HorsesAss.Org

Luke 14:26

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Family values? Discuss.

Penny Coleman in AlterNet writes about the growing awareness among Iraq and Afghanistan war vets about the efficacy of marijuana in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A recent study out of Israel confirms what many returning American soldiers are finding out on their own.

In a column in the Seattle Times today, the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer explains exactly how to appease al-Qaeda and then excoriates President Obama for not doing it:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.

This is so far beyond false, I don’t even know where to begin. Obama has not only expanded the war in Afghanistan, he’s also broadened the scope of our international fight against terrorism to Pakistan and Yemen. His approach to terrorism has been just as bellicose as his predecessor’s.

Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

What? When Abdulmutallab was arrested, he did spill the beans on the connections he had to al-Qaeda in Yemen. He didn’t need to be waterboarded or denied due process. And giving him a lawyer didn’t all-of-a-sudden cause him to clam up and refuse to cooperate.

There are a few more inaccuracies and examples of bad logic, but I want to cut to the heart of Krauthammer’s fallacy:

The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist(s).”

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

This is a distinction without a difference. In fact, it may not even be a distinction at all, considering that environmental extremism exists throughout the world. A jihadist is an extremist, just a particular flavor of extremist. And there’s no rationale for treating them – and their movement – any differently than we treat eco-terrorists or the way we treated Timothy McVeigh and his movement.

Al-Qaeda is not a single organization with a heirarchy. It’s a movement based upon extreme views about America’s power in the world. And it thrives whenever America’s actions play into certain paranoid stereotypes about us. But Krauthammer argues that we should be doing exactly the kinds of things that play into those stereotypes. It’s hard to imagine a worse way to deal with the problem of jihadism.

The root of what makes people like Abdulmuttalab into willing jihadists is a feeling of powerlessness. To overinflate the reality of their own potency is to appease that desire. In the past, we’ve dealt with Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui by trying them in criminal court, treating them just like any other criminal, and that properly squashed their desires to be seen as some special kind of threat that America needs to treat differently.

The goal of radical Islamic extremists is to have a war between the Muslim world and the United States. It’s not a rational goal by any stretch, but that’s what makes them extremists. The worst thing we can do is to convince ourselves that these small groups of nutjobs are sufficiently powerful enough to force us to change our own way of life and our own customs. But Krauthammer is arguing just that. He’s asking us to change the way we handle criminals simply because he’s as afraid of them as they want all of us to be. His attempts to overinflate their importance is nothing more than appeasing them, making them into the powerful people they aspire to be.

The Seattle Times editorial board endorses the new Seattle-Tacoma International Airport contract with Yellow Cab, for amongst other things, improving the quality of the cabs serving the airport:

To the credit of the Port and other entities working on taxi policy, cabs serving the airport are no longer grungy and filled with house pets and cookery. A big improvement.

“House pets and cookery”…?  Um… did the Times editorial board just make some sort of ethnic slur against the Sikh cabbies who dominate STITA, the taxi association that previously held the Sea-Tac contract?

I’ve been in my fair share of STITA cabs, and while I guess you could describe a few as grungy, they were no more or less so than other Seattle cabs, let alone those I was familiar with from New York and Philadelphia. And I certainly don’t remember any cabbies cooking curry in the front seat, with or without a four-legged companion.

Considering how closely the public associates STITA cabs with our region’s growing Sikh community, “house pets and cookery” just strikes me as an odd and inappropriate turn of phrase coming from the Times… the kinda rude hyperbole more at home on, say, a lowly blog, than the editorial pages of a major daily newspaper.

Not that I don’t welcome the competition.

Media Matters has more about the revelations that the Tea Party Express bus tour this summer was little more than a scam to separate fools from their money. As Glenn Beck repeatedly demonstrates, it’s pretty damn easy to do.

Oops… other Washington.

Now that the race for King County Executive is long over, it’s interesting to compare this:

[Susan] Hutchison said she solved a significant budget shortfall as chairwoman of the Seattle Symphony board of directors. “I solve problems and I fix things,” she said, “and King County needs a fix.”

With this:

The Seattle Symphony, already beset by immense challenges, including a $4 million debt and vacancies in its two top positions, still has not reached a new contract agreement with its musicians union and could potentially face a musicians strike.

No  doubt the Symphony was already in a heap of hurt when Hutchison took over as board chair, but let’s be clear, she didn’t fix crap. Indeed, the Symphony’s fortunes only deteriorated further during her tumultuous tenure. So tumultuous, that when Leslie Jackson Chihuly took over the reins from Hutchison earlier this year, normally stoic board members erupted in a loud celebratory cheer at the transfer.

