HorsesAss.Org

I really dig the initiative by mayors across the country to support marriage equality (h/t). It pushes the issue forward and while it’s mostly symbolism, that’s all that they can do. Still, when I checked out the Washington entries on the list, I was a little disappointed.

Timothy Leavitt – Vancouver, WA
Mike McGinn – Seattle, WA
Marilyn Strickland – Tacoma, WA
Ava Frisinger – Issaquah, WA

That’s it. McGinn and Strickland are gimmies. I’m glad they signed on but it would be much more surprising if they didn’t than if they did, just based on the cities. But Everett isn’t on the list. No Olympia or Bellingham. No Bellevue and only one suburban King County city. No Spokane or any Eastern Washington cities.

Of course, gay people (and their allies) live outside those 4 cities. They live in Eastern Washington. I don’t know what the outreach there was to the mayors not on the list, but there’s more work to do.

In case you haven’t heard, SOPA and PIPA are dead:

SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his committee won’t take up the bill as planned next month — and that he’d have to “wait until there is wider agreement on a solution” before moving forward.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said he was calling off a cloture vote on PIPA he’d scheduled for Tuesday.

…or at least delayed:

Reid tried to put on a brave face, saying in a statement that he was optimistic that progress could be made in the coming weeks.

Memo to Harry Reid:

What the fuck?!?

– Are y’all digging yourselves out of the snow? I’m not generally a fan of Art Thiel, but I think this piece on Seattle snow driving is mostly right. But there are still some idiots who don’t know how to drive in snow.

– 6 years of tax returns seems like a plan for Mitt.

– Looks like we’re going to have a plastic bag ban for really. Get your canvas bags by July.

– This was my favorite SOPA protest (no offense to us).

– Dana Milbank gets it wrong on abortion and when the great recession started.

– Whoopsadoodle, Seattle Times.

– Emmett has a cautionary tale about the Hotel Olympia.

That’s right. There is another GOP primary debate tonight. This one is sponsored by CNN.

You might say that today was a really, really lousy day for Mitt Romney. First, he is dramatically slipping in the SC primary polls to Newt Gingrich. For the past week, Romney has led Gingrich in every SC primary poll. Just yesterday Romney was leading Gingrich 33% to 23% in a CNN/Time poll—the only poll for that race. Today there are five new polls in the race: A Marist poll for NBC has Romney leading 34% to 24%; a Politico poll has Romney up 37% to 30%; Rasmussen has Gingrich leading 33% to 31%; an Insider Advantage poll has Gingrich leading 32% to 29%, and a PPP poll has the Newtster leading the Mittster by a whopping 34% to 28%.

You might say the SC primary is very suddenly a toss-up. (I know the coverage of it has sometimes made me want to toss-up, but that’s different.)

Mitt also had a bad day because Rick Perry surrendered (“you won’t have Rick Perry to kick around anymore”) and Perry endorsed the Newster.

Finally…We learned today that Mitt really, probably, kind-a lost the Iowa caucus to Rick Santorum. The blow is only psychological, as there were no delegates directly at stake. Still….

What saved the day for Romney, however, is the ABC News with Marianne Gingrich (the second of Newt’s wife collection) in which she claims Newt asked her to make theirs an open marriage:

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

With that, we enter the last debate before a pivotal SC primary. Will Mitt finally debate like he is fighting for his life? Will Newt go for more kills against Mitt? Will Ron Paul get to say anything? Will Santorum go after Mitt, the rich boy with a sense of entitlement, or will he go after Newt the fornicator?

Folks…it’s Popcorn Time!

I’ll be providing comments as I can. However, my power is flickering and my UPS is dead. Oh, joy.
[Read more…]

Senate Bill 6239 would legalize same-sex marriage in Washngton state. The bill was recently introduced with 23 sponsoring senators. It needs 25 votes to pass.

Today it just got one vote closer to passage (via KIRO):

Sen. Jim Kastama of Puyallup announced his decision Thursday, becoming the 24th senator to commit their vote to the measure. The chamber now needs to just one more yes vote from a group of a half-dozen uncommitted votes that remain.

Earlier today, the Washington State Catholic Conference came out against same-sex marriage. The reason they give is laughable:

This same law also prohibits marriage to close-blood relations, a clear indication that the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest.

Horseshit.

