HorsesAss.Org

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgmc32guso[/youtube]

Yeah sure, I’m a cynic, but I’m guessing I wasn’t the only American watching Bobby Jindal stride up to the camera last night to instantly assume that the equally cynical Republican leadership cast the first-term Louisiana governor in that role, primarily based on the color of his skin.  Gives new meaning to the phrase the minority response.

The GOP is an overwhelmingly white party, and predominantly old, white male at that, and so their relentless efforts to present a diverse face by touting young governors like Jindal and Sarah Palin as party leaders just comes across as pathetic. No doubt Jindal and Palin bring more to the table than a little melanin or estrogen, but if the Republicans are really interested in rejuvenating and recasting themselves, instead of just putting their same-old, same-old rhetoric in the mouth of a younger, darker face, they’d do better for themselves and the nation by elevating the likes of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist… a silver-haired white man, sure, but at least one who appears willing and able to question party orthodoxy during these extraordinary times.

Republicans are understandably envious (and increasingly alarmed) at the Democrats’ growing success with minority voters, but it seems they have the cause-and-effect behind our nation’s political segregation exactly backwards.  Minorities don’t vote for Democrats because we have more minority leaders; Democrats have more minority leaders because we are a fundamentally more inclusive party that supports and promotes policies that better serve the needs of minority communities.  And Republicans just can’t slap a Jindal or a Michael Steele in front of a gaggle of rich, old, white men and magically bridge that gap.

Jindal may indeed be smart and wonky, and perhaps may yet earn his reputation as a rising star, but he is only 37-years-old, and his three years in Congress and one year as governor of one of the most endemically corrupt and mismanaged states in the union hardly recommends him as a national leader.  And judging by the early reviews, last night’s performance didn’t do much to enhance his stature:

National Public Radio’s Juan Williams said that Jindal’s presentation was “sing-songy” and that Jindal looked “childish” compared to Obama. “I think he had a really poor performance tonight, I’m sorry to say,” Williams said on Fox News Channel.

MSNBC’s political site was critical as well: “The Louisiana governor, a Rhodes scholar, is a serious guy who’s known for sometimes being too wonky and even somewhat humorless. Well, he tried too hard NOT to look wonky and humorless. But it didn’t work … his speech seemed to be too much of a brochure about himself rather than about his party and its ideas.”

And then there’s conservative commentator David Brooks’ scathing instant assessment on PBS’s The News Hour:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27UIt0RuMw[/youtube]

Ouch.

Still, I guess that’s okay; Jindal wouldn’t be the first young governor to flop in that role, so it’s hardly a career killer.  Indeed, if history is any guide, Jindal might someday have a promising career as Commerce Secretary.

President Barack Obama this morning officially introduced former WA Gov. Gary Locke as his third (and presumably final) pick for Commerce Secretary:

“I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that we’ve tried this a couple of times,” Mr. Obama said while introducing Locke at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. “But I’m a big believer in keeping at something until you get it right. And Gary is the right man for this job.”

I don’t know anybody who doesn’t think this will be an easy confirmation, and that Locke is clearly qualified for the job.

Not continuing to subsidize a polluting business that closed down part of the operation for which it was given a subsidy in the first place is crazy! Or so says Don Brunell of the Association of Washington Business in his weekly advertisement column in The Columbian. (Still waiting for that weekly labor column from the paper. Yeah….)

The state budget may be horrific, but the bidness guys and gals gotta have their cut, even if they are from Canada. (Nothing against the fine regular citizens of Canada.)

I don’t know why liberals don’t understand the free market better, it’s really pretty simple. First a Columbian reporter writes an article highlighting a modest proposal from Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, then an editorial appears from Don Brunell or another writer, then the free market continues giving a foreign company tax breaks. Econ 101, people.

I say aim the budget ax at the wee kiddies instead, the little monsters. The ingrates certainly don’t deserve clean air, let alone instructors.

I give the non-SOTU speech a grade of “B.” Lots of good stuff about education, health care, energy and foreign policy, but he’s still not really dealing with the pressing question of the moment, namely what to do with the insolvent large banks.

Whether this is because he’s going to outfox the Tranche Class in the end or because the Tranche Class is well represented in his administration is not known. Yeah, sure, it’s all about utilitarianism, but since everyone from Greenspan to Krugman is saying what needs to be done, well, you know, it needs to be done. Not sure what bigger platform Obama could have had.

Obama explains things well in a lot of ways, and can form sentences. It’s rather jarring after all this time. The president is not a buffoon! Hurrah!

Also, it’s fun to watch Republicans look at each other and go “darn, we have to stand up and clap or we look like even bigger uncaring jerks.” The distaste on some of their faces was priceless. They looked like a bunch of old southern white guys in suits.

