HorsesAss.Org

Despite the amount of inadvertent entertainment value he provides for this site, I haven’t been very familiar with the work of Ted Van Dyk. But in looking around at various items related to the new law in Arizona, I came across his column from yesterday in Crosscut.

In providing some context for why the law has enjoyed widespread popularity, Van Dyk writes:

The middle-sized central Arizona city, where I spend time, until recently was best known for its small colleges, farming, and ranching. It is a conservative place but populated as well by California and Midwest retirees drawn to the city’s natural setting and authentic old neighborhoods with Victorian homes. In recent years, however, it has been flooded by inflows of illegal Latinos far different from the family- and church-oriented, hard working Latinos familiar to Arizonans over many decades. Violent crime, drug production and trafficking, burglaries, and road accidents have skyrocketed. Burdens (and costs) also have mushroomed for local law enforcement, social service, and education agencies. Citizens no longer take casual night strolls they once did.

The home I share there with my life partner has been shaken twice in recent months by automobiles careening at high speed into its yard, both times driven by illegals high on drugs (who both fled the scene on foot, to be apprehended later). The drivers had no insurance and promptly disappeared, making restitution for property damage impossible.

Down the street, in this traditional neighborhood, a family residence became a notorious drug-distribution point, with autos driving through to make pickups, night and day. Couriers on bikes (Latinos, as it happens) made drug deliveries throughout the city. Law enforcement recently was able to stop the operation, after several years. But it was only one of many in the city.

The deterioration of Phoenix is not merely anecdotal. The amount of drug cartel activity and kidnappings has gone way up in recent years. But as Dave Neiwert points out here, this is a drug prohibition problem, not an illegal immigration problem. Going after illegal immigrants will do absolutely nothing to address what many Arizonans see as the justification for their new law.

The escalation in the violence has been a result of a number of factors. As I’ve written about previously, the strength of Mexico’s drug cartels was a result of our relative success in cracking down on Colombian cartels. In addition, the border crackdowns since 9/11 have forced those cartels to move more of their operations into the United States, especially by growing marijuana in public lands within America instead of trying to smuggle it across the border. Third, the nationwide efforts to restrict sales of over-the-counter cold medicines – making it much harder to cook up large quantities of methamphetamines – has shifted that trade from being small and local to being a more high-scale operation that makes its way from Mexico through the southwest.

All of these things have made Phoenix, which sits in an ideal location near the Mexican border, a major transit and operation point for Mexican-based drug distribution networks. This is wholly separate from the reality of the vast majority of illegal laborers within the United States, most of whom are still the “church-oriented, hardworking Latinos” that Van Dyk fondly remembers. He probably doesn’t see that so much now that the growing anti-immigration paranoia has painted targets on their backs.

Not surprisingly, none of this history shows up in Van Dyk’s column, despite the fact that it’s the reason for why there’s now so much crime there. Instead, what’s left unchallenged is the incorrect assumption that all of these bad things are simply the result of people coming here illegally to work. In reality, the cause and effect is reversed. Drug prohibition and the empowering of the cartels over the past 20 years is what has created the need for so many people in Mexico to seek low-wage employment in the United States. And now that the violence and economic devastation is starting to follow them across the border, we’re blaming them and continuing to ignore the real villain.

I don’t think I need to add anything to Jon’s sentiments from earlier this week. There’s little to no distinction between the actions of those behind the Arizona law and the kinds of things that real fascists were doing in the beginning of their rises to power. And the attempts to misdirect blame for the failures of drug prohibition onto some of the individuals who’ve been most negatively affected by it is appalling.

Of course, this isn’t a criticism of Ted Van Dyk. In his column, he recognizes the potential grave injustices that this law tries to normalize. But there’s a separate criticism that needs to be made. And it’s to all of those in the media who continue to discuss the topic of illegal immigration without even mentioning the central role that drug prohibition plays in it. Without that context, we will continue to remain angry at the wrong people and will continue to steer ourselves towards that more dangerous world where large classes of our fellow citizens lose the presumption of innocence that should be a right to us all.

Guess I shoulda posted this soon but there’s a May Day march today, rallying in support of humane immigration reform. It starts at the Judkins Park Playfield at noon, and marches to Memorial Stadium. Come show your outrage at Arizona’s anti-American new immigration law, and to demand that Congress take up the issue.

UPDATE:
A good suggestion from comment thread. Sign the petition urging the City of Seattle to boycott Arizona.

– Today is the Global Marijuana Liberation March, another great day to go out and sign the petition for I-1068. Ironically, today is also the day for a large pro-immigration reform march downtown as well. I say ironically because ending marijuana prohibition might do more than anything else to reduce the number of people fleeing Mexico’s tattered economy and violent war against the cartels in order to seek employment in the United States.

– A group called Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is taking the lead in putting out absurd arguments in favor of maintaining prohibition.

– Tom Schaller writes about why the Arizona immigration law remains popular, despite the scary reality of what it does and the clear parallels to other police states throughout history. Liliana Segura at Alternet gives the law enforcement perspective on why the law will end up undermining the safety of Arizonans, rather than improving it.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anybody suggest that King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn is gay, but if I had a closet like that, I’m not sure I’d ever come out of it. Hell, I knew people in New York City who rented studio apartments smaller than Dunn’s walk-in closet. And this is just Dunn’s half of a matching his-and-hers set.

