They’re all heart, I tell you. The Daily Astorian reports on Brian Baird’s town forum in Ilwaco, and state GOP executive board member Nansen Malin reveals what Republicans actually think:
“We want everyone to have quality healthcare, “Malin said, “But I am against universal health care.”
But how can everyone have quality health care if everyone doesn’t have…oh never mind.
Personally, I want everyone to have Twitter, but I am against universal Twittering.
– Radley Balko discusses the lawsuits against Seattle-area police agencies by Somali immigrants who were targeted in an effort to crack down on the use of khat, a mild plant-based stimulant popular in East Africa and the Middle East. Charles Mudede wrote about the war on khat back in 2007.
– The Spokesman-Review writes about the legal troubles that two medical marijuana providers from the Spokane area are facing. These two men are openly defying the one-patient-per-provider statute of the medical marijuana law, but this restriction can make it very difficult for new patients to obtain marijuana (as Dale Rogers put it at the patient Hempfest panel, if you’re 70 and you’re diagnosed with cancer, you don’t have time to learn how to be a gardener). And not everyone can find someone willing and able to grow for them. People who are told by their doctors that marijuana might be beneficial still have to resort to the black market – especially when the people who are willing and able to provide for multiple patients are arrested.
Despite the arrests in Spokane, a group in Richland is requesting the ability to open up a dispensary, but were told by the City Attorney to take it to the Legislature, which failed miserably in its attempt to improve the law in 2008.
– Gene Johnson from the AP writes about the world of helicopter smuggling along the Washington-British Columbia border.
– John H. Richardson from Esquire talks to a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and outlines the argument for legalizing drugs from the standpoint of saving lives and keeping communities safe. Predictably, Mark Kleiman takes the bait and makes a fool of himself. Pete Guither hammers him pretty good here, but Kleiman responds with an update where he writes:
My objection is to the claim that there’s a hideous monster out there called “prohibition,” and that the main drug policy task is to slay that monster with the magic sword of “taxation and regulation.” That claim is just as stupid as the drug-warrior claim that there’s a hideous monster out there called “drugs” and that the main drug-policy task is to slay that monster with the magic sword of a “a drug-free society.”
First of all, both “prohibition” and “drug abuse” are “hideous monsters”. Prohibition is such because it takes a commodity that has significant demand from both responsible adults and people with addictions and hands it to criminals who have significant income with which to fight over their share of the marketplace. Drug abuse is a “hideous monster” because human beings are flawed creatures who often make mistakes and end up without the control to help themselves overcome an addiction. Both are things that we need to deal with as problems in our society, but the important difference is that one of the two is a basic human tendency that we can’t stop while the other is a creation of government that we most certainly can stop.
Second, one only needs to look at the example of alcohol prohibition to see where the “magic sword of taxation and regulation” has slayed the monster of prohibition. No one is arguing that people will never die from overdoses or from driving while intoxicated if we end prohibitions on other recreational drugs. What’s being argued is that the collateral damage of the cat and mouse games we play with the criminal enterprises who distribute and sell them (our massive murder rates and our unsustainable and self-perpetuating prison overcrowding problems) far outweigh mild upticks in drug addiction rates. And there’s absolutely no clear evidence that drug addiction rates would even go up, especially if you enact smart regulations.
Yes, alcohol kills many, many people every year – from drunk driving accidents to liver diseases – but liquor distributors don’t get shot by the police or by competing liquor distributors, and law enforcement officers don’t get shot while raiding speakeasies and backwoods stills. This is because of the magic sword of “taxation and regulation”.
And finally, the latter part of the analogy doesn’t even make sense. “Taxation and regulation” is a means for achieving an end, while “a drug-free society” is an end with no realistic means for achieving it. Mark can keep pretending that the people who advocate for drug legalization collectively envision some spiritual nirvana that can only be achieved by legalizing drugs, but the reality is that the people who advocate for legalizing the use and regulating the distribution of currently illegal drugs – whether they be law enforcers like the folks in LEAP or computer geeks like me – do so because it appears to be the most progressive, most cost-effective, and most humane solution to the problem of drug abuse in our society. All of us recognize that even when you do it, people will still have drug problems and people will still die of drug overdoses. But as we’ve already seen in places that have taken incremental steps toward legalization – especially in places that have stopped treating heroin addicts as criminals – we tend to see fewer deaths from overdoses, not more. And the collateral damage from people who decide to buck the regulations tends to be negligible, and don’t usually end with people being shot.