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Some folks will show up earlier for dinner, or to watch President Barack Obama give the State of the…State of the Union…or State…ah… Speech to the Nation…whatever you want to call it—Speech to the Nation…. an address before a joint session of Congress. That starts at 6:00 pm.

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for some 320 chapters of Drinking Liberally spread across the earth. Find one near you.

Who knew?

Also on Monday, the House passed a bill that would increase the amount of damages that landowners can collect for stolen Christmas trees.

Under present law, the state and private landowners can’t collect more than $3 per tree in a civil lawsuit if someone cuts, breaks or removes a Christmas tree from public or private land.

But when it comes to other kinds of timber or trees, landowners presently can collect three times the actual value of trees that are cut, damaged or removed. Someone also can be convicted of theft if he or she intentionally trespasses on public land and removes trees.

You mean current law provides an exemption for tree theft, as long as it was stolen to be used as a Christmas tree?  WTF?

Over at Publicola, Josh says “it’s looking likelier that Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess is going to run against Mayor Greg Nickels,” an assertion supported, I suppose, by Burgess’ official exploratory committee filing.

Huh.  Hard to believe, considering that in my personal experience, when a politician or his office says he is not a candidate (or is not being appointed to some plum position in the Obama administration), his word is as good as gold… and just a couple weeks ago on our podcast, Burgess insisted he most definitely was not running for mayor:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/timburgess.mp3]

Of course, that was February 10, whereas Burgess didn’t file for his exploratory committee until February 20th. I guess a lot can change in ten days.

Apparently the Murcan People Who Play By The Rules, which is most of us, are Furious At Those Who Live Beyond Their Means.

Those people being, of course, the working poor and middle class who got ripped off with variable interest mortgages, outright fraud and assorted criminality. They are The Undeserving Who Must Be Blamed As a Class, because Grandma Millie should have realized her mortgage agent might forge her signature and stick her with an ARM, and she really should have realized that the whole tranche thing was a house of cards supported by the ratings agencies, and unless she’s a complete moron she should have known that Uncle Allen was creating cheap money to make up for the tech bubble bust, thus creating a classic bubble in housing.

I don’t know about you, but I freakin’ hate Grandma Millie, she’s scum and I don’t want to help her because you know I am one heartless bastard. Plus she didn’t learn a damn thing eight years ago when we shut off her electricity, the poor old dear.

Tranches, even though rarely discussed, are very very cool though. The Tranche Class will now be put in charge of saving all of us, live on CNBC.

It’s not class warfare if the sewage flows downhill.

Yesterday, Mark Kleiman, a California-based professor who occasionally discusses drug policy, wrote about the shifting tides on marijuana:

Obviously, this isn’t something the Obama Administration is going to jump on, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big move late in a second Obama term or sometime in the term of his successor (assuming the Democrats keep winning elections). If I had to quote odds, I’d say about even money on legalization within fifteen years. As with the repeal of alcohol prohibition and the creeping legalization of gambling, I’d expect it to be presented at least in part as a revenue-raising measure.

And today, a member of the California State Assembly, Tom Ammiano, introduced a bill to do just that. His bill would regulate sales of marijuana the same as alcohol, with a 21 year old age limit and fairly substantial ($50 per ounce) taxes on both growers and sellers.

While I’m not optimistic that this particular bill will pass, I think that legalization is bound to happen on the west coast well within fifteen years. As Kleiman predicted, though, it’s being presented in part as a revenue-raising measure:

It also has the backing of Betty Yee, who chairs the state Board of Equalization, which collects taxes in California. An analysis by the agency concluded the state would collect $1.3 billion a year in tax revenue and a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales if marijuana were legal.

But the next part in that article is the subject of more heated debate:

The analysis also concluded that legalizing marijuana would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase consumption of the substance by 40 percent.

Kleiman tends to agree with the latter part of that assessment:

Substantively, I’m not a big fan of legalization on the alcohol model; a legal pot industry, like the legal booze and gambling industries, would depend for the bulk of its sales on excessive use, which would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction. (Cannabis abuse is somewhat less common, and tends to be somewhat less long-lasting, than alcohol abuse, and the physiological and behavioral effects tend to be less dramatic, but about 11% of those who smoke a fifth lifetime joint go on to a period of heavy daily use measured in months.) So I’d expect outright legalization to lead to a substantial increase in the prevalence of cannabis-related drug abuse disorder: I’d regard an increase of only 50% as a pleasant surprise, and if I had to guess I’d guess at something like a doubling.

Bruce Mirken from the Marijuana Policy Project disagrees:

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for reform in marijuana laws and is backing Ammiano’s proposal, said any expected increase in consumption is a “false notion.”

“They are making an intuitive assumption that a lot of people make that really does not have that much evidence behind it,” said Bruce Mirken, the group’s spokesman

Mirken is absolutely correct here. Anyone who confidently says that marijuana abuse (or even marijuana use) will go up substantially in an environment where sales are legal is far more certain than they should be.

