HorsesAss.Org

I tuned in to NPR’s To the Point this morning, just in time to hear Republican framing guru Frank Luntz insist that liberal political rhetoric has been just as violent and inflammatory as that on the right. And to prove his point, Luntz referenced former Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson’s infamous health care speech, in which he provocatively proclaimed:

“If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”

Uh-huh. As I tweeted back at Luntz a few minutes later: “No, saying your opponents want to kill you is not as inflammatory as saying you want to kill your opponents.” So far, Luntz has yet to reply.

Luntz is no idiot. In fact, he’s probably the best there is at what he does. So the fact that Luntz is out there pushing the bullshit frame that liberal rhetoric has been just as violent and inflammatory as right-wing rhetoric, pretty much establishes this frame as the default posture for the Republican Party as a whole, and their surrogates. No apologies, no regrets.

So the GOP establishment not only defends its violent rhetoric, apparently, they think it’s a winning strategy.

[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.]

04/25/2008: Goldy’s Adventures in Muniland

I crashed the Municipal League’s 2008 Civic Awards last night at the Olympic Sculpture Park, where my friend and colleague David Postman was being honored for “Governmental News Reporting of the Year.” Knowing that Postman’s bosses at the Seattle Times had forbade him from accepting the award in person so as not to compromise his impartiality—and unencumbered by these (or any) ethical burdens of my own—I realized that there must be an unused name tag at the registration table with at least half my name on it… and sure enough I managed to sign in as Postman, no questions asked.

His “Honoree” name tag firmly pinned to my lapel and a surfeit of free drink tickets in hand, I strolled into the PACCAR Pavilion determined to do Postman proud by mingling with our city’s power elite on his behalf. As it turned out, I would need the drink tickets.

I don’t do nearly enough straight satire here on HA, but this was certainly one of my best. Read the whole thing.

Sarah Palin murdered my daughter and used her blood in one of her bizarre religious rituals. There… I said it.

Once again the Seattle Times editorial board is arguing for moving the ballot deadline from postmarked by election day to received by election day, and once again they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

Reed’s other proposal is a perennial, because lawmakers are immune to change. Ballots in Washington take forever and a Sunday to tally because the state foolishly allows voters to postmark them by Election Day. A better idea is to have ballots received by Election Day. Then Washington can join the rest of the country reporting useful results that week.

Yeah, well, except, as I’ve explained again and again, the bottleneck is not the ballot deadline, but rather the ballot processing capacity:

This bottleneck is perhaps best illustrated by comparing the 641,658 ballots King County reported tallied by the close of business Monday, to the 619,485 mail-in ballots it had received by the time the polls closed last Tuesday. As you can see, it took nearly an entire week for King to finally catch up with its election night backlog, and to start counting those ballots that arrived thereafter. And the county still estimates about 120,000 ballots remaining, not much less than the 147,616 ballots that arrived last Wednesday, 11/3, just a day after the election.

With a peak processing capacity of little more than 75,000 ballots a day, the 373,941 ballots King County tallied on Tuesday night barely exceeded the 349,670 ballots it had received as of the Friday before the election. Indeed, by the time the elections center opened its doors Monday morning, its staff had already fallen hopelessly behind.

With 98% of valid ballots arriving by the day after election day, the ballot deadline simply cannot be the cause of our week-plus-long vote-counting vigils. It’s simple math. Indeed, the only way to dramatically speed up ballot counting is to dramatically expand ballot processing capacity. But the Times won’t advocate for that, because that costs money.

So for the Times to attack lawmakers as “foolish” for refusing to make a change that cannot achieve the promised result, is foolish in itself.

Ya think anybody on the Seattle Times editorial board sees the hypocrisy in this?

ON Monday, the state Senate changed one of its long-standing rules in a way that suggests seriousness about the state budget. It repealed a rule that once a budget was voted on to the Senate floor, a 60 percent vote was required to amend it. For the first time since 1915, a floor amendment can be done on a simple majority.

