HorsesAss.Org

Momentum is building behind efforts to pressure Major League Baseball to boycott Arizona over its un-American new immigration law, and as much as I’d love to see our Seattle Mariners take the lead in standing up for the rights of the Latino players and fans who are so important to the sport, it turns out that it is the Chicago Cubs who are in the best position to make an immediate and lasting impact.

The Cubs have been a mainstay of the Cactus League for more than half a century, since long before Arizona had pretensions of rivaling Florida for Spring training dominance. And while the number of Cactus League teams has recently surged to 15, the Cubs are still by far its biggest attraction, accounting for 22 percent of the league’s ticket sales, and injecting over $138 million annually into the Arizona economy along with an estimated 1,600 local jobs.

And yet the Cubs, at the end of their lease, and playing in the league’s most antiquated facility, are struggling to get the same kind of public/private financial commitments that have drawn a half dozen other MLB teams to Arizona over the past decade. With both the state and Mesa governments unwilling or unable to put up the money, and the other Cactus League teams roundly opposing a “Cubs Tax” to pay for a new $119 million complex, the Cubs are now being seriously wooed by a group of Naples Florida investors seeking to lure the team’s lucrative Spring training to that state’s Grapefruit League.

Which of course puts Cubs management in the perfect position to both strike a blow on behalf of social justice, while improving their own bargaining position.

And such a principled stance would be well suited to a team with 15 foreign-born players on its 40-man roster, hailing from a state where immigrants comprise 13.6% of the population, and immigrants and their children a full 26%. Illinois is now home to over 700,000 Mexican immigrants, the state’s largest immigrant group, and the obvious target of Arizona’s odious new law.

So given these circumstances, there are few teams in MLB with better reasons to voice their opposition to Arizona’s racist immigration law, and no team in a better position to do something about it.

I know there are those who object to sullying baseball with politics, but these self-proclaimed purists just don’t know their history. Baseball was at the forefront of institutionalized American apartheid in the post-Reconstruction era, and again at the forefront of desegregation 70 years later. There is no question amongst historians that Jackie Robinson’s performance on and off the field contributed significantly to the civil rights movement, and laid the groundwork for desegregation nationwide. There is also little question that the Dodgers profited handsomely from Branch Rickey’s dismantling of baseball’s color barrier.

The Chicago Cubs now have an opportunity to make history too. They are both the biggest draw in the Cactus League and the team best situated to make good on a threat to leave the state.

America’s pastime can and should take a stand against Arizona’s un-American immigration law… legislation that specifically targets both its players and its fans. And it’s time for Cubs fans to urge their team to lead the way.

Following up on yesterday’s post about floundering Cornyn recruits, hey Dino… this is the sort of top-notch talent the other Washington’s “political smart set” has lured into running this cycle. So, um, don’t let the NRSC’s attentions go to your head.

I’m just sayin’.

My, the editors at the Seattle Times are so grownup…

It will take time to produce bipartisan legislation that acknowledges America’s complicity in illegal immigration — industries from agriculture to construction to hospitality rely on an underground network of undocumented workers.

And, um, exactly what is it that persuades the Times’ editors that bipartisan legislation is even remotely possible on this issue, especially from a Republican caucus firmly committed to appealing to the worst, nativist instincts of its angry base?

I’m not saying that this isn’t a complicated issue, or that there aren’t legitimate arguments to be made from the other side of the aisle, just that there doesn’t appear to be anybody on the other side of the aisle willing to argue legitimately. Arizona is evidence of that. Bipartisanship just doesn’t produce that kind of craziness. Not in America.

And yet, for some reason, Democrats are supposed to “take time to produce bipartisan legislation.” You know, I suppose by reaching out to say, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Do we really have that much time?

As I’ve mentioned previously, my lack of posting in recent weeks has been due to a house move. My wife and I sold our 1950s style house in Maple Leaf and bought a larger and newer house in the outskirts of Renton. The primary motivations for the move were to get a home that better fit our growing family (my son just turned one) and to find a place that was quieter (for 6 years, we lived next to a rental property that had a number of late night gatherings). The latter issue became especially more difficult as the former issue became a reality. There’s nothing more infuriating than being woken up by a drunk college girl yelling “woooooooooo” outside your window at 2am when your baby is actually getting some sleep in.

