HorsesAss.Org

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUMQR_Bo7s[/youtube]

In Part II of my “Talkin’ with Teabaggers” adventure, I chat with an elderly gentleman protesting last Thursday’s pro-healthcare reform rally (you know, the one that never happened).  No snarky subtitles or silly inserts this time, just a few minutes of unedited conversation about healthcare, and why us whippersnappers don’t need or deserve it.

In what has become an ironic cliche that typifies the inanity of the current healthcare reform debate, this eighty-ish-year-old man may be opposed to government run health insurance, but he sure does love him some Medicare. When asked if he’s happy with Medicare he says “yes.” When asked if he’d want it taken away, he says “no.” When asked if the government has done an “okay job” running Medicare, he says “As far as I’m concerned, it’s been okay with us.”

In fact, his high degree of satisfaction with his government-run Medicare seems to form the basis for his opposition to any plan that might include a government-run public option for the rest of us. “Why mess it up for old people?” he asked me.

Good question. Perhaps we should give up on this “public option” thing and just allow everybody to buy into Medicare, regardless of age? I know he thinks young folks don’t need it (hell, he didn’t have health insurance until he was 40, so why should anybody else?) but if that’s true then they’d sure be cheap to insure. Meanwhile, they’d still be subsidizing his Medicare coverage through their payroll taxes, just like they’re doing now, so how could that possibly mess anything up for him?

Yeah, sure… under that scenario, Medicare would be the public option. But shhhh, don’t call it that, and we might get his support.

I mostly have a reputation as a foul-mouthed, partisan muckraker and agitator, and with a brand name like HorsesAss.org, why shouldn’t I? But I think it of interest to note that in the wake of Friday’s WTO ruling that EU nations illegally subsidized Boeing rival Airbus, I actually took the time to interview a US congressman, and write a thoughtful, objective analysis of the decision, whereas the Seattle Times—our region’s paper of record—relied solely on reporting and analysis from the Associated Press and Bloomberg News.

A ruling in a controversial international trade dispute that directly impacts one of our region’s most important employers, and the Times couldn’t even be bothered to assign a reporter to cover the story and attempt to get a richer local angle. Kinda pathetic.

Now, I don’t mean to pat myself on the back. It was Rep. Jay Inslee’s staff who deserves the credit for reaching out to me and offering a few minutes with the congressman—an opportunity I jumped at—but if Inslee was making himself available to foul-mouthed bloggers like me, you can be sure he was making himself available to the Seattle Times. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Inslee only had the time to talk with me because most of the rest of our local media simply weren’t interested in putting the effort into such an admittedly wonky story?

Perhaps I was too harsh in implying some sort of bias in our local media’s refusal to cover last week’s pro-healthcare reform rally? Maybe our local media is just lazy?

In defending his efforts to achieve a local monopoly, Times publisher Frank Blethen long promised that freed from the financial drain of the JOA, his newspaper would emerge stronger and more vibrant, but most observers would agree that the Times’ local coverage has continued to shrink since the P-I ceased print publication. Here’s hoping that once this economy turns around, Blethen actually attempts to fulfill his civic promise.

Then.

Capitalizing on his war record, McCarthy narrowly defeated the overconfident Senator Robert La Follette in the 1946 Republican senatorial primary and assailed his Democratic opponent, Howard McMurray, as a man so desperate for election that he would accept communist support. The baseless charge worked. McCarthy trounced McMurray and, in 1947, became the junior U.S. senator from Wisconsin. He quickly alienated his colleagues (especially after he tried to court the German-American vote by criticizing the prosecution of Nazis accused of slaughtering American troops during the Battle of the Bulge) and he soon feared that he could not be re-elected without a major issue to improve his political standing. Consequently, on February 7, 1950, he told a group of Republican women assembled in Wheeling, West Virginia, that there was serious “communist influence” in the Truman administration, declaring, ” I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . names that were known to the Secretary of State and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” Even though no such list existed, McCarthy’s accusations gripped the media and he soon became a national figure, promoted on the covers of national news magazines.

Now.

