HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Kerlikowske appointment signals new direction for nation’s drug policy

by Goldy — Wednesday, 2/11/09, 1:14 pm

According to both local and White House sources, President Barack Obama will nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy—a cabinet-level position commonly referred to as the Drug Czar—an appointment that could signal a substantive departure from our nation’s current marijuana-focused, interdiction-heavy drug policy, and a more realistic and progressive approach toward the issue of drug abuse in general.

Within the context of career law enforcement professionals, I think it safe to label Kerlikowske a “progressive.”  During his ten-years at the helm of the Seattle Police Department and his current term as president of the Major Chiefs Association, Kerlikowske has been a vocal advocate for gun control and community policing, while serving as a prominent critic of the use of intrusive data mining techniques as a tool for combating domestic terrorism.  But while he hasn’t been particularly outspoken on drug control policy, Kerlikowske’s relative silence is encouraging in itself, considering the progressive mores and statutes of the city whose laws he has enforced for the past decade.

While Kerlikowske opposed a  2003 citizens initiative making marijuana in Seattle a “low priority crime,” calling the measure vague and confusing (and… well… most initiatives are), he emphasized to local reporters at the time that marijuana possession and use already was a low priority, and in fact, Seattle’s already low marijuana prosecution rate has dropped even further since the measure’s passage, indicating a responsiveness to the will of the voters.  Indeed, local drug reform advocates seem downright ecstatic about Kerlikowske’s appointment:

“Oh God bless us,” said Joanna McKee, co-founder and director of Green Cross Patient Co-Op, a medical-marijuana patient-advocacy group. “What a blessing — the karma gods are smiling on the whole country, man.”

McKee said Kerlikowske knows the difference between cracking down on the illegal abuse of drugs and allowing the responsible use of marijuana.

Kerlikowske’s laissez faire approach toward low-level possession fits well with our region’s libertarian streak and its progressive attitudes toward medical marijuana, needle exchanges and other drug issues.  Seattle has long been home to one of the largest Hempfests in the nation, where otherwise law abiding participants routinely light up in front of police officers without fear of arrest.  Meanwhile, Kerlikowske’s predecessor, Chief Norm Stamper, has established himself since leaving office as one of the nation’s most outspoken advocates for comprehensive drug policy liberalization and reform.  Yet despite the dire warnings of drug war hard liners, Seattle’s crime rate has dropped to a 40-year low during Kerlikowske’s tenure.

Kerlikowske’s office has not avoided controversy, particularly over accusations of lax discipline of officers, but he is widely admired.  Speaking on our Podcasting Liberally podcast last night, Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess, a former police officer, and current chair of the committee that oversees the police department, agrees that Kerlikowske is “no Bill Bennett,” and credits him for a “progressive” approach toward drug control issues:

Clearly the drug war as it has been waged traditionally in our country over the last 20, 30 years is not working, and there is a lot of collateral damage that’s unintended but is real, that is not helping us in that regard.  Chief Kerlikowske himself has been advocating some diversion programs, pre-arrest strategies, that are quite progressive.

Of course, Kerlikowske is no Norm Stamper either, but given the history of the Drug Czar office, his appointment should hearten those advocating for a more humane, rational and effective national drug control policy.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Tunnel: Frank Chopp counts lanes; Pols polish a, well, you know

by Will — Wednesday, 2/11/09, 12:40 pm

Damned with faint praise:

“Everybody’s really glad they reached a decision,” said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee. She said the intention is to approve the design during the current legislative session.

“The tunnel,” said Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, the Senate committee’s ranking GOP member, “seems to be something that’s got critical mass.”

That, my friends, is what politicians say when they are invited to polish a turd.

But this one is my favorite:

On Friday, Chopp said there are questions about how to pay for possible tunnel cost overruns. “Additional questions are being raised around transportation capacity, for example going from six lanes down to four,” he said, but for the moment he’s focused on the state budget and relief for families and businesses.

Doesn’t Chopp’s own Viaduct vision also reduce waterfront capacity from six lanes to four?

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Podcasting Liberally

by Darryl — Wednesday, 2/11/09, 10:40 am

With rumors that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is heading to D.C. to have his tax returns scrutinized, the podcast panel spends more than a little time on drugs, meandering around topics from the mean streets of Seattle, to the state’s top cash crop, to national enforcement policy.

Nibbling on some local issues, the podcast turns to mayoral runs, and Goldy extracts answers from his panel, including a Seattle City Council-member. One improbable “yes” emerges.