What the bill actually does (see Section 3) is modify the incest laws by striking phrases like “husband and wife” and replacing them with “spouses”. For example:

When the ((husband and wife)) spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins…

and

It is unlawful for any ((man to marry his father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son)) person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

Update: I misinterpreted what was being claimed, and have marked up what follows:

Clearly, what the bill does is just the opposite of what the Washington State Catholic Conference claims. Rather than adding proscriptions against incest that may result in inbred children, the law modifies to modify extant incest laws to make them apply to same-sex marriages as well.

But do the laws on the book actually refer only to relationships that are for procreation? I don’t think so. The incest laws apply equally to incestuous marriages in which one partner is sterile or in which the female partner is of a post-reproductive age. If a brother and sister marriage is a “moral shock,” is it any less of a shock to learn that he had had a vasectomy?

What about a post-menopausal mother marrying her son or grandson? Remember the priest in Harold and Maude? “I would be remiss in my duty, if I did not tell you, that the idea of… intercourse – your firm, young… body… comingling with… withered flesh… sagging breasts… flabby b-b-buttocks… makes me want… to vomit.”

Shocking? Yes. About procreation? no.

Clearly, there is something about our laws against incest that goes beyond mere inbreeding avoidance.

What a bunch of lying uptight assholes!

This David Brooks column has been making the rounds for this thing he said.

I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.

I don’t know when he started covering politics, but his sentiment would have been true since at least Nixon and probably further back. This, as I say, has been well covered in the blogs the last few days. But what struck me most when reading it was this:

The other pleasure of covering campaigns is getting to play American Idol judge, evaluating the political performances.

Look, I’m someone who tries to make politics fun. And on the one hand, if that’s what you like about politics, well fine.

But on the other hand, go fuck yourself David Brooks. How in God’s name can anyone find pleasure in judging — what — the theater aspects of stump speeches and town halls? To actually get pleasure from complaining that George HW Bush looked at his watch, or that Al Gore sighed, or that Kerry was stilted, or Hillary Clinton whatever the press made up about her crying before NH?

That’s a pleasure? Pleasure. Not a chore. Not something you feel you should do to give voters an insight into whatever made up bullshit about why that’s more important to cover than actual issues. A pleasure. Like good sex or good food? The most awful, the shittiest what-the-fuck-are-they-doingist part of political coverage brings David Brooks pleasure? I guess what I’m saying is it’s bad enough when journalists do this sort of coverage, but can’t they at least pretend it’s their job, and not say how fun it is.

I mean I always thought it was laziness: It’s easier to say this or that candidate talks funny (or elegantly) than to report on what foreign policy will look like if they’re president. But to say it’s pleasurable is even worse.

It was one hell of a day to be in purgatory. Everything closed in western Washington, there was white stuff everywhere, the National Organization for Marriage threatens to primary some of Washington’s GOP Senators, the Obama administration announced they would reject the Keystone pipeline (for now), the House teabaggers are up to their bullshit again, the DCCC added Washington’s 1st and 10th CD to their list of 18 Red-to-Blue program, Kodak files for bankrupcy, and one of Newt’s ex-wives taped an interview that will be damning.

And all that time, HA was black.

Was it worth it?

Yes:

Members of the Senate are rushing for the exits in the wake of the Internet’s unprecedented protest of the Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least 13 members of the upper chamber announced their opposition on Wednesday. In a particularly severe blow for Hollywood, at least five of the newly-opposed Senators were previously co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act. (Update: since we ran this story, the tally is up to 18 Senators, of which seven are former co-sponsors. See below.)

Welcome back.

And let’s hope we never have to do that again!

It’s Tuesday, and that means it’s time for another evening of politics under the influence. Lot-o-stuff to discuss…the fourth consecutive poll showing McKenna leading Inslee (an analysis is forthcoming), the Walker recall signature drive, the Washington legislative session, the big storm tomorrow—either snow storm or internet brown-out shit-storm, your choice—and, of course, the Republican reality show….

Please join us this evening at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally. We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but a few folks show up earlier for a quiet dinner.

And now a word from our sponsor:

Can’t make it tonight? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally meets every Tuesday night, and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday.