The defining accomplishment of Van Jones’s life was his founding of the Ella Baker Freedom Center. While the controversy over his appointment was going on I meant to look into who she was, but didn’t get it done. Ron Radosh, an expert on the hard left of which he was once a member, has the answer:

[T]he name of Jones’ Oakland group, The Ella Baker Freedom Center, is most appropriate. Most people have referred to the late Baker as simply a civil rights activist. I am writing from vacation in Nantucket, without benefit of my files at home. But in my book, Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964-1996, I point out that the late civil rights lawyer Joe Rauh had noted that everything Baker said in the 60’s might as well have been taken verbatim from The Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. Baker was so pro-Communist that she attacked Hubert Humphrey and other liberal anti-Communists as ultra reactionaries. Known as the “grandmother of SNCC,” Baker was aligned with those in the movement who were trying to push the organization to the far left.

I think that sums up the Obama administration pretty well. If you think Hubert Humphrey was an ultra-reactionary, this administration’s for you!

Red-baiting never goes out of style.

This is just the beginning, unless someone with a really big megaphone decides to fight back. No, not the president, he’s too busy making sure bankers, health insurance executives and the rest of Wall Street are mollified.

You know who I mean. [ed. note update-I messed up my original link, the link is now to whom I am talking about. Congratulations to all who guessed “KO.” Sorry about the bad link.] Yeah, this is war. Either the far right puke funnel is brought to heel by utterly destroying its undeserved credibility, something that should have happened long ago, or our democracy plunges into neo-McCarthyite darkness for who-knows-how-long. Which obscure administration or member of Congress will be next? Will it it be a third under-secretary for African affairs, or will it be, um, YOU?

Throw in a still shaky economy and two foreign wars that seemingly have no end, and it’s difficult to predict what might happen.

How’s that post-partisanship civility working out? Yeah, I know, regular people get sick and tired of the clown shows, but the clown shows are not a bug, they’re a design feature. They show that many Democrats won’t fight for their principles, or that many Democrats are unprincipled whores, and in either case weakness and whorishness is exposed.

The clowns clown, the pundits pontificate and the “reasonable” Republicans chortle while they watch the polls and congratulate each other on what a great monkey wrench they possess. Next up will be a set of “promises” from the GOP, probably with some grandiose name only a Colbert could appreciate, that will list the requisite demands for lower taxes, bashing of immigrants, fear-mongering against gays and any clever phraseology Frank Luntz crafts to make a shit sandwich look like Pan-bagnat.

Democrats, please feel free to win this fight on policy grounds by carefully arguing your position, giving away the store to your opponents and then attempting to win over the public with excuses, that’ll work well.

I generally don’t write about every single drug war tragedy that I come across, especially ones from outside of the northwest. They happen so routinely – whether it’s a botched drug raid against an innocent suspect, a police officer dying in the line of duty, or innocent people getting caught in the crossfire of competing drug gangs – that it would dominate this blog if I wrote about them all. But one that just happened in northeastern Georgia caught my attention for a couple of reasons and I feel like sharing some thoughts on this.

On September 1, a 28-year-old pastor named Jonathan Ayers was shot and killed by undercover police officers in the town of Toccoa, Georgia. The pastor had been seen driving a car with an alleged drug dealer as a passenger. After Ayers dropped off the suspect (a woman who has not been identified) at a gas station, the officers quickly pulled up in an Escalade and drew their guns (the CNN page has a good video from the convenience store surveillance camera). Ayers sped off as the plain-clothed officers discharged their guns at him. He was wounded from the gunshots and later died at a hospital.

If anyone is convinced that there was some dark side to this pastor, his blog should cast serious doubt on that notion. Reading his recent entries just made my heart sink. Ayers left behind a pregnant wife and was where I was a little less than a year ago, looking forward to ultrasounds and having those “oh shit, I’m going to be a dad” moments. It’s not clear why he had allegedly given this drug suspect a ride, but according to his friends, he considered it his Christian mission to help people, so it wasn’t uncharacteristic for him to be doing favors for strangers.

One post in particular, from only three weeks before the shooting, really struck me as well:

Scared as Crap

I got pulled over today for no insurance. I was like are you kidding? The deputy told me “no I am not kidding you have no insurance”. We both got on the phone and called the insurance company to figure this whole thing out. They told the deputy that I had a policy but no vehicle’s was on the policy. I was like what kind of policy do I have? So we finaly got it fixed.

I left there and I wandered how many people go through life and think they are ok because they are a good person, have done some good deeds, and they aren’t as bad as some other people. Here’s the thing they don’t know Christ! They have never started a relationship with Jesus. One day they will stand before God and He will say “depart from I never knew you”. They are going to be in for the sadest day of their life. Don’t miss Jesus because you think you are good enough!