We’re now nestled in a quiet cul-de-sac with a three car garage. No bus access, no ability to walk to the grocery store or the pizza place. Even with my wife so determined to leave the city behind, as the time approached, she began to think more and more about how hard it would be to let go of those niceties. Everything is a trade-off though, and you can’t go through life moping about the things you don’t have. You’ll never have everything, so it makes sense to just appreciate what you have. And despite all of the totally fucked up things I write about here – from war to corruption to our broken political culture – I don’t let that overwhelm the fact that a person in my shoes is luckier than most in this world.

That trade-off, between living in a dense walkable area and living in a spread out suburb, is one that sparks a lot of political judgments. I’ve never quite understood the passion behind those judgments. Urban vs. suburban living is a matter of personal choice. In the years previous, my desire to avoid having to drive to work outweighed just about all other factors in my choice of where to live. This time, other factors informed my choice and the outcome was completely different. As we did our house search, I became fascinated by the effect that the Growth Management Act had on the way we valued potential homes. While I don’t question the need for the GMA, it certainly made us more inclined to look at older homes with more of a yard. In the end, we still bought a house built after the GMA took effect, but we hardly looked at new construction at all, as most of them had hardly any yards at all.

The biggest change for me might also be the most politicized aspect of the trade-off. I’m now car-dependent again. Commuting across the 520 bridge to Microsoft in the early 2000s was my last straw then, and I now find myself with another notorious commute (although nowhere near as bad) – going from Renton to Bellevue. I recalled the old debates over roads and transit that occurred in years past, and I’ll soon recognize myself as someone who is the target of folks whose desire is to “get people out of their cars”, which I’d most likely do again – if there was a realistic alternative for me. But knowing that I’d end up in that boat had little effect on my valuation trade-off, and I’ve taken the bus for years. I’d imagine that few of my new neighbors would consider public transportation – even if it were available.

Other than that, I’m enjoying my new suburban paradise. I hooked up a toddler swing to the play area we inherited from the previous owners. I’ve baby-proofed my new kitchen cabinets and set up baby gates. And Sunday night, I watched from an upstairs window as what appeared to be bobcat sniffed our garbage. But I think the real fun starts when I start going door-to-door trying to get people to sign the I-1068 petition.

Here are a few of questions for Dino Rossi to ponder as he continues to consider a run for the U.S. Senate against Democratic incumbent Sen. Patty Murray: what exactly has NRSC chair John Cornyn promised you? Can Cornyn actually deliver? And if he can, will it actually help you?

Back in May of 2009, Cornyn prominently threw his weight behind Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the Sunshine State’s U.S. Senate contest, but after months of trailing Marco Rubio in the polls, and being outraised 3 to 1 in the recent quarter, Crist is widely expected to announce tomorrow that he’s leaving the GOP and launching an independent campaign. At the time of the endorsement Cornyn kvelled:

“Governor Crist is a dedicated public servant and a dynamic leader, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee will provide our full support to ensure that he is elected the next United States Senator from Florida.”

The “full support” of the NRSC, huh? Well how’s that working out for you, Charlie?

And then there’s Trey Grayson the Republican establishment pick to succeed Kentucky’s crazy Jim Bunning in the U.S. Senate. The NRSC hasn’t officially endorsed in the race, but according to Roll Call, last summer’s $500 per person fundraiser hosted by 23 GOP Senators at NRSC headquarters left little question as to Cornyn’s backing:

“The NRSC has not officially endorsed Grayson but the location of the event and the fact that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) is one of the hosts of the fundraiser is a good indication of where the committee’s loyalties lie in the race.”

Since then, ophthalmologist Rand Paul has harnessed his father Ron’s celebrity (and grassroots fundraising infrastructure) to surge into the lead, trouncing Grayson 42% to 27% in recent public opinion polls.