Back on drugs, the panel takes a swim in the latest pool of Reefer Madness. It seems Tony the Tiger has forsaken his munching minions. And A-Rod hits one out of the park with banned substances. Ironically, it takes a “stimulus package” to close out the podcast drug-free.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle City Council-member Tim Burgess, Effin’ Unsound’s and Horsesass’s Lee, and founder of Headzup.tv, John Shay.

The show is 40:58, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_feb_10_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Stupid? Or just plain greedy?

by Paul — Wednesday, 2/11/09, 8:02 am

To interpret news today, I’ve taken to substituting the word “greedy” for “stupid.” When Wall Street bankers say they acted stupidly on subprime loans, they’re lying to us and themselves. They weren’t stupid then and they aren’t now. What they were and are is greedy.

When a congressman or former statesman says he was stupid to accept a bribe, or not pay his taxes, or hire illegal workers, he’s not stupid. He’s just being greedy.

And when Alex Rodriguez excuses himself for taking steroids because he was “young and stupid,” come on. Alex is no fool. He was angling for the biggest salary in baseball.

Most of all, when a headline or article refers to all these acts as stupidity, they are not practicing honest journalism. They should call it what it is: greed.

Stupidity is an Olympic hero smoking a bong while someone takes his picture. Stupidity is trying to drive in Seattle in the snow (not necessarily because you don’t know how to drive in the snow, but because hardly anyone else does). Stupidity is missing your bus or your recycling day, or driving too fast on Aurora at the speed trap north of the bridge.

But stupidity is not a synonym for greed. With greed, you know what you’re doing. You’re trying to get away with something for the sake of more money.

We all know this, so why make a big deal of it? Because by labeling greed “stupidity,” it excuses conscious deception, fraud and criminal behavior. If you say you were stupid, it’s kind of like, well, you know, it was out of my hands. I didn’t really mean to. It could’ve happened to anyone.

It also deflects the act away from its root cause, the worship of money. The problem with greed is that it destroys our humanity. It turns us into dogs eating dogs, every man for himself, the filthy rich versus the mass of people. Stupidity is not one of the seven deadly sins. Greed and its kissing cousin gluttony are two.

Greed is not good and never was. At least Gordon Gecko called it by its right name.

Most of all: If it’s stupidity, they’re implying they wouldn’t do it all over again. And here they’re lying again. They would do it all over again, in a flash, if they thought they could get away with it. Their motto derives from Dylan: “In Jersey anything’s legal as long as you don’t get caught.” After all, if they do get caught, they can just say they were stupid and the media will back them up.

Anyway, try it the next time you hear or read the word “stupid” from someone apologizing or writing in the news. It’s remarkable how it clarifies your perspective on what’s wrong in America.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

L&I error in your favor, BIAW

by Jon DeVore — Wednesday, 2/11/09, 7:45 am

From Seattle Weekly:

According to L&I, a glitch in its computer coding resulted in the agency refunding $10 million to $15 million more per year to employers and groups that participate in the so-called Retrospective Rating program for workers’ comp insurance. That is, they were getting a bigger refund on their premiums than their actual injured-worker claims would have justified.

It’s impossible to say, without knowing many more details, how much the BIAW might have benefited from this overpayment. But the builders’ lobby is the biggest participant in the “retro” program and uses the refund money to fund its political machine. The fact that government “incompetence” has, for years now, been helping the BIAW underwrite its war on government is either fitting or ironic, it’s hard to know which.

When I think back to all the distorted attack ads and the hysterical, right wing baloney the BIAW has pumped out over the years, it makes me want to puke. Turns out they had a good thing going, and they didn’t have the good sense to shut up and enjoy it.

Maybe now the Legislature will actually do something about the noxious “retro” program. Like end it.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

One question, Mr. President

by Jon DeVore — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 10:06 pm

So if toxic assets aren’t worth anything, who are the private sector people that are going to buy them?*

*Yes, I can be horribly mean and snarky. A lot. But I really don’t know the answer to this, nor, from what I understand, do many smart people who have degrees in business and economics. It’s not meant as an insult, it’s meant as a serious question, because the new administration is taking questions from bloggers and everyone and stuff.

Personally I imagine President Obama would answer this question pretty well, if someone can ask it.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

A little blues after a rough day

by Jon DeVore — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 9:47 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFDcUY6HiAo[/youtube]

Eddie “Clean Head” Vinson. I’m fine, the economy, well, you know. Rough patch. Talk amongst yourselves.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Drinking Liberally

by Darryl — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 6:49 pm

DLBottle Please join us for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Start time is 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Or show up earlier for dinner.