I’ve seen several comments to the articles I’ve read about this incident saying things like “well, why did he speed off if he was innocent?” The post above should answer that question completely. Only three weeks before he was killed, he was this rattled from a routine traffic stop. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the sight of several non-uniformed individuals getting out of an Escalade with guns would have scared him enough that he’d choose to drive away as fast as possible.

It’s not likely that an atheist from the Pacific Northwest is going to change the way the drug war is fought in rural Georgia, but every tragedy in this war weighs on me and hardens my determination to start the dominoes falling where they’re most likely to tip over. This one in particular. While religion has never been a part of my life, I couldn’t help but notice that Ayers’ determination as a Christian mirrors my own determination in this battle. And our underlying motivations are largely the same, to build a better society and to promote peace. I hope that Jonathan’s family can find peace in this tragedy and that Americans of all stripes will take a long look at what this war is doing to us.

Last week’s contest was won by ‘waguy’. It was Long Island MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, NY. If you want to keep up with what areas are being added to the Bird’s Eye View image server, you can check out this page, where the Bing team is releasing monthly updates.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Earlier this week, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Death With Dignity case that is expected to uphold a District Court ruling from last December that found that patients have a right under the Montana State Constitution to request medication that aids in dying.

Washington’s law has been in effect for six months now, and the main issue in that time has been the question of whether Washingtonians in certain areas can find doctors who will allow them to exercise their rights. In Montana, which is even more vast and rural, this will almost certainly be an issue as well. I touched on that issue very briefly here and had some back and forth in the comments, but Jacob M. Appel covers it far more extensively here at Huffington Post:

Janet Murdock learned this awful lesson the hard way. The sixty-seven year old Missoula woman, who suffered from advanced ovarian cancer, initially believed that Judge McCarter’s ruling would guarantee her the death that she desired. Instead, she spent her final months trying to find a local doctor willing to help her die — eventually giving up food and water when no physician in the entire state proved willing to supply her with a lethal dose of medication. Her desperate efforts certainly were not aided by the Montana Medical Association, which issued a policy documented declaring aid in dying a violation of professional ethics, or that group’s president, Kirk Stoner, who has championed an absolutist, anti-assistance position on the issue. In response, before her death in June, Murdock released a statement that read: “I feel as though my doctors do not feel able to respect my decision to choose aid in dying…Access to physician aid in dying would restore my hope for a peaceful, dignified death in keeping with my values and beliefs.” The challenge for those on both sides of this issue is how to balance the “values and beliefs” of desperate patients like Murdock and Baxter with those of medical professionals who are personally opposed to easing their deaths. Our society will soon be forced to adjudicate these competing claims: Which right trumps? The patient’s right to die or the doctor’s right to follow her conscience?

The ongoing public debate over “conscience” clauses, which permit individual health care providers to opt out of medical practices to which they are morally opposed, has until now been confined primarily to issues of reproductive freedom. Pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives have become lighting rods in the debate over religious freedom and women’s health. A critical shortage of abortion providers has led some progressive commentators, including myself, to call for mandatory abortion training in obstetrics residency programs. However, even those policy-makers who support conscience exemptions in these areas should be able to recognize the fundamental difference between pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions and the physicians who would not help Janet Murdock to die. A handful of rogue druggists may certainly impede access to contraception — but all pharmacists do not oppose RU-486. A shortage of abortion providers, while deeply troublesome, is not the same as a complete, state-wide absence of abortion providers. If Montana doctors can act on their consciences, patients wishing to die will not merely have to endure additional burdens to vindicate their rights. Rather, they will have absolutely no means to effectuate them. Much as constitutional guarantees of press freedom do little good for prospective publishers if they do not have access to paper or ink, the right to aid in dying is strikingly useless if nobody is willing to help.