Yeah sure, I suppose it’s unfair to judge Cornyn’s recruitment savvy simply on the basis of Crist’s and Grayson’s electoral travails, but NRSC recruited candidates in New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana and California are all struggling to win their primaries, while in Connecticut, hand-picked Cornyn candidate Rob Simmons isn’t doing too well either:

One of the clearest signs of Simmons’s intentions was his recent trip to Washington to see Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the aggressive leader of the National Republican Senatorial Committee – which is charged with electing Republicans to the Senate. Simmons says that Cornyn approached him about the race, not the other way around.

“He expressed interest in me as a candidate, and I told him I would give it very serious consideration, which I am doing,” Simmons said. “He reached out to me.”

Sound familiar, Dino? Well, after succumbing to Cornyn’s flattery, Simmons now finds himself dramatically outspent, and trailing fellow Republican Linda McMahon by ten points.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that should he enter the race Rossi would have much of a problem getting through our state’s top-two primary, just that NRSC promises of money and support are only that. Meanwhile, Cornyn has displayed an eye for picking busts unmatched since the Seattle Seahawks wasted a first round draft pick and $11 million on The Boz.

So yeah, no doubt it’s flattering to be recruited by Cornyn, but don’t expect his endorsement or his fundraising to do much more for you than they’ve done for Crist and Grayson.

Please 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. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by even earlier and enjoy some dinner.

Remember…if you want to drink, you may be asked to show your papers. Even if you’re white.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 354 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Even as U.S. Senate Republicans hold a unified front in filibustering financial regulatory reform — reforms Wall Street is frantically lobbying to kill — they continue to make the bizarre assertion that the Democrats fighting to pass these reforms are… wait for it… in the pocket of Wall Street!

As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid said about the GOP’s characterization of the bill as a Wall Street bailout, “This is as Orwellian as it gets.”

Not wanting to miss out on the fun, Washington State Republican Party chair Luke Esser is now criticizing Sen. Patty Murray for the half million dollars in political contributions she’s received from Wall Street over the past 18 years:

“Wall Street has taken good care of Sen. Patty Murray and today she returned the favor.”

Of course, Esser is referring to the vote Murray cast in favor of Wall Street reform… you know, the bill Wall Street opposes. Like I said, bizarre.

And as The Olympian’s Brad Shannon points out, that $514,925 Sen. Murray has received from financial industries is “less than 2 percent of the $36 million she’s received from all sources since 1989.” In fact, it’s less than 1.5 percent… exactly the kinda simple math I’m guessing Esser was hoping the press and the public wouldn’t do.

And you know what other kinda math Esser should have anticipated? The kind in which somebody adds up the total dollar value of the contributions Dino Rossi has received from the world of finance over the course of his political career… you know, like $361,882, or more than 1.9 percent of his $18 million total.

That’s right, Rossi, who we can count on to oppose Wall Street reform along with every other GOP senator, has long relied on Wall Street for a greater percentage of his campaign bankroll than Murray, who staunchly supports the very reforms Wall Street and its Republican surrogates oppose.

Oops.

(FYI, percentage wise, State Sen. Don Benton is even worse, routinely relying on the financial industry for between 12 and 20 percent of his campaign contributions.)

So when Republicans, who traditionally draw a disproportionate share of Wall Street support, work with Wall Street to kill reform legislation that Wall Street opposes, while boldly accusing Democrats of doing Wall Street’s bidding, one can only conclude that Republicans think voters are stupid.

I guess we’ll find out if they’re right or not come November.

The thing about fascists is they try to wear down the normal people. Good people with shit to do (jobs, kids, doing things that make being alive fun) grow tired of stuff like the Arizona abomination, and can start to weaken, figuring maybe if the fascists get this, they’ll calm down.

They won’t calm down, at least not until white people with R’s behind their names are completely in charge of everything, everywhere on the planet. And since that’s not going to happen, normal people have to be encouraged to beat these fascist bastards at the polls, and beat them badly.

Fuck Godwin’s Law, I’m done with that, it’s null and void. The Arizona law is fascist, and I hope to hell the DOJ is all over that miserable state government down there. Show me your papers, I’ll show you my papers. Here it is 2010 and someone is probably going to have to organize freedom rides. They’ve even got that fascist sheriff who would easily fall for the bait.