The Symphony ended its recent fiscal year running a $1.2 million deficit on a budget that Hutchison approved as chairwoman. In fact, they’ve only managed to keep the lights on by dipping into their endowment, already one of the smallest in the nation for a big city symphony. That’s what’s known as eating your seed corn.

Yet, “I solve problems and fix things,” Hutchison repeated throughout the campaign, pointing to her tenure at the Symphony, a claim that largely went unchallenged in the media. Indeed, the Seattle Times editorial board even lauded Hutchison’s budgetary prowess in attempting to explain its ridiculous endorsement of her in the executive’s race.

But now that the shit has finally hit the fan, I wonder if Hutchison will continue to run on her leadership of the Symphony should she choose to challenge Sen. Patty Murray in November? And if so, I wonder if our media will continue to quietly hum along?

Dick Cheney giving advice on how to fight terrorism is like Charlie Sheen giving advice on how to save your marriage.

Back in November, I posted the following:

Remember the big push a few years back after the Terri Schiavo mess to encourage people to have a living will for such situations? If you were one of the people who did that, make sure you avoid Catholic health care institutions as they’ve been ordered by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops to ignore people’s wishes and keep patients alive regardless of the circumstance.

When I posted this, I didn’t think it was too terribly daring a thing to post about (although I certainly could have been more specific about the relevant circumstances, which are fairly rare), but for Joel Connelly of the Seattle PI, it apparently struck a nerve, as he left this comment for me:

Would you please spare us your anti-Catholic bigotry? It was disgusting during the I-2000 [sic] campaign. It is despicable now.
A simple call to Providence administrators, or the boss up at St. Joseph Hospital in Bellingham, would have given you honest material with which to work. You could have asked about living wills — in which a person’s wishes get laid out — which are strongly encouraged.
You could have asked about the provision for hospice care, available to everyone regardless of ability to pay.
Or you could have delved into what they’d do in the case of a patient wishing to exercise his/her “right” to end life.
Instead, we get an ignorant screech.
Apparently, on Horsesass.org, one form of religious prejudice is not only acceptable but encouraged.

After reading this, I was genuinely worried that the folks at Compassion and Choices might have overstated their case and that maybe I was being a little too harsh in my post. So I tried to contact a number of local Catholic hospitals via email asking if Connelly was right and that they would refuse the directive that C&C was referencing, but I got nothing back. Then I contacted Connelly directly to see if he could point me to a facility who would “give me honest material with which to work”. Oddly, when I did this, Connelly sent me the name of a hospital administrator to contact, then started walking back his claims after I posted an update to HorsesAss.

By this point, though, I was already starting to become well aware that Connelly was full of shit. In fact, the hospital administrator whose name he gave me wasn’t the only name he passed along. He also sent me the name of a hospital administrator in Canada, despite the fact that this directive was from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. Connelly apparently knew nothing about the updated directive or the legal and ethical issues involved and simply didn’t care. As far as I can tell, he just assumed that Compassion and Choices was full of it because he doesn’t like them. And he was confident enough about this blind assertion to call me a bigot over it.

Barbara Coombs Lee from Compassion and Choices, however, does know what she’s talking about and does understand the issues involved here. Her latest post details more of the legal and ethical issues behind this decree and points to this article, which quotes from someone a bit more qualified than Connelly:

Alan Meisel, founder and director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Bioethics and Health Law, wonders if Catholic hospitals could be compelled by law to respect patients’ advance directives, regardless of the Church’s moral stance. He says it is not clear whether the legally binding power of an advance directive would outweigh the Church’s right to administer medicine in accordance with its beliefs.

…

“[If] the hospital seeks to impose a treatment on a patient which that person does not want, to impose that treatment is battery,” he says,but adds a caveat: “One could say since you’ve admitted yourself to a Catholic hospital, that’s a form of consent.

“If I were a patient with a directive,” he continues, “I would probably add to it that I didn’t want to be taken to a Catholic hospital.”

I’m sure Joel Connelly will get his typewriter out now and send Meisel a little note informing him that he needs to spare us all his anti-Catholic bigotry.

UPDATE: In somewhat related news, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that legalizes death with dignity in that state.

Huh.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh remains hospitalized in Hawaii after experiencing chest pains similar to a heart attack.

Which I suppose means Limbaugh must have something similar to a heart. Who knew?

A few drug war items of note:

– Yesterday, KUOW’s The Conversation took on the topic of marijuana legalization. State Representative Roger Goodman was a guest, as well as State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Alliance, and Dave Rodriguez of the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas office. As for Goodman’s bill to legalize marijuana in Washington state, Jamie Pederson has also signed on as a co-sponsor.

