HorsesAss.Org

Darcy challenges Colorado Senator to support EFCA

by — ,

Seattle Times editorial columnist Kate Riley once accused Darcy Burner of being “inauthentic” when in fact, the opposite is true: Darcy is perhaps too authentic, at least to be a successful politician, occasionally saying things she’d gain absolutely no advantage in saying, just because, you know, she believed them to be true.  It’s one of the traits that makes Darcy… Darcy.

So while it was sad to see her lose the November election, it is strangely good to see she hasn’t “learned her lesson,” as evidenced by this video of Darcy over the weekend, speaking out on behalf of the Employee Free Choice Act, and challenging recently appointed US Sen. Mike Bennett to do the same.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPwnZu7_u4I[/youtube]

Of course, this is the kind of spur-of-the-moment, grassroots video that drove her political consultants batty, and prompted media establishment types like Riley to brand Darcy as some kind of wacky, nutroots lefty.  Perhaps it’s not advisable to always speak her mind, if she has any aspirations of running for office again.  Professional politicians just don’t make videos like this.

But then, Darcy has never been a professional politican.

UPDATE:
To sign the petition mentioned in the video, click here.

Deja Vu, Part Deux

by — ,

Norm Coleman attorney James Langdon, in a letter to judges hearing the Minnesota election contest:

Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates — and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast — the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election. In that regard, the Court may wish to review the following cases addressing situations in which the number of illegal votes is large and the margin of victory is small…

So, first Coleman’s attorney’s argue for proportionate reduction, and now they argue that if the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory, the entire election has to be set aside and redone.  Sounds familiar, no?

There are in fact rare grounds for setting aside the results of an election, but as we learned in WA in 2004, closeness sure as hell ain’t one of them.  Of course, what happened here holds no legal precedence for MN, but dollars to donuts the judges there will be looking at Judge Bridge’s decision before writing their own.

Reps. Wallace & Anderson flunk higher-ed interview

by — ,

An email is making the rounds of UW faculty warning of a 20-percent cut in state funding, and an “unsympathetic” and “hard-edged tone” coming from state legislators.  The email points to Austin Jenkins’ TVW interview with Rep. Deb Wallace (D-Vancouver), Chair of the House Higher Education Committee, and Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-Fall City), the committee’s ranking Republican… and it’s the kinda interview that explains why so many people just hate politicians.

Wallace and Anderson are in fact unsympathetic and hard-edged (and at times, clueless), and for all their repetitive talk about reform and efficiency, they offer few if any specifics.  Both Wallace and Anderson affirm that our state colleges and universities should be bracing themselves for cuts in “the neighborhood of 20-percent,” yet both are equally adamant in their opposition to lifting the current 7-percent tuition increase cap.  And in the face of steep funding cuts, both legislators insist that school administrators minimize the impact to student enrollment while maintaining quality, or else, in the words of Anderson, the legislature will “come in with fixes that complicate their lives.”

I guess threats like that are what Anderson means when he talks about the need for everybody to “work together.”

So where’s the fat?  Wallace repeatedly points to a five-year BA/MA program as a model of efficiency (as if five-year BA/MA programs are anything new) while touting the thousands of community college students who now take classes online… even going so far as bizarrely mentioning the in-class nervous breakdown of one of her college professors as an example of the downsides of the traditional classroom environment.  But perhaps the stupidest and most revealing moment of the interview comes from Anderson, who favorably points to the newspaper industry for chrissakes as a positive model for using new technologies to transform our colleges and universities!

Yeah, that’s the ticket… model reforms on the brilliant newspaper industry business model.  If only we could break the unions, fire the professors, and shut down all the campuses, we could finally get skyrocketing higher education costs under control.  What a maroon.

And Wallace doesn’t come across much better when she argues for maintaining the 7-percent tuition increase cap by pointing to our current low rate of consumer price inflation:

“What do we say to families? Well, we’re going to raise your tuition beyond 7-percent even though inflation is 1.6? The question is, well, why are we going to do that?”

Um… maybe… because you’ve cut higher education funding by 20-percent?