For tonight’s activity…we’ll come up with some “fair and balanced” stories for FOX News. Someone needs to take over for the Republicans as they take a break to figure out the new face of the Republican party. (Hint: the one that shows up.)

If you’re not in Seattle, the Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times of a chapter within sleighing distance of you.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Kerlikowske as Drug Czar?

by Lee — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 6:37 pm

That’s what the PI is now reporting:

Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske has been appointed to a law enforcement post within the Obama administration, which would return him to Washington, D.C., after almost a decade as Seattle’s top cop.

A administrator in the Seattle Police Department said Tuesday that Kerlikowske notified commanders that he would be appointed as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a cabinet-level post often referenced as the White House “drug czar.”

I’ve been critical of Kerlikowske in the past (specifically about the way SPD has dealt with complaints of police violence), but I’ve never thought of him as an overly aggressive drug warrior. Maybe I’ve never seen that side of him, or maybe the ONDCP will have some more sensible leadership than it has. I’m not sure yet. I’m curious what those who have followed his career more closely than I have think.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

http://publicola.horsesass.org/?p=1518

by Goldy — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 3:07 pm

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Make public records public

by Goldy — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 11:15 am

I totally agree with the Seattle Times editorial board in arguing that government should “use technology to provide public records cheaply,” but I can’t sign on to their actual arguments.

In fact, our public records statutes can create an incredible burden on public agencies, requiring untold hours at taxpayer expense to fulfill requests that often amount to little more than vindictive fishing expeditions.  (I’ve often been tempted to file a public records request asking for the cumulative cost to taxpayers of Stefan’s many public records requests… but I didn’t want to waste taxpayer money on a lark.)  So when the Times complains about proposed legislation that would raise the maximum copying charge to $0.25/page, or deny requests to people who refuse to pay their outstanding balance, they make it sound like fulfilling a request requires little more effort than feeding some documents into a copier.

Hardly seems right that public agencies would be making such a profit off documents to which citizens are entitled. Though municipal lobbyists suggest the higher fee would offset costs of staff time in fulfilling the request, that is expressly prohibited by the state’s Open Records Act.

Um… so… if the Times recognizes that there are actual “costs of staff time in fulfilling the request,” why would they suggest that public agencies are making a profit?

Of course, they’re not.  The Times is just being the Times.  But at least they attempt to be constructive.

A better idea? Require cities, counties, ports and school districts to better manage their records. Why not make documents available by e-mail or copying them on to a disc — pennies a serving — even less if the requester provides the disc.

Yeah, that would address the cost to the requester of making copies, but it does nothing to address the real cost:  the many staff hours spent gathering documents and fulfilling the request in the first place.  In fact, it takes just as much effort, if not more so, to scan a document to disk as it does to feed it into a copier.

So how about an even better “better idea”?  Since most records are produced on computers, why not just take every electronic document or file that would be open to a public records request, and just automatically place them in a searchable online database?  Every email.  Every Word document.  Every spreadsheet or PowerPoint presentation.  Everything.

Because the vast majority of public records requests would probably be unnecessary if the records were actually, um, public.

UPDATE:
Erica takes umbrage:

Goldy argues that the “many hours of staff time” it takes to fill records requests should be compensated, and argues that every single public record maintained by government agencies should be put in computer files for the public to sift through themselves. The logic is tortured: Government agencies provide a valuable service we should pay them for (sifting through records to fill requests), therefore we should get rid of that service entirely and make people who file records requests find the records they want themselves. Not to mention the fact that most agencies don’t have a surplus of public-disclosure staff; in my experience, most government agencies only employ one public-disclosure officer. Is Goldy really arguing that we should eliminate that position from every government agency?

Um… no.  I’ve reread the post, and I don’t find myself making that argument anywhere.  I didn’t present an either/or.  Rather, I suggested that merely delivering records requests electronically doesn’t save all that much money, and that the real savings would come from putting as much of the public record as we can online, where much of the snooping could be done in a self-service manner.  But I don’t see how one infers from this post that I favor eliminating public-disclosure staff.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Penny a Click (con’t)

by Paul — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 9:56 am

The discussion over how to fund newspapers continues, with Michael Kinsley weighing in today on the op-ed pages of The New York Times. Based on the failure at Slate (ancient by Internet time standards), Kinsley argues you can’t charge “by the slice” for content. I usually enjoy Kinsley’s observations for their wit and insight, but this time he missed the mark, showing little cognizance of tech and market advances since his Slate experience). Ironically, his piece came on the same day as coverage of Amazon’s new Kindle 2.0 device, which happens to charge by the slice. Michael, perhaps you could sit down with Jeff Bezos and compare business plans.