The first problematic assumption that leads to that unwarranted certainty is a belief there are large numbers of people in California who would start using marijuana if only it were sold legally. I’ve certainly met people (generally older people) who’ve used marijuana in the past, but have found it difficult to obtain due to its illegality, and who would probably buy it if it were legal. So in that respect, I could see an increase in use. However, this is a subset of the population who has already proven to be extremely unlikely to develop problems with marijuana abuse.

Young people, on the other hand, don’t have problems finding marijuana. The idea that marijuana prohibition is actually working as a firewall to keep young people from obtaining it is utterly ridiculous. Establishing a legal market with an age restriction of 21 will actually make it harder for young people to obtain it than it is now (although it likely still won’t be that hard). Because abuse problems are most profound in people who begin using it early, there’s a logical basis to expect abuse problems to decline in a post-Prohibition environment. One could also look towards Holland, where sales of marijuana to adults have been allowed for over 30 years, yet the use of marijuana among teens there is far lower than it is here.

Again, there are a lot of factors at play here, but my own guess is that in whatever state legalizes marijuana first, use will go up by less than 10%, and the prevalence of abuse will stay about the same or go down. Marijuana abuse, as a societal problem, will still remain miniscule when compared to harder drugs like meth, or even alcohol.

The biggest question for me is how the legal market will develop, and how we’ll deal with things like advertising and taxation. The tax being proposed in the California bill is pretty big. An ounce generally doesn’t cost more than $300 on the black market, so a $50 tax on that is not chump change, especially if legalization cuts the black market prices in half. Would that drive people back to the black market? Or would the growers (who have a history of begging to be taxed) be happy to yield a big chunk of their potential profit in exchange for legal status? I have no idea.

Kleiman, on the other hand, wants to take a different approach:

So I continue to favor a “grow your own” policy, under which it would be legal to grow, possess, and use cannabis and to give it away, but illegal to sell it. Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales. But there wouldn’t be billboards.

There are a couple of very big problems with this proposal. Scott Morgan discusses some of the problems here. Another major reason why this approach won’t work is because it’s not trivial to grow high quality marijuana. It’s much more than just throwing some seeds in dirt and putting it under a light. It’s arguably far harder and more time consuming than homebrewing beer. And if you’re just growing for yourself, you’d end up spending a lot of money just to produce a single plant. People would naturally gravitate towards larger scale growers and distributors who know how to produce a higher quality product. It’s an unrealistic proposal, and it’s not at all clear why Kleiman thinks we can’t allow sales but just ban certain types of advertising.

At the end of Kleiman’s post, though, there’s something that he and I agree on:

I just hope the sellers are required to measure the cannabinoid profiles of their products and put those measurements on the label.

Ending prohibition doesn’t have to be synonymous with unfettered free markets. It should be about smart regulations for an activity that millions of Americans are going to partake in whether it’s legal or not. I hope that as we move closer to the post-Prohibition world, we begin to think about (and study) the real effects of setting up newly legal markets in various ways.

Some scientist says social networking causes lack

‘My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.’

Oh I dont thin k thats realy very true—omg an ambulance just went bye…..

Di you see Hell’s Kitchen last week?Mises cuz basketball game.

Then they got up and were like “oh, no, that is so totally

Oscars!

Bloggers, on the other hand, are relentlessly focused. s Miss you! Happy b-day cutey 3.14!

The world needs more social networking. And cheese. Definitely more cheeses.

Aardvark.

That’s what the AP is reporting:

A senior administration official says that President Barack Obama’s likely third pick for Commerce secretary is former Washington Gov. Gary Locke.

Huh.  Locke isn’t exactly a lot of folks’ favorite governor, though apart from his conventional approach to trade issues it’s hard to argue that he’s a bad choice for Commerce.

Washington is one of our nation’s most export dependent states, consistently ranking fourth overall in total exports behind California, Texas and New York, and first in exports per capita.  And as our nation’s first Chinese-American governor Locke is uniquely positioned to bridge the cultural gap with one our most important trading partners.

I’d say this is a safe appointment for Obama, one that will generate little excitement and little controversy.  Locke is honest, workmanlike, and socially progressive (by national standards) if politically cautious, and while I’d prefer a Commerce Secretary who might at least challenge the current orthodoxy on trade, given his tenure in the governor’s mansion I wouldn’t expect much leadership from him on these issues one way or the other.

Unless he’s got some tax or nanny issue I’m unaware of, this should be an easy confirmation.

UPDATE:
A reliable source has confirmed that Locke received the call from President Obama at 1:30PM Pacific this afternoon.

In their latest monthly newsletter, the BIAW touts their recent “political successes,” including, apparently, the alleged 2004 election of Dino Rossi.

What a bunch of poor losers.