The legal profession long ago recognized that if our judicial system is to function meaningfully, all criminal defendants — even the most distasteful — should be entitled to representation. As a result, states provide attorneys for those who cannot find them on their own, and judges occasionally compel individual members of the bar to represent the interests of unpopular defendants. In contrast, doctors have rather stubbornly clung to historic notions of professional autonomy. These arguments might hold more sway if physicians operated in an open marketplace and if anyone with the appropriate knowledge and skills could practice medicine in the United States. In reality, medical licenses are a limited commodity, reflecting an artificial shortage created by a partnership between Congress and organizations representing physicians — with medical school seats and residency positions effectively allotted by the government, much like radio frequencies. Physicians benefit from this arrangement in that a smaller number of physicians inevitably leads to increased rates of reimbursements. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement. However, it belies any claim that doctors should have the same right to choose their customers as barbers or babysitters. Much as the government has been willing to impose duties on radio stations (eg. indecency codes, equal time rules) that would be impermissible if applied to newspapers, Montana might reasonably consider requiring physicians, in return for the privilege of a medical license, to prescribe medication to the dying without regard to the patient’s intent.

Mandating that physicians aid in dying should be a last resort. First, Montana should explore other, less-invasive means of ensuring that all citizens are guaranteed their constitutional right to die. One solution might be hiring a handful of publicly-salaried physicians, recruited from out-of-state, whose primary responsibility would be to offer palliative services, including lethal prescriptions, to the terminally ill. Another possibility would be easing licensure requirements for out-of-state physicians, particularly those from Washington or Oregon, who come to Montana on a short-term basis solely for the purpose of helping the terminally ill to die. Finally, the state might simply scrap its general requirement for physician-issued prescriptions in cases of terminal illness, instead providing both drugs and instructions directly to dying individuals or their families. In short, the state should think creatively about ways to ensure that the terminally ill do not suffer without taking the drastic step of forcing doctors to assist in dying.

The right to die is not an abstract principle. This right — or its absence — has a profound effect on the fundamental welfare of nearly every individual and family in the nation during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. If the Montana Supreme Court guarantees citizens the right to aid in dying, and I am both hopeful and confident that the court will do so, then it is also incumbent upon the justices to ensure a mechanism by which patients can exercise their rights. To do otherwise — to offer a theoretical right to die that cannot be meaningfully exercised — will be both a hollow gesture and a cruel taunt to the terminally ill.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXpHZaGGfE4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOygV8lvaaU[/youtube]

At Thursday’s healthcare reform rally (you know, the one the Seattle Times insists never happened), there didn’t seem to be much to be gained from hanging with my fellow travelers, so I wandered across the street to the couple dozen, sign-waving counter-protesters, and attempted to strike up a conversation. I eased into it with a subject on which we could all agree—cupcakes—and then moved into a policy discussion from there.

Posted above is a six-minute conversation with the guy with the bullhorn, in which I present his answers unedited, and totally within context (my snarky subtitles and inserts aside). If at times he comes off as a tad inconsistent, it had nothing to do with any iMovie magic.

That said, I think he does make a point which is worth considering when attempting to refute the arguments coming from the other side. When talking about Social Security and Medicare he freely acknowledges that “these programs might seem like they take great care of people, which is wonderful, they do,” but he simply doesn’t believe that the money will be there long term to continue to provide this care in the future… and this is the same financial trap he sees our nation falling into with a public option.

This is different from the government can’t do anything right sentiment that seems to be shared by some of his companions (even while lovin’ their Medicare, which I’ll get to in a later clip), and deserves a different and more thoughtful response. Bullhorn man clearly doesn’t believe that he will ever benefit from these programs, and thus resents paying into them now, and he doesn’t want to pay for yet another social program—healthcare reform—that won’t benefit him in the long run either. And who would?

When he talks about the current systems having already been “robbed of their money” by Congress, it appears that he doesn’t seem to understand that Social Security et al have always been “pay as you go” programs, in which payroll deductions from the current generation of workers pays the benefits of the current generation of retirees, but it would be a mistake to dismiss these concerns nonetheless. Republicans may have lost the political battle to privatize Social Security, but their rhetoric about its imminent collapse is clearly paying dividends in the current healthcare debate.

Anyway, make of the video what you will, and please excuse the shoddy camerawork. In such close quarters I have to hold the camera so far back that I can’t actually see the view screen, so I don’t always get everybody in frame; such is the life of the amateur video blogger.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98[/youtube]

Then the issue can be talked about. These are legitimate concerns expressed in this video, but no birthers, no tenthers, no deathers, etc. Regular people have legitimate concerns, they should be talked about. That is how you wind up with better legislation.

Nobody can be an expert on everything, and this often precludes sensible but otherwise busy people from stating their views and asking questions. That’s too bad sometimes, but it seems like a lot of folks will tune in this fall.

