HorsesAss.Org

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.

I’ve no idea where I was yesterday afternoon, but it couldn’t possibly have been at an energetic, 3000-person strong pro-healthcare reform rally in Westlake Park, because I couldn’t find even the tiniest mention of it in this morning’s Seattle Times, so apparently, it never happened. And I have absolutely no idea where all those photos and videos on my camera came from.

It’s like my own personal Twilight Zone.

Of course, whatever didn’t happen in downtown Seattle yesterday, the picture above doesn’t even begin to do it justice, with a sea of bodies extending building to curb, and all the way back under the cover of the trees. Aided by a live band and the wafting aroma of food from street vendors, there was a party atmosphere to the rally which made it feel kinda like a Bumbershoot pre-event. Or at least, it would have felt that way, had it actually happened.

There was also, apparently, no counter-protest yesterday. No really, there wasn’t much of one, with only a couple dozen angry teabaggers at most, cordoned off along a four-foot-wide strip of sidewalk in front of the Starbucks across the street.

This was the most flattering picture I could find, and it’s pretty anemic:

But like I said, since our paper of record didn’t bother to report on it, none of this actually happened. 3000 people of all ages, races and walks of life didn’t crowd into Westlake Park to rally in support of health care reform. A congressman didn’t join business, labor and civic leaders in encouraging the crowd to make their support known. And a well-organized effort by counter-protesters couldn’t muster up much more than a bullhorn and a handful of signs.

None of this happened yesterday in downtown Seattle because no ex-marine angrily yelled down a congressman and nobody got the tip of their finger bitten off and nothing apparently is going to get the media to move from the well-entrenched meme that support for reform is steadily slipping as the public turns against Obama and the Democratic Congress… not even a show of force by the public itself.

UPDATE:
Apparently, I wasn’t the only one imagining yesterday’s health care reform rally, and like me, they managed to capture their hallucinations on camera too.  Weird.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouYXq5tSXb0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The war in Afghanistan is probably the biggest pitfall for President Obama and for US foreign policy in general. It’s past time we got out, and two of the blogs I read regularly had some important posts that you should go read now.

Glenn Greenwald:

Does that sound like a stirring appeal to urgent national security interests? Why should we continue to kill both Afghan civilians and our own troops and pour billions of dollars into that country indefinitely? Because “there’s a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency approach will yield something better than stalemate.” One can almost hear the yawning as the Post Editors call for more war. We don’t need to pretend any more that war, bombing and occupation of other countries is indispensable to protecting ourselves; as long as “there’s a reasonable chance it will yield something better than stalemate,” it should continue into its tenth, eleventh, twelfth year and beyond.

Of course, the reason the Post editors and their war-loving comrades can so blithely advocate more war is because it doesn’t affect them in any way. They’re not the ones whose homes are being air-bombed and whose limbs are being blown off. That’s nothing new; here’s George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, describing (without knowing) Fred Hiatt in 1938:

The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.

Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.

And Shaun at Upper Left (emphasis in the original):

How, I wonder, can you be in favor of having any force, necessary and/or reasonable, if you don’t first know what victory is and how we will achieve it. Isn’t the size of the force, it’s need and rationality, dependent on the goal, the definition of victory?

They say the memory is the second thing to go, and I’m getting on, but as I remember we entered Afghanistan with three identifiable and arguably defensible goals. The first was to destroy it’s capacity as a training and operational base for Al Qaeda. We accomplished that swiftly and handily. The second was to punish the Taliban government that had given them safe harbor by deposing them. That, too, was the matter of a brief and decisive battle. Finally, in the wake of an unconscionable attack on American sovereign territory and the death and destruction attendant to those attacks, we set out to kill or capture as much of the Al Qaeda high command as possible, and in particular their spokesman, strategist and financier, Osama Bin Laden.

The second goal, though apparently swiftly achieved, continues to be a stumbling block for adherents of the disgraced former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule.” The rule fails in Afghanistan, though, because we didn’t break it. It’s been broken for centuries, and centuries of outside interference have caused the debris to spread far beyond Afghani borders. Some of it spilled into ours, and we swept it out of our path. If Afghanistan were to organize itself in such a way that it could accept and distribute humanitarian aid, it would certainly be a candidate with other countries that receive American largesse, whether publicly or privately provided. The level of American military force that would be required in order to effect and enforce such an organization of Afghanistan, though, in time, treasure and blood, would defy any possible conception of “within reason.” Its impossibility, by the same token, renders its need moot. We didn’t break it. We needn’t buy it. And we’re only making it worse.

And while you’re over at Shaun’s place, you ought to read all the posts he’s been doing on Afghanistan.

So, while flipping through the channels I stopped on 33, where I noticed for the first time the slogan for ION Television: “Positively Entertaining.”