– Steve Elliott looks into how willing media outlets are to distort scientific studies in order to paint a picture that marijuana is far more dangerous than it really is.

– I finished up indexing the second document dump from the Department of Corrections regarding their attempts to nullify the medical marijuana law for people on probation. I put together a thorough timeline from the roughly 1300 pages of released documents of what was being discussed and acted on within the DOC with regards to medical marijuana patients under their supervision and posted it here. I’ll likely be writing more about this again later, but this controversial court decision out of California really emphasizes how heated a battle this has become throughout every state where medical marijuana is now legal, and how frustrated many people within the criminal justice system are becoming when dealing with this shift away from the “tough on drugs” mentality. It’s forcing them to rethink the role they play in keeping us safe and to rethink the relationship between drugs and crime, which we’ve been getting wrong for as long as I’ve been alive.

– The Wall Street Journal writes about how ending prohibition is the only way to stop the violence in Mexico.

And much to the disappointment of some of my trolls, it isn’t me in trouble with the feds.

I just received an email from Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest serving Senator in U.S. history.

Of course, a lot of other folks around here received the same exact email. It was a fundraising pitch on behalf of Sen. Patty Murray, sent from a Murray campaign email account. Nothing remarkable about that.

But from all accounts, the affection and respect for Murray expressed in Byrd’s email is genuine, and provides a sharp contrast to the caricature of Murray with which Washington Republicans like to comfort themselves every six years.

Back in 2004 I described her last reelection contest as a race between the physically diminutive Patty Murray versus the politically diminutive George Nethercutt, who she unsurprisingly defeated by a 12-point margin. So how has Murray consistently produced such wide margins against highly touted Republican opponents?

Quite simply, Murray is one of the best retail politicians I’ve ever met. Spend a few moments with her and it becomes clear that she actually likes people, and unlike Sen. Maria Cantwell (who has different virtues), clearly enjoys talking with complete strangers. Be it one-on-one, in small groups, speaking before a large room, or even in her TV commercials, this everywomanish aspect of Murray’s personality comes through, making it exceedingly difficult for Republicans to succeed with their usual line of negative attacks.

Ironically, this inherent likability makes it easier for Murray to go on the attack herself, as she did early, often and quite effectively against Nethercutt. Don’t let her size and mannerisms fool you; you don’t get to rise to such a high level of power and influence in a men’s club like the U.S. Senate without sporting some awfully big cojones, metaphorical as they may be, and Murray’s not afraid to swing ’em. Nethercutt entered the 2004 race with a reputation as a giant-killer, but the five foot tall Murray immediately kneecapped him, and he never recovered.

Perhaps this explains why Murray has yet to draw a big name opponent for 2010. After ending the political careers of three sitting Republican Congress-critters in a row, neither Cathy McMorris-Rogers, Dave Reichert nor Doc Hastings are eager to have Murray make them the fourth. And state Attorney General Rob McKenna—without a doubt the most skilled politician on the WSRP bench—is too smart to deliberately seek out a bump in the road on what he hopes to be a smooth ride to the governor’s mansion and beyond. As for Dino Rossi, he just got his ass kicked by an unpopular governor, and besides… you gotta want it to run for it.

That only leaves the traditional GOP fallback candidate: the generic, rich, white guy. And that didn’t turn out so well for Mike McGavick running against a much more vulnerable Cantwell in 2006, now did it?

Right now, with Murray out-raising her best funded no-name Republican opponent by over 227 to 1, and the election only ten months away, it looks like the state GOP has given up on taking out the Democrat they like to laugh off as America’s dumbest senator. Well, um, what does that say about them?

The Seattle Times editorial board this morning, on our recent spate of tragic police shootings:

If there is a common denominator that links the shootings in Seattle, Lakewood and Eatonville, it is fools with firearms. The proximity of weapons to the angry, delusional and addled is astonishing.

Two of the shooters died in circumstances they brought on themselves, and another awaits a full, rigorous determination of legal accountability.

Application of the law, and all its protections and consequences, is separate and apart from assessing how the culture became awash in guns and embraced a mindless proclivity to use them.

A constitutional right to own a gun does not carry a subsequent right to put others at risk, or to amass a personal armory with a lethal capacity beyond some hypothetical need for household defense.

I dunno… sounds like an argument for gun control to me.

And while Republicans like to congratulate themselves as being the law and order party, this is one policy issue at least where dirty fucking hippie liberals like me are clearly on the side of the majority of law enforcement organizations. Ask any police officer whether he or she would like to see more (and more deadly) guns on street, and I think you know what answer you’ll likely get.

Join us tonight as we celebrate a most successful 2009 and raise a toast to more successes to come in 2010 at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning about 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier and have some dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 339 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.