Wallace insists on making a rhetorical argument in response to a policy question, and that doesn’t bode well for those hoping to have a responsible debate on education funding.  Likewise both her and Anderson’s knee-jerk rejection of a high-tuition/high-aid model—she, supposedly because “the math doesn’t work,” he because “well, we’re not a class society”—belies their stated goal of exploring real reform.

If I were a college administrator/instructor/student I’d come away from this interview disappointed, offended and awfully damn wary about the ability of this committee to lead our higher education system through these tough economic times.  In fact, I don’t see Wallace or Anderson offering much leadership at all, apart from warning  administrators to do more with less… or else.

Perhaps that makes for good politics in their home districts.  I dunno.  But it also pretty much guarantees a second-rate college and university system that ultimately balances its budget by exporting our best and our brightest.

The GOP at war–with itself

by — ,

Don’t miss Kos’s front pager on the hilarious spectacle of Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh engaging each other for control of the GOP. As Markos says about Steele:

When you have to proclaim that “I’m the leader of the Republican Party”, then you are not.

Limbaugh is apparently going to respond to Steele on the radio, which should be hilarious. While most of the news these days ranges from terrible to awful, the Republican Party base genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh is awesomely awesome.

Limbaugh may be the king of AM conservative radio, but that’s not exactly a winning coalition. In fact, it’s not even a coalition, it’s just the tattered remnants of the “angry white male” devotees from twenty years ago. The country has moved on, and normal people want to confront the economic crisis in a meaningful way.

My crystal ball is at the Teletype office having new, lower stock ticker numbers installed, but could this be the true beginning of the end for the Republicans? Hard to see how any “moderates,” meaning in the case of the GOP anyone who isn’t certifiable, can survive in the Limbaugh Party.

UPDATE–Kos points to this post at The Plum Line, where Greg Sargent has some of Limbaugh’s response. Oh, and make sure you’re not drinking hot coffee. Like with this bit:

I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife…

Today in spam

by — ,

I usually don’t give much thought to the spam that makes it through my filter, and most of it is also boring and predictable (whoever knew there were so many dead people with unclaimed millions running around Africa and Asia?). But one that popped in today, sent with malicious intent and undoubtably toxic attachment by someone in the Eastern Hemisphere, is both pretty clever and unintentionally hilarious:

From: Delta Air Lines

Thanks for the purchase!

Booking number: 3LSMXK

You will find attached to this letter PASSENGER ITINERARY RECEIPT of your electronic ticket.
It verifies that you paid the ticket in full and confirms your right for air travel and luggage transportation by the indicated flight Delta Air Lines.

On board you will be offered:
– beverages;
– food;
– daily press.
You are guaranteed top-quality services and attention on the part of our benevolent personnel.

We recommend you to print PASSENGER ITINERARY RECEIPT and take it alone to the airport. It will help you to pass control and registration procedures faster.

See you on board!
Best regards,

Delta Air Lines

Aside from the telltale misuses of American English (“daily press,” “control and registration procedures”), it’s pretty clear the author is not only not a Delta employee, but has never experienced domestic American air travel (and probably can’t even imagine it). I mean, really: Food? Top-quality services? Benevolent personnel?

Drago a no-go in November

by — ,

As expected, four-term Seattle City Councilmember Jan Drago announced this weekend that she will not be running for reelection this November, leaving at least two open seats in what is shaping up to be our most interesting council election in years.

Whether “interesting” equals “quality” when it comes to the final slate of candidates remains to be seen.

Leaping Forward or Pushing Back

by — ,

Most folks here know that our former police chief, Norm Stamper, has become an outspoken proponent of ending drug prohibition. The organization that he works with today (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – LEAP) currently has thousands of members across the country. Recently, the Union-Leader, a New Hampshire paper, profiled several police officers who enforce the drug laws during work hours, but speak out against them as members of LEAP in their spare time.