Get it? Ion… positively… it’s a pun. A scientific pun.

See, ions are electrically charged atoms or molecules. Sure, some are negatively charged, depending on the number of protons and electrons (CATION Television, now that would be positively entertaining, assuming it’s entertaining at all), but let’s not pick nits. It’s still a pretty damn clever pun.

Except… what with the woeful state of science education in the U.S. these days, who the hell would know?

For example, take the Pew Research Center Science Knowledge Quiz… no really, take it. And in my opinion, if you don’t get a perfect 12 out of 12, you’re a fucking idiot. But don’t you worry, a less than perfect score would put you in the company of 90-percent of your fellow Americans who couldn’t answer basic science questions like are the continents moving, or which is smaller, an atom or an electron?

And if you didn’t get that last one—and only 46-percent of Americans did—how the hell are you going to get the pun in ION TV’s slogan?

Or more importantly, how is our nation going to maintain itself as a scientific, technological and economic leader when, say, only 32-percent of Americans accept evolution as true? 32-percent. That’s pathetic.

So when Susan Hutchison and her supporters insist that her service as a director at the anti-science Discovery Institute has absolutely no bearing on the race for King County Executive, I say we positively can’t afford that kind of dumbed down political leadership.

There are two key indicators today in the brewing battle between the House and the administration over health care reform, and while they don’t represent any kind of change in position, they indicate progressives are holding their ground.

Earlier today, Greg Sargent reported that House progressives sent a letter to the White House stating that they will not support a bill lacking a so-called public option, and demanding a meeting with President Barack Obama.

Late this afternoon, TPM quotes a statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying that a bill without the public option will not pass the House.

While progressives and the Speaker are reiterating already stated positions, it’s an encouraging sign that the right-wing clown shows (and one left wing finger-biter) have not changed the basic fact that there are more progressives than Blue Dogs, and there are far more Democrats than Republicans in the House.

So while the traditional media (and we bloggers) have duly watched, been outraged, been disgusted and been doubled over in laughter at different times by the circus, it’s worth noting that the House, the most representative body, is poised to actually represent the interests of all Americans, absurd lies about death panels, the 10th Amendment and so on notwithstanding.

Yes, nothing is perfect, but millions of Americans voted in November 2008, and the Democratic Party was handed the majority in Congress and the White House. Extremists who claim some special exemption from the results of elections, making up bizarre theories to suite their own purposes, need to be eyed with suspicion. If a health care plan finally emerges, there will be another set of elections only 14 months from now, and the people will get to vote again. That’s how it works. Elections have consequences, as the Bushites reminded us so frequently.

We are talking about figuring out a way to help our fellow citizens, people. Nobody from the government will show up at people’s houses unannounced to administer prostate exams, indoctrinate children or whatever other nonsensical (and excessively paranoid) claims have been made. Frankly, the fact the right wing puke funnel insists on regurgitating all manner of idiotic bullshit only shows how little love they have for real democracy. It’s all about democracy with them, until they lose a couple of elections, then they unleash the crazy in hopes of intimidating Democrats into backing down.

If people wish to object to certain ideas, like mandates, great. I have qualms about that myself. But the impotent rage of the right has contributed little of value, unless you’re the CEO of a private insurance company.

And then there’s the Senate. Ah, the Senate. There’s talk of using the relatively arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill without 60 votes, but it would smack of a parliamentary trick, which it would be. Not that righties will ever concede one inch no matter how legislation is passed, but they might be able to make the case to others that Democrats did something underhanded.

It’s become nearly conventional wisdom that one needs 60 votes to pass a bill, but this is because nobody ever calls anyone’s bluff on the filibuster. Frankly it is about time that somebody is actually forced to filibuster, it would be political theater on a grand stage.

Cable tee-vee news needs programming anyhow, and since trying to provide health insurance coverage to all Americans has now been portrayed by opponents as being like the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and Armageddon at once, it might be good for the American people to be exposed to the fine minds that would engage in a filibuster.

The obstructionism, obfuscation and dissembling that would be on display is hard to envision, but you can bet it would be both mighty in its rage and absurd in the extreme. For once Democrats need to dare the GOP to put itself on full and unfiltered display before the American people, and let folks compare the ideas of the two parties.

The Cannabis Defense Coalition has adopted a highway (SR 169 in Maple Valley):

Their court calendar is pretty busy as well. Here are the upcoming court dates they’re observing:

Tuesday, September 8 – 9am
Douglas County vs. Hubert Mangum

Wednesday, September 9 – 9am
Grant County vs. David Hagar

Monday, September 14 – 9am
Mason County vs. John Reed & Karen Mower

Monday, September 21 – 9am
Kitsap County vs. Lloyd Stillson

Some background on two of the cases here. Please contact the CDC if you’d like to be an observer for any of these court dates.