton did not decry the federal government as a constitutional Godzilla. He denounced the Anti-Federalists for their distortions and lies.

I don’t really know what to make of that. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe someone who is can help me out. It seems like the argument Ian is making is that the justices wanted to overturn the act so they turned to some dubious history. Still, shouldn’t some clerk have verified what the quote meant before it got to the opinion?