Funny thing about trying to uncork resentments as a political strategy: it can lead to unpredictable outcomes. In the right wing lizard brain, we’re all hippies who won’t stand up for anything, because the right wing lizard brain defines us as incapable of having true American values.

That’s why their heads exploded, and continue to explode, because we pointed out the debased assault on American values perpetrated by the Cheney-Bush administration. To them it was nothing more than an insult, no matter how many facts were presented, and they use it as a justification for whatever insults they care to issue to us, or more importantly, the Constitution. Then they parade around in costumes proclaiming their love of a document they don’t even understand.

They’ve always made that mistake, of course. And they’ve always lost, from Appomattox to Selma, but not without causing a whole lot of needless suffering. It’s their cultural heritage. USA! USA! USA!

A staunch civil libertarian myself, I’ve always thought of American libertarianism, taken to the extreme, as simplistic, silly and kinda stupid. That said, there are a lot of libertarians who I respect for their intellectual and ideological consistency. You know, even if they’re wrong.

That’s sorta the way I felt about the Seattle Times’ Bruce Ramsey… until now:

Maybe we need a national ID card which everyone would need to show before getting a job, opening a bank account or enrolling a child in school. I don’t like it, but there it is. I lived in Hong Kong for 3 years, and I had to carry such a card there at all times. It’s no different than carrying a driver’s license, or having a government license plate on your car. You get used to it.

Really, Bruce? If they do it that way in Hong Kong — you know, communist China — we could do it that way here too, and folks would just “get used to it”…?

Hey, for the sake of convenience, perhaps the government should just tattoo our social security numbers on our wrists? After all, it’s no different from having a government license plate on your car. You get used to it.

Maybe Ramsey doesn’t identify himself as a libertarian, I don’t know, though his columns generally read that way. But I’ll certainly never make the mistake of characterizing him that way again.

I assume I’m not the only one who loves Charles Mudede, as I assume the folks at the The Stranger keep don’t keep him on payroll out of sheer altruism. And it’s observations like this — in regards to the above-the-fold headline “Graffiti vandals cost public millions” in today’s Seattle Times — that only makes me love Charles more:

No, this is not really a problem for the public. It is a pseudo problem; a mere masking of the true problems the public faces. If The Seattle Times were not an ideological instrument for the interests of the ruling class, it would try to alarm us with this headline: Bankers Cost Public Billions.

Speaking of which, the Times’ Sunday circulation continues to slide, down another 5.2% from last year.

Last week’s I-1077 kickoff marked an unexpected change of tactics for Tim Eyman. He not only made eye contact with me for the first time in god-knows-when, he actually chatted jovially as we shared our mutual disdain for government by jaywalking together across Yesler.

And then moments after Bill Gates Sr. ended his remarks, Tim invited the media outside, where he attempted to establish himself as our state’s most visible and vocal opponent of a middle class tax cut.

Yes, that’s right, Tim Eyman, who’s made a career out of hawking tax cuts, is positioning himself to be the voice of the opposition to an initiative that would cut taxes for 97% of households, and 90% of businesses.

Huh?

So whose side is Tim on? The overwhelming majority of businesses who would see their B&O tax eliminated? The 97% of households who would see their taxes go down? Or the 3% of households — our state’s wealthiest — who will be asked to pick up a little more of the cost of maintaining the extraordinarily high quality of life in Washington state?

I would feel a lot more confident about Washington state’s chances of successfully defending the constitutionality of our Public Records Act before the U.S. Supreme Court this week… if we had a better lawyer arguing our case. I’m just sayin’.

It’s been making the rounds, but hell, I might as well link to this post too…

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters – the black protesters – spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Actually, I have imagined it, and have often mused about the political theater of say, putting together a group of largish, black men very publicly exercising their right to open carry, or perhaps filling the back of a pickup with rifle-toting Mexican-Americans to slowly drive by a teabagger rally.

But of course, that would be wrong. That would be provocative.