So… a supermajority requirement to amend the budget on the Senate floor is bad, while a supermajority requirement to raise taxes or eliminate exemptions is good. And because…?

Well, I suppose because, in the Times’ ed board’s mind, eliminating the former while retaining the latter makes it easier to use our current revenue deficit as an opportunity to punish state employees. And barring any further explication from the Times on their glaring hypocrisy, I’ll just have to go with that.

[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.]

09/02/2005: FEMA director Mike Brown, a “total fucking disaster”

Yes, that’s right… the man responsible for directing federal relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sharpened his emergency management skills as the “Judges and Stewards Commissioner” for the International Arabian Horses Association… a position from which he was forced to resign in the face of mounting litigation and financial disarray.

Perhaps no post anywhere better demonstrates the potentially powerful nexus between local and national blogs than my little expose on “Brownie.” An HA reader and horse enthusiast, distraught over the disastrous relief efforts in New Orleans, mention’s Browns disastrous tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association, and the story quickly moves from HA to Daily Kos to Talking Points Memo, and then throughout the media at large. Within 24 hours Brown became a symbol of Bush administration cronyism, and a few days later he’s forced to step down.

No doubt my most influential post. But don’t just take my word for it…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9JXd8bGGh8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUXQmT-1M64[/youtube]

When driving down a slick, snow covered hill, and the car in front of you is only going a little over 20 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, the correct procedure is not to relentlessly tailgate the slow moving car, flashing your headlights and honking your horn in an effort to get them to speed up or pull over. Yes, I understand your four-wheel-drive SUV with its oversized wheels could probably safely go 10 or 15 MPH faster, but that doesn’t mean you have the God-given right to.

Please join us tonight for and evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier and join some folks for dinner around 7:00 pm.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 237 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZpi0JqqDIw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUpkPTcqPY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Cars emit CO2. CO2 causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme weather events. Extreme weather event takes out cars.

It’s a circle of life kinda thing.

Huh. Looks like the Seattle Times editorial board pretty much picked up and repeated my central argument against Gov. Gregoire’s “Puget Sound Ferry District” proposal… though not exactly in the same words:

This proposal assumes that Washington residents who live nearer an expensive part of the highway system should pay more of the cost, not counting user fees, than people who live farther away.

If that is reasonable, should the people nearer the bridges over the Columbia River at Wenatchee and Pasco pay for them with a special property tax? Should North Bend, Cle Elum and Ellensburg be put in a special gas-tax district to support maintenance of Snoqualmie Pass? Should Spokane have a penny higher on the sales tax to support the upgrading of U.S. 395?

I would’ve used the word “fuck” a few times, and been condescending to voters in the rest of the state, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thanks.

That said, when it comes to proposing an alternative for funding the ferry system in the face of a $5 billion state budget shortfall, the Times’ editors turn instead to Alfred E. Neuman for their inspiration:

The state will not be able to do all it wants, and the ferry system will be short. That’s life — and it’s the same problem the other state agencies have.

The ferry system should fight it out for funding, the same as other state programs.

Huh. Unless the Times is proposing that agencies “fight it out for funding” in a steel cage match, and the state sell tickets, that’s not much of a solution. The editorial appears to presume that the ferry system is a necessary state service and that fares already constitute a large enough portion of its operating budget, so to just dismiss its shortfall by saying “That’s life…” well, that’s no solution at all.

I agree that the ferry district proposal is both unfair to the communities the ferries serve, and sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to erosion of broad, statewide support for all state services, but at least the Governor is making an effort to keep the ferries running. Which is more than I can say for the Times’ editorial board.

[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.]

10/17/2006: Luke Esser fucks pigs

Luke Esser is a former state senator and the current Washington State Republican Party chair, and yet Google his name, and this is perennially one of the top links you’ll find. And I couldn’t be more proud. Read the whole thing.

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.