LEAP represents the most prominent deviation from the standard political orientation of police organizations in this country. For nearly every major drug policy reform initiative of the past few years – both here and in other states – the primary opposition have been police unions. And for years, police organizations have always been seen as a “special” special interest, easily trumping the arguments of civil libertarians, even when those “potheads” were exactly right about what the real consequences would be. And the politicians always stood by the police. But today, that dynamic has changed.

Back in November, I posted about a troubling incident involving a man from Jefferson County named Stephen Dixon. Border Patrol officials were stopping cars at a roadblock near the Hood Canal Bridge and arrested Dixon, a disabled veteran and medical marijuana patient, for having 3 grams of marijuana on him while a passenger in a car. Eventually, U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan dismissed his case and told the Border Patrol to stop referring minor drug cases to him. And Sullivan is no Norm Stamper either, he’s the guy who’s been trying to extradite Marc Emery from Canada.

But the Border Patrol out on the Olympic Peninsula has continued to take advantage of a law that gives them free reign to set up roadblocks and question people within 100 miles of any international border. Despite claims that they’re looking for terrorists, Border Patrol agents have been using this power primarily to chase after undocumented workers and drugs. The following video looks at this huge expansion of Border Patrol personnel on the peninsula along with the tactics being used, including boarding public buses and questioning people about their citizenship.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQcVeWh3CuE[/youtube]

As you can see from the video, not all law enforcement officials are happy about what’s going on. Jefferson County Sheriff Michael Brasfield turned down requests for assistance with what the Border Patrol is calling “Operation Stonegarden,” primarily because it’s far too focused on detaining illegal immigrants and not enough on securing ports of entry. The Police Chief in Port Townsend has also spoken out against what the Border Patrol is doing.

Even politicians are starting to get involved in the protests as well. Congressman Norm Dicks sent a letter to the incoming head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, referring to the tactics of Border Patrol as “rogue actions by agents with questionable jurisdiction.” As Norm Dicks also concedes in his letter, he was someone who had previously asked for an increased Border Patrol presence along the Canadian border. He has also voted to allow Federal law enforcement officials to use resources to override Washington State’s medical marijuana law. Now he’s found himself in a position to have to fight to scale some of this back.

That dynamic is starting to happen in a lot of places. Over the past few decades, many politicians didn’t feel it was politically smart to question law enforcement budgets for fear that they’d be labeled “soft on crime.” Today, we find ourselves in an economic situation that now longer allows politicians this luxury. Going after undocumented workers, much like going after petty drug use, is one of those areas where we’ll need to reassess our priorities.

The Obama Administration has gotten off to a fairly good start on some of these issues. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the DEA raids in medical marijuana states would end was great news for those concerned with the ability for local and state governments to establish their own regulations on drug use. This opens the door to new avenues for fixing the gigantic budget messes that the states find themselves dealing with.

It’s clear that the people of the peninsula aren’t threatened in any way by the undocumented status of many of the workers among them. As was shown in the video above, the Border Patrol crackdown has even harmed the local farming economy by going after these individuals. Is that what we should be focusing our resources on? Is this a smart investment of our tax dollars at such a critical time?

UPDATE: The Border Patrol Free Network has a hotline that people can call to report on incidents with Border Patrol. The number is 1-877-475-6138.

Was Santelli’s “tea party” rant planned?

by — ,

Barry Ritholtz asks the question. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that a right wing talk radio operative from Chicago registered a tea party site–last summer.

The VWRC lives! If it does turn out that Santelli was indeed involved in a coordinated, pre-planned offensive against Obama, he deserves to be fired immediately. And then his journalism epaulets should be yanked off and his journalist license revoked.

Then he can be hired by Fox Noise, which has no journalists.

Bobby Jindal, storyteller

by — ,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8U4zVmJPs[/youtube]

Of course, his whole tale of personal heroism and defiance has since been totally debunked; Jindal’s office now admits that he played no part in the incident, in fact, wasn’t even present at the time, and only heard about it from the Sheriff days afterward.

But… in Jindal’s defense, he does start off this anecdote by saying “let me tell you a story.”  So I suppose he could claim he never intended it to be interpreted as nonfiction.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

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!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.