At this point, I don’t know if anyone still considers Kleiman an authoritative source on this subject. I’d be curious to know how the panel he was on at Netroots Nation ended up, but it’s just sad to see him repeatedly breaking out this obnoxious strawman in order to belittle those who have come to a very reasoned and very rational conclusion that prohibition is an ineffective government solution for drugs that have an established level of popular demand.
Nansen Malin, GOP executive board member from Pacific County, via that twit thing:
Never thought I’d see this: CNN poll-Majority oppose ObamaCare. the details are very interesting.
Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?
Favor – 55%
Oppose – 41%
No opinion – 4%
Details are interesting.
I suppose it’s hard to concentrate on details while twitting and tweeting and teabagging and stuff with over 100,000 followers. I know I would drive right off the road, so please, Malin, let’s be safe.
And BTW, Malin, if we’re so “intolerant,” as you accuse, why is the Cesspool full of right wing shit? You can say anything you want here, so come say it. You can even use more than 140 characters.
Speaking of Dan Savage…
He joins Keith Olbermann to discuss the hijacking of the Republican Party by right-wing religious extremists:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3HjIrA5OOQ[/youtube]
Obama will speak to a joint session of Congress, yeah okay. But what’s the end game?
“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”
Remind me not to take Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama car shopping, because they’d probably take me to Billy Tauzin’s used car lot.
Fool me once…
There are a lot of reasons why I don’t particularly feel like covering this fall’s election season, not the least of which being the need to post on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033, a task I approach with a lack of enthusiasm that borders on dread.
For all my reputation as a foul-mouthed muckraker and agitator, I’m not sure that any political observer in Washington state has written more substantively on a broader number of issues than I have over the past few years, and on no issue have I focused more acutely than those concerning government revenue and spending. Yet if you think my lengthy and wonkishly obsessive essays on, say, Washington state’s regressive and inadequate tax structure, can be boring to read, just imagine how painful they can be to research and write. That is the type of relentless effort necessary to adequately explain and refute I-1033, but the problem is, it simply doesn’t deserve it.
You see, I-1033 is a joke, totally undeserving of serious scrutiny, not because it stands no chance of passing (it does), or because its impact on our state and its citizens wouldn’t be devastating (it would), but because as an act of policy it is a capricious, vindictive, ridiculous, cynical piece of legislative bamboozlement based totally on lies, falsehoods, fabrications, distortions and lies, and thus any effort to discuss its provisions on substance—even on a lowly blog named HorsesAss.org—would be an insult to the public debate.
Bluntly, Eyman is a whore and Michael Dunmire—the man who pays for his signatures—is his john, and that makes I-1033 their cum-filled, santorum-stained condom. There is nothing credible about this ballot-measure-buggery or the mercenary manner in which it qualified for the ballot, and yet when our state’s political reporters and editorialists discuss this issue in their typically objective and solemn manner, they will undoubtedly do so with a measure of undeserved respect that quite frankly makes me sick.
As for me, I guess I too will reluctantly play my role in deconstructing one last Eyman initiative because it’s kinda-sorta my job, but if there’s anything more demeaning than making it one’s business to pen and peddle his sort of political pornography, it’s making it one’s business to review and critique it. And after a half decade of having my business inextricably attached to his, I can’t tell you how dirty it makes me feel.
UPDATE:
Dan Savage corrects me:
Santorum can’t stain a condom, Goldy. A condom can be santorum-streaked, but not stained. Please make a note of it. But it’s hard to argue with your larger point…
Seeing as Dan coined the word, I defer to him and his superior knowledge of santorum.
Some Congressional Democrats are fretting over sliding poll numbers for health care reform, with some opinion surveys showing support falling from the 60-percent range to somewhere in the 40’s over the past couple months. To which I say, fuck public opinion. I mean, really… fuck it.
Honestly, why should Congress pay any closer attention to today’s numbers than they did to those before all the lies about death panels and socialized medicine from hopped up, orchestrated mobs of armed teabaggers started spreading fear and doubt? In fact, why should Congress pay much attention to the poll numbers at all?