Look at all those shoes and hats. Who knew Dunn was such a snappy dresser? And look how neatly his wardrobe is folded, stacked and hung. Huh. Maybe he is gay?

Yup, Dunn’s $1.6 million, 6,900 SQFT Maple Valley McMansion is on the market, and the online listing gives us a rare peek into the modest lifestyle of this humble public servant. Like the 1,390 SQFT five-car garage, the “dream kitchen,” the “grand entry,” and of course the master suite featuring a gas fireplace, hot tub and sauna.

And after a hard day of caucusing, it’s good to know that Dunn can come home, kick off his shoes and veg out in front of the TV just like the average American he is:

Only the best for our elected officials, that’s what I always say. And of course, since Dunn has spent most of his career on a government payroll, you can be damn sure he earned by the sweat of his brow every dime that paid for his humble abode.

Oh, and speaking of closets, please enjoy a video tour of Dunn’s house, as what sure does sound like the Seattle Men’s Chorus serenades you to the tune of the Beatles’ The Long and Winding Roading… I assume a reference to the Dunn Estate’s immense driveway:

I don’t know that the Dems have been trying to scare Dino Rossi out of a U.S. Senate bid, but it is increasingly looking like Rob McKenna may have successfully scared Rossi into it. That’s my take, at least.

About a month or so ago when I started lasering back in on Rossi, I was pretty much alone in my conclusion that Rossi was just toying with the NRSC’s attentions. Most of the Dems I spoke with at the state and national level seemed pretty convinced that Rossi was gonna jump into the race, hence, I assumed, the recent aerial bombardment.

But I looked at the stark reality of such a late bid against such a formidable incumbent, at Rossi’s own indisputable gubernatorial ambitions, and McKenna’s out-of-character political misstep in joining the AG lawsuit against health care reform, and concluded that Rossi was both more focused on the governor’s mansion, and too smart to sacrifice those dreams for the sake of John Cornyn’s honor.

Oddly, it’s increasingly looking like I may have been wrong, even as Rossi’s slim chances of victory diminish with each day he drags out this process.

So if Rossi does challenge Sen. Patty Murray, here’s how I think it will have played out. Rossi was planning a 2012 gubernatorial bid, and had been none too subtle in dropping hints of his intentions to friends and political associates. This prompted McKenna to make a calculated, preemptive embrace of the teabagger wing of the party, thus solidifying his position in advance of a primary challenge. At the same time, the NRSC, no doubt with the encouragement of the WSRP under McKenna-flacky Luke Esser, redoubled its overtures to Rossi, offering an enticing outlet for his narcissism. (And to be fair, all politicians are narcissists.)

Rossi, in the face of McKenna muscle and NRSC flattery, now looks like he’s leaning toward a senate run.

Would the DSCC and the state Dems like to scare Rossi out of running? Sure. Why wouldn’t they want a cakewalk for Murray? But I haven’t spoken to a single person in the know who agreed with my earlier assessment, so it seems pretty damn clear that they’re just taking advantage of Rossi’s prolonged indecision process to soften him up in advance of an all out assault.

As for me, I’m not one to hide my motivations. I don’t want Rossi to run for the Senate, not because I fear for Murray (though a Rossi challenge certainly wouldn’t be a cakewalk), but because I desperately want him to run for governor. Quite frankly, Rossi would give McKenna fits, costing him millions of dollars and much of his faux-moderate image in a primary battle. And should Rossi make it to November — a not surprising scenario — I believe he’d offer an easier matchup against the inevitable Democratic nominee, Jay Inslee.

So this is one situation, in my absolutely honest opinion, in which my interests and Rossi’s self-interest are one and the same, for I genuinely believe that a Rossi senate bid would be political suicide. Good for the Party, as they need a sacrificial lamb to tie up Murray’s resources, but the likely end of Rossi’s star-crossed political career. I mean, how many statewide races is he going to lose before his backers stop shoveling money down that hole? McKenna on the other hand, he’s a winner, and we all know that given a clear choice, the Republican powers that be are going to coalesce around the candidate they believe gives them the best chance of winning the governor’s mansion in 2012, whatever promises are being made to Rossi now.

Sure, he’d make it a much tougher race for Murray than any of the political nobodies she currently faces, and he’d end up forcing Dems to spend money in Washington that is needed elsewhere. But the only real political strengths Rossi has are name ID and favorable opinion polls… and, well, those haven’t worked out too well for him in the past against a much less daunting and much less popular Democratic opponent.

So Dino, take it for what it’s worth, by my free advice to you is that you have a much better chance of being governor than you do of being a senator. But either way, I’m counting on you to provide me with plenty of blog fodder.

He proposes more drilling offshore and then the Gulf of Mexico is hit by an oil disaster. Maybe tri-strangulation has limits.

Try that shit in the Pacific Northwest, motherfucker. God this party sucks.

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.