This is democracy. You don’t have to agree in the end, that’s fine. People of good will can agree to disagree without all the nuttiness, and certainly without violence or violent overtones.

The clown shows are drawing down, and it’s time to send out the clowns and let the grown ups try to figure this out. This is about health insurance reform, and people who insist on either blowing up the discourse or trying to make this about bizarre, far right revisionism need to be called out by the traditional media.

There’s a hint of Autumn in the air, and August is over. If only President Barack Obama has the will to lead…

SurveyUSA has released new poll results for the King County Executive race. The poll has Dow Constantine trailing Susan Hutchinson by 43.6% to 46.7%, with 9.7% still undecided:

Hutchison…leads 2:1 among Republicans, conservatives, and those who are not college graduates. Constantine…leads by more nearly 3:1 among liberals and by nearly 2:1 among Democrats.

The poll, taken from 1 September to 3 September, surveyed 557 likely King County voters, giving a ±4.2% margin of error. The difference between the two percentages is not statistically significant—that is, the result is a statistical tie.

Even so, we can explore a what would happen if the election was held today. A Monte Carlo analysis of a million simulated elections, using the observed preferences, and a population of 557 voters, gives Hutchinson 696,575 wins, and Constantine 292,554 wins. In other words, for an election held now, we would expect Hutchinson to have a 70.4% probability of winning. This graph shows the distribution of outcomes from the simulated elections:

Fresh on the heels of the primary, public opinion has two months to evolve until the November election. The process, so far, has mostly favored Hutchison, as she has the most name recognition, and was the only female in the contest. For many voters, Constantine is that guy who came out on top in the pack of guys. It will be interesting to see how the undecided 10% break, and what happens as Constantine gets better name and position recognition.

For now, consider this the score for the first few minutes of the first quarter of the game….

As has been widely reported, the World Trade Organization ruled today that Airbus received illegal subsidies from European Union nations, setting the stage for billions of dollars in sanctions against the world’s leading aircraft manufacturer. But what does all this mean for Boeing?

While the thousand-plus page document has yet to be released, Washington state’s congressional delegation was the first to be briefed by U.S. trade officials, and I just got off the phone with Rep. Jay Inslee, who shared some of the details as well as some thoughts on how this ongoing trade dispute might play out. And while it could be a couple years before WTO sanctions are officially invoked, if ever, Inslee believes the ruling could and should have a near term impact on Boeing’s prospects.

The most obvious and immediate impact could be on the controversial Air Force refueling tanker contract, originally granted to Airbus under disputed circumstances, and now awaiting rebidding as the Air Force reconsiders the specifications for the program. Boeing had originally proposed a tanker based on the 767, which would have kept that model’s Everett, WA assembly line running for the foreseeable future, but in a blow to our local economy the Air Force initially selected a tanker based on the bigger Airbus A330, largely citing that model’s greater fuel carrying capacity.

But whether Boeing ultimately rebids a 767-based tanker, or one built on the larger capacity 777, Inslee argues that the Air Force “can and should” take today’s WTO ruling into consideration. Although the ruling is under appeal, and thus imposition of WTO sanctions are still a year or two off, Inslee pointed out that trade agreements have always given the U.S. a legal right to exercise a “national security exemption” when awarding military contracts, and now the WTO findings have given the U.S. a moral justification as well.

“I don’t know how you can justify to American citizens giving billions of dollars of contracts to a company that has acted illegally,” Inslee told me, arguing that the WTO ruling “should have a bearing on, if not outright bar” another Airbus tanker contract.

As for the impact on sales of commercial airplanes, Inslee explained that once appeals have been exhausted and the WTO sets a dollar value to the sanctions, President Obama could set a tariff of sorts on the sale of Airbus products in the U.S., thus making their aircraft less competitive compared to Boeing’s. While European sources have attempted to downplay Boeing’s victory by claiming that the ruling does not apply to the A350—Airbus’s competitor to the 787—Inslee says that the U.S. could still impose tariffs on the A350 as a sanction for the billions of dollars of illegal “launch aid” assistance Airbus received from European governments for the A380.

Furthermore, the only reason the A350 wasn’t part of today’s decision is that WTO rules prevent plaintiffs from adding to complaints once they’re filed. Inslee says that the U.S. has accumulated plenty of evidence of similar illegal launch aid for the A350 since the current complaint was filed in 2004, and would likely file a new complaint unless an agreement is reached in the interim.