The is a republic, goddamnit, where we don’t pass legislation by plebiscite, and where our representatives’ job is to do the right thing not do the thing they think might be most popular with voters at this particular point in time. The majority of Democrats understand that meaningful health care reform is absolutely critical to our nation’s future prosperity and economic security, so they should just caucus amongst themselves, put together the best package possible, and then use any means possible to enforce the party discipline necessary to get the damn thing passed.
That’s leadership.
As for public opinion, I’d worry more about what voters have to say about the reforms after they’re passed and implemented rather than the voluble opinions blowing around the eye of our current bullshit storm. And I’d worry a helluva lot more about public opinion should the Democrats fail to fulfill their campaign promise of passing a substantive package.
The podcast emerges from it’s summer hide-away in the San Juan Islands for a special one-on-one edition with Washington State Senator Ed Murray. Goldy kicks off the podcast asking Sen. Murray about his decision not to run as a write-in candidate for Seattle Mayor. The mayoral topic naturally leads to the proposed deep-bore tunnel replacement for the viaduct and other regional and statewide transportation issues. The discussion touches on the status of the SR520 floating bridge replacement, that other tunnel idea, and transit over the bridge.
Sen. Murray then offers his reflections on Referendum 71, and what needs to happen to ensure passage of the referendum that will preserve the “everything but marriage” law. (Please visit Washington Families Standing Together to find out what you can do to help.)
The show is 21:26, and is available here as an MP3:
[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_sep_01_2009.mp3][Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]
Carl and I met up with Demo Kid last night and made it out to the big event. So did Eli Sanders.
Obviously it’s the dastardly work of the Ilwaco chapter of ACORN.
UPDATE–Here’s another tweet from the same GOP official:
Also ONLY known dems (small town) received yellow feedback forms for Baird
about 4 hours ago from txt
But I thought there were people there she doesn’t know? I’m so confused.
Obviously Twitter needs an “internal consistency” hashtag.
Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.
Rumor has it that Washington Sen. Ed Murray will make an appearance to tell us about not running for mayor.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ3Q0Z2d8Do[/youtube]
Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.
America’s clickety-clackety, not-so-silent killer is at it again:
Authorities say a man carrying a bag of beer has been struck and killed by a coal train in Spokane Valley.
Oh when will we stop this madness and finally recognize that building rail is the moral equivalent of murder?
State Sen. Ed Murray will be stopping by Drinking Liberally tonight (8PM onwards at the Montlake Ale House), and I suppose one of the topics of conversation will likely be this:
“While I am deeply concerned for the future of our city and Michael and I are honored to have been approached by so many people and organizations we admire and respect, I am also a realist: write-in campaigns are extremely difficult, and time is short. Also, the recognition yesterday that Referendum 71 will appear on the fall ballot galvanized my decision.
I considered a write in campaign because I was concerned that one candidate wanted to reopen a fight with the state when we need to work together. The other candidate who seeks to become our civic leader has failed to engage in civic activities including on the most basic level, voting, something Americans in the south have died for in our lifetime .
I considered running because I believe Seattle is greater than the selfish conversation in the Mayor’s race. Missing are issues and leadership on social justice. Issues of poverty and civil rights. This campaign to date has been about one bridge and one neighborhood. Issues such as our schools, neighborhoods and diversity are missing from this debate .
I urge the candidates to broaden their messages and address the critical issues facing our city and look forward to working with one of them as our next mayor. “
Ah well. A Murray write-in campaign would have at the very least made the mayoral race a helluva lot more interesting. Now I guess I’ll have to either do the pragmatic thing and get behind one candidate or the other… or, you know, maybe just drop out for a while.
I’m so old I remember when reporters looked at you as a questionable source if you blogged, but apparently having over one hundred thousand thousand Twitter followers makes you a trustworthy source.
Where would she get the time to set up for a town hall at her house?
AND– As someone points out to me, how the hell is it a town hall if the GOP official gets to do the invites, even if she did promise to invite “all sides?” Geebus. That’s not a town hall, it’s a garden party.
Via DailyKos, US Sen. Maria Cantwell makes the argument for the public option, in summary:
(1) Health care costs must be brought under control or they will overrun the federal budget; (2) The public option is a critical tool for keeping health care costs down; (3) The public option will work because it (a) inserts more competition into the system and (b) delivers health care for the cost of health care.
As Jed Lewison notes, if we use reconciliation, we don’t need any Republican votes in the Senate to pass health care reform, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be rubbing their faces in our arguments.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!