Kinsley’s piece apparently is in reaction to Walter Isaacson’s TIME endorsement of “micro-payments” for news content. (By the way, how can The New York Times or Kinsley for that matter justify not linking to a piece explicitly referred to in Kinsley’s article? I mean, just what is going on here? Arrogance? It has to be intentional, coming at a time when The Times is getting lots of attention for Web innovation.) Many other new contributions to the debate we raised here a month ago ago (really a renewal of the longstanding debate over micro-payments) are surfacing: Glenn Fleishman at Publicola has an insightful analysis of advertising realities on the Web, and Clark Humphrey comments on Glenn’s piece (neither are about micro-payments per se). Meanwhile, the most (in my opinion) thoughtful and comprehensive look comes from Steven Brill:

“All online articles will cost 10 cents each to read in full, with simple, one-step purchases powered by an iTunes-like Journalism infrastructure. (Apple, which turned my children from music pirates to music micro-buyers, could become a joint-venture participant, but that is hardly the only way to create a convenient payment engine.)”

I don’t think Brill’s multi-tiered system (he also supports a “one-day pass” for 40 cents, a month-long pass for $7.50 and annual fee of $55) is the right answer. I still back a penny a click, given the dynamics of Web commerce and critical mass. Once you start slicing and dicing, you confuse consumers. And people don’t want to pay even a day in advance for something they aren’t sure they’ll want to buy (compare RealNetworks’ music success with Apple’s). If Apple had charged $4 for a Beatles song, $1.50 for a  Starlight Mints number and 3 cents for an Eagles tune, iTunes would have kept Napster in business for years. (Brill even calls for 5 cents to forward an article. That’s just bone-headed; forwarding should be free. Let recipients decide whether they want to read the article and pay for it themselves.)

A couple of thoughts:

First, can we officially retire the term “micro-payments”? It’s been stigmatized beyond redemption. And there are so many different types that the term has lost all meaning. We can refer to pay-as-you-go systems by their specific form; e.g., subscription-based, or pay-per-view, or whatever. I prefer “penny a click.” KISS.

Second, no one seems to bring up content providers’ biggest asset: Archives. Recall that The New York Times used to charge for archived articles. It gave up because charging was such a huge disincentive versus “free.” But its mistake was charging too much: $1.50 per piece if memory serves. Not to overstate it, but a penny would prove no barrier to archival retrieval and over time represent a healthy revenue source, for any content provider, not just The Times.

However many permutations the discussion involves, at least it’s happening. And that’s good. We need to get people to think of content as something to be paid for. The exact iteration will work itself out. I vividly remember early discussions over video on the Web. Why wasn’t it happening? What would it take for someone to provide easy ways of posting all those home/hobbyist videos they were taking? The arguments back then — that it was too time-consuming, storage was too expensive, broadband was not fast enough — all disappeared virtually overnight with YouTube, because storage became cheap and broadband got faster (and more ubiquitous). All we need are a couple of technological advances to make a penny a click easy and transparent, and we’re off and rolling toward a transaction economy for the Web.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Open thread

by Goldy — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 9:54 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rX7-R54-Q8[/youtube]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Porkugeithner

by Jon DeVore — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 7:14 am

Fixing up school buildings for the wee kiddies is waste-fraud-abuse-communism-the-end-of-America. Making sure the assholes on Wall Street who did this to us get more money and keep their jobs is virtuous!

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

http://publicola.horsesass.org/?p=1427

by Goldy — Tuesday, 2/10/09, 12:18 am

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 640
  • 641
  • 642
  • 643
  • 644
  • …
  • 1038
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 6/23/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 6/20/25
  • Friday! Friday, 6/20/25
  • Wednesday! Wednesday, 6/18/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 6/17/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 6/16/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 6/13/25
  • Friday Open Thread Friday, 6/13/25
  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 6/11/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 6/10/25

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky @goldyha.bsky.social

From the Cesspool…

  • Vicious Troll on Monday Open Thread
  • Vicious Troll on Monday Open Thread
  • The Revolution Will be TikTokked on Monday Open Thread
  • MAGA on Monday Open Thread
  • Vicious Troll on Monday Open Thread
  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Monday Open Thread
  • lmao on Monday Open Thread
  • E Jean Carrol on Monday Open Thread
  • Alexander Haig on Monday Open Thread
  • Vicious Troll on Monday Open Thread

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

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!

Search HA

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.

© 2004–2025, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.