With 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

On NPR’s Morning Edition today, there was piece about the recall drive against Gov. Scott Walker (R-WAI). Today was the deadline for turning in at least 540,208 signatures to force a recall election. There was speculation that a much larger number would be turned in. In response, Walker said (my emphasis):

“The optimist in me looks at that and says, ‘the overwhelming majority of the people in the state chose not to sign that and I earned the trust of the majority the last time.’ My hope is I will earn their trust again.”

This afternoon the Wisconsin State Journal writes:

Democrats and organizers filed petitions Tuesday afternoon with more than a million signatures as they sought to force a recall election against Gov. Scott Walker – a massive number that seems to cement a historic recall election against him for later this year.

Holy shit! Over a million signatures?!?

In the 2010 election, Walker got 1,128,941 votes, and his opponent, Mayor Tom Barrett (D-Milwaukee), got 1,004,303 votes. That is a total of 2,133,244 votes. So, the signature drive may well have collected signatures from a majority of the voters in the state.

Let’s put this into context. Suppose there are exactly one million and one signatures. Then it means the signatures amounted to 46.9% of the 2010 vote total. That’s huge.

In the 2003 California gubernatorial recall drive, organizers turned in 1.6 million signatures (of which 1,356,408 were valid). There were 7,738,821 votes in that election. So, that recall drive turned in signatures that amounted to only 20.7% of the 2003 vote total.

There are differences between Wisconsin and California in the recall process. Wisconsin requires a minimum of 25% of the number of votes cast in the previous election to California’s 12%. And there are different laws about signing petitions. Still, 46.9% is pretty fucking impressive.

In addition to the Walker recall, a sufficient number of signatures was returned to force recall elections for Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R), and four Republican state Senators (Fitzgerald, Galloway, Moulton and Wanggaard).

– Mittopoly

– I’ve said it before, but the HA servers ate that thread, so I’ll say it again. For goodness sake, you should really read Melissa McEwan’s primary updates.

– Micro-apartments

– The school closure list.

– Mark your calendars, Chocolate for Choice is March 15.

– Soldier Beetles aren’t a plague.

– The Golden Rule is now bad. I can’t keep up.

Maybe we were all spoiled by the 2008 primary where Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and others had detailed policies on health care that they regularly defended. They had different plans for getting out of Iraq and other foreign policy positions. They differed on how to fix the over 4 dollar gas. In short, whatever silly nonsense distracted us throughout the campaign, the issues got discussed and hashed out in a meaningful way. I could tell people that even though I liked Clinton generally, I preferred Obama’s timetable in Iraq, etc.

Compared to the 2012 GOP contest, holy cow. I don’t know any of Romney’s plans. Well, that’s not entirely true: I know he put out a 523 (approximately, I didn’t look it up) point plan to fix the economy, but I can’t remember the last time he’s had to defend it, let alone speak intelligently about it. And I don’t know what’s in it. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so: I’ve listened to several debates and read countless articles and blog posts about the campaign, so it isn’t like I’m uninformed.

And I haven’t heard any of the other candidates fill in the void. Newt Gingrich’s big plan seems to be to mine the Moon (a plan I’m fine with, but I don’t think it’s the easiest thing in space to get back to Earth once it’s mined) and he gets billed as their idea person. Huntsman was known (to the extent he was known for anything) for not thinking global warming was bunk, but he didn’t have a plan to fix it so far as I can tell. Perry is proud of Jesus, or something. No one really debated what it means to be a Republican or even basic policy other than Paul.

I’m not sure why that’s the case. Maybe an anti-incumbency mood in the Republican Party has pushed the candidates to explain why they hate Obama more than to explain their own policies. I mean we had a pretty anti-incumbent mood in 2008, but we knew he’d be out of the White House no matter what, so we could focus on issues a bit more. Maybe it’s the Romney inevitability, but Clinton’s health plan came out when she was still perceived in many circles to be inevitable. Maybe Democratic voters actually care about issues more than the Republicans. I don’t know, but after today’s 100,005th (approximately, I didn’t look it up) GOP debate, I still don’t know much about what kind of president Romney, or the other people running for the office would be or what policies they’re pushing.

There is supposed to be a Republican Primary debate starting at 6PM local. I haven’t got the streaming to work yet. I post what I can, when I can.

6:24: Okay…here is a working live stream.”

6:26: Santorum is all over Mitt right now…asking about whether felons who have served their time should get their voting rights back. “No,” says Mitt.

6:28: Mitt comes out against superPACs.