Of course, European nations have also filed a counter-suit alleging illegal government subsidies to Boeing, much of it focused on the billions of dollars of tax credits extended by our own state legislature in its efforts to keep 787 final assembly here in Washington state, but Inslee argues that these subsidies are different in both scale and substance.

While the $3.5 billion tax credit extended Boeing certainly has a huge impact on state coffers, it is significantly less than the $20 billion in direct cash aid Airbus received from European governments. Inslee also notes that unlike the illegal Airbus subsidies, the Washington state tax credits are not technically limited to Boeing only, and would be equally available to Airbus and other aerospace manufacturers should they seek to operate similar manufacturing facilities in state. (Our state constitution technically forbids tailoring tax incentives to specific businesses, though in practice that provision is pretty easy to get around.) In any case, the WTO has in the past been loathe to mess with the nitty gritty of local tax code, and the sovereignty issues that would entail.

So if the Airbus ruling remains on appeal, the counter-suit remains unsettled, the size of the sanction remains unknown, and the ultimate imposition date remains a year or two in the future, how could today’s ruling have any immediate impact on commercial aviation sales? By creating uncertainty in what is already a very volatile business.

“Airlines placing orders with Airbus now, just don’t know how much sanctions will cost them when they take delivery,” Inslee suggested. And considering the huge and long term investment an airline must make in adopting one model or another, that in itself is enough to count today’s ruling as a win for Boeing, and perhaps, for the Puget Sound economy as well.

Some folks had some other stuff they seemed to want to discuss, so here’s an open thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR0W9SVi48[/youtube]

At the town hall meeting in Centralia on Wednesday night, Rep. Brian Baird turned the tables on a city of Centralia candidate for mayor named Matthew Trent. The Columbian included an account of the exchange in an article this morning:

One of the more contentious exchanges of the evening came when Centralia City Council candidate Matthew Trent approached the microphone.

Trent read quotes from a number of founding fathers, among them Declaration of Independence author and third president Thomas Jefferson.

Trent, who is opposing Centralia Mayor Tim Browning in the November general election, said that he had no doubt Jefferson would consider Baird “an enemy of God and the Republic” for his record on spending and supporting government controls.

Baird responded strongly, refuting the notion that Jefferson would frown upon his record.

“It’s not just my ilk, my friend,” Baird said, noting that there was no budget deficit when former President Bill Clinton left office.

As Chris notes at his blog, Trent is the beneficiary of a public education, attended a public community college and actually works for Lewis County, according to a blog created by Trent.

It’s great that Baird responded forcefully, but with great dignity, and one can hope the lesson he will take back to D.C. to share with leadership is that there is no negotiating with people like this. They’ve concocted a fantasy world of black and white in which they are the sole arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution, and of what the Founders actually intended.

They can puff up their chests and say stuff like this until the cows come home, but until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with them, they’re simply delusional fringe characters who deserve to be rhetorically smacked down with a vengeance.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. Good luck with your campaign, there, Mr. Trent.

One thing to note about yesterday’s pro-health reform rally is that there were no violent confrontations between supporters and counter-protesters… which is really too bad, because with a few thousand of us and only a couple dozen of them, we could’ve really kicked us some teabagger ass.

Oh, it’s not that I advocate violence, it’s just that apparently that’s the only way we’re going to get any media attention, for on the same day that the Seattle Times totally ignores a massive—and peaceful—pro-reform rally in its own backyard, it sees fit to reprint an AP story on the finger-biting incident Los Angeles.

Large, peaceful, pro-reform rally in Seattle: not newsworthy. Isolated and bizarre finger-biting incident in LA: stop the presses! That’s the level of coverage of the health care debate we’re getting in Seattle.

Next time, perhaps I’ll show up at one of these events armed to the teeth and swinging a samurai sword; betcha that’s worthy of a headline.

Author and food activist Jill Richardson will be in Seattle tonight to speak about and sign her new book Recipe for America: Why Our Food System is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It. Sponsored by Drinking Liberally, Northwest Progressive Institute and Sustainable Seattle, the event will be held 8:00 – 10:00 PM at Fx McRory’s, 406 Occidental Ave. S. in Pioneer Square.

Hope to see you all there.