6:29: I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but things are a bit feisty. I tuned in while Santorum was attacking Mitt because a superPAC attacked him for voting to restore felon rights. Sounds like I missed some fireworks over Bain Capital.

6:36: Mitt is asked about flip-flopping and launches into a canned stump speech. Then the feed locks up.

6:39: I get tuned back in with Perry on a “war on religion rant.” Something about “sexually trafficing”

6:42: Newt speaks! “Unemployment should be tied to a job requirement.” Doh!

6:48: Again my feed cuts out and when I come back Ron Paul has, apparently, gone from making some point to descended into babbling mode.

6:50: Ron Paul wants 0 taxes for all..”just like we had until 1913.”

6:51: Did Mitt just agree to release his taxes in April?!?

6:54: Juan Williams as Santorum if he things there should be programs to help raise African Americans out of poverty. Santorum’s answer: “Work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.” Yeah…sure. Just let know the magic formula and have ’em click their heels three times….

6:57: Ron Paul points out that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with him on the drug war and the war wars. Maybe they would agree on a couple of issues, but the paths to get there are very different.

6:59: Newt mentions doughnuts…and my dinner is ready, so I’m going to go eat. Pretty fluffy debate so far….

7:14: I’m back…and Ron Paul is in an anti-war rant…again.

7:15: Mitt is all about killing!

7:15: Mitt claims that Obama is negotiating with terrorists…you know, like he did with Osama bin Laden.

7:16: Mitt seems to forget (or, perhaps, never knew) that the Taliban isn’t al Qaeda.

7:17: Shorter Santorum: Obama caused the Syrian unrest by coming into office and opening up a U.S. embassy there.

7:19: Debate moderator asks a question of Rick Perry that paints Turkey as an enemy of the U.S. Perry, “we need to send a message to Iran, and Syria, and Turkey…” Holy shit, is Perry an idiot!

7:21: Perry: “When the Department of Defense Secretary….”

7:23: Ron Paul gives Mitt a lesson about the difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

7:23: Mitt claims our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Really?

7:26: Listening to the Mittster, Santorum, and Paul on the defense authorization bill (exp. detention of U.S. citizens), Santorum ends up the moderate, Mitt the extremist. And Ron Paul is the guy who reached so far to the right that he ends up on the left.

7:32: Gingrich begins an answer: “It is, as a historian, a fact based model….”

7:36: Mitt and Santorum have gotten so practiced at their stump speeches, that they can spit them out much faster than I can even track ’em.

7:39: Gingrich manages to point out in two consecutive answers that he balanced the federal budget four times.

7:40: Mitt says his Social Security plan is better because it doesn’t suffer the problem that Gingrich’s does: “Fiscal insanity.”

7:46: Mitt claims that he believes that Obama is trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. Really? How?

7:47: Mitt has been hunting for either elk or moose since 2008.

7:48: Santorum suggests that if there were no gun manufacturers in the U.S., our second amendment rights would, “de facto be gone.”

7:51: First Santorum was asking Mitt to “coordinate” with his PAC, now Newt Gingrich is asking him to “coordinate.” Mitt, in fact, spanks Newt by making him agree that calling up the PAC would be illegal.

7:54: Citizen’s United takes a bite out of the G.O.P. field: Mitt, “We all would like to see superPACs disappear, to tell the truth.”

7:57: The debate ends. I missed about 1/3 of the debate, but from what I see, Mitt wins yet again. He exits without a scratch. The post-debate pundits are talking about what an exciting debate it was, with so much “substance”. Not so much. The questions were about 50% fluff, and about 80% of all answers were candidates saying a sentence or two just to lead into a canned stump speech.

— Day of service honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

— Seattle marches in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

— Obama on MLK Day: It’s about service to others.

— January is usually the month I call my family in Wisconsin and complain about having to mow the lawn. This morning I woke up to a freakin’ Winter Wonder Land! Had to shovel the driveway!! Well…how about that forecast: five to eleven more inches by Wednesday!!!

— Speaking of Wisconsin, tomorrow is the day signatures are turned in for the Scott Walker recall drive.

— Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press/Northwest looks at House Bill 2500 that limits contributions for initiatives.

— You won’t have Jon Huntsman to kick around anymore.

— “Pro-life” candidate Rick Santorum: “…scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.”