HorsesAss.Org

This house for sale in Shoreline is way smaller than it seems (see picture #7).

UPDATE: Looks like they removed the picture…

Joel Connelly has been fairly sensitive about the criticism he’s been receiving over his opposition to I-1000, the Death with Dignity Initiative. I’ve certainly been contributing to his agitation, so I want to take the time to go through his latest column with a little less snark. There are a lot of important life-and-death issues involved here, but I don’t see them being addressed by Connelly. Instead, he gives us contrived ‘gotchas’ that have little relation to why this initiative is happening and why it’s so important.

The overall theme of his column is similar to what he’s tried to claim in the past, that I-1000 is something being foisted upon Washington State by an advocacy group. He writes:

If you read the 2007 report of the Death With Dignity National Center, however, what emerges is that the Evergreen State was carefully chosen, as it were, to revive a movement lately on life support.

It is a tale of behind-thescenes manipulation, candidly laid out by the manipulators:

“We have spent the last year actively researching and collecting data to determine the state which is most likely to adopt a Death with Dignity law,” said the annual report.

“Through these efforts we have identified Washington as the state most likely … We, at the Death with Dignity National Center, are proud to provide our political experience and expertise to these talented and committed people of Washington.”

This is neither unusual nor alarming. Nationally-based advocacy groups with limited funds are always making decisions like this. They rely mostly on donations from individual citizens and don’t have any interest in throwing their limited resources away for a cause they can’t win. Every state in the country has people advocating for laws like this. The Death with Dignity National Center judged (justifiably) that Washington is a state where they are most likely to succeed. If that’s “manipulation,” then so is every political donation in the country.

In our modern political climate, issues like Death with Dignity, which don’t find themselves allied with corporate interests, struggle to influence legislatures directly. Despite its faults, the initiative process is geared towards issues like this, issues that are strictly in the interest of individual citizens who find that government isn’t responsive to them.

Connelly cynically dismisses how the campaign has been putting the local media in touch with signature gatherers with a personal stake in this, as if they are merely puppets of special interests and not individuals with powerful and reasonable interests in changing the law. He couldn’t be more disingenuous. Or more hypocritical. He writes:

I will vote against I-1000. My reasons stem from personal experience, as well as my understanding of an underpinning of our democratic society: Its purpose must be to safeguard and enhance life, especially among the youngest, the weakest and the suffering.

When I first encountered Connelly’s opposition to this initiative, my initial thought was that I had incorrectly assumed that he was pro-choice. I hadn’t. The man who believes that the underpinning of our democratic society is “to safeguard and enhance life, especially among the youngest, the weakest and the suffering,” apparently also believes that the underpinning of our democratic society is something completely different when it comes to abortion.

This is the danger in trying to oversimplify the issue. Trying to come up with these kinds of absolutes about the value of life almost inevitably leads to irreconcilable contradictions. How many millions of people in this country believe that abortion should be illegal, but also believe that the death penalty is just dandy? How many people who fought tooth and nail to keep Terry Schiavo alive barely flinched when we went to war in Iraq?

This realization lacks the ability to be shrunk to a bumper sticker, but the value of “life” can never be the simple absolute that so many wish it to be, and demanding that government try to define it as such is a genuine mistake. Telling a terminally-ill person with a painful or debilitating illness that their own life is so in need of protection that it overrides their own wishes is not much different from telling a date-rape victim that the fetus she’s carrying is a life in need of protection that overrides her wishes as well. In both cases, difficult moral choices are being made by the government, rather than the individual, and this is what has motivated so many signature gatherers around the state this year.

It’s a Drinking Liberally double header for me tonight as the Columbia City chapter meets from 6PM to 8PM at the Columbia City Theater, 4916 Rainier AVE S. (next door to Tutta Bella’s), followed by the Seattle chapter which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM onward at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

The other day I bemoaned the race for King County Superior Court Position 22, where one well-heeled candidate’s $70,000 personal contribution threatens to swamp the campaigns of her qualified opponents.

But it turns out money isn’t the only the factor that plays a role in local judicial elections. No, sometimes petty spite comes into play too… at least, that seems to be the case with ambulance chaser personal injury attorney Matt Hale, less than four years a practicing attorney, who is challenging two-term incumbent Judge Laura Jean Middaugh for KC Superior Court Position 26.

So where does the spite come into this race? Well, get this… the Hale campaign has turned to Washington’s “Off-Highway Vehicle” community for much of their support, not because of any decision that Judge Middaugh made, but solely because she is married to State Sen. Adam Kline, author of an infamously inflammatory (and somewhat amusing) email in defense of his support of legislation restricting the use of OHVs on public land.

Get that? OHV enthusiasts are working to defeat Middaugh as payback to her husband for writing an email that just plain pissed them off. As one commenter wrote on an OHV forum in response to questions about Hale’s qualifications:

The intent behind supporting this guy is primarily to mess with Senator Kline.

Now is that any way to choose a judge?

No, of course not. With just three years of legal practice under his belt, and possibly zero courtroom experience (we don’t know for sure because he’s refused to provide any biographical information on his Muni League questionnaire or in the Voters’ Guide), the baby faced Hale clearly lacks the wisdom, maturity and legal experience to serve as a Superior Court judge. Yet… you know… if it messes with Sen. Kline, that’s good enough for his supporters.

Sigh.

Yeah, I know… railing against judicial elections is the blogging equivalent of tilting at windmills. But come on… our current system just plain sucks.

Well…this sure isn’t going to help the godfather of the Corrupt Bastards Club win reelection.

Update: The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury, is for 7 felony counts of false statements (18 USC 1001). Sen. Stevens is accused of accepting gifts from VECO Corporation (whose executives were a big help to Mike! McGavick in his failed Senate race).

Essentially, VECO did extensive remodeling to Steven’s home. The house was raised and a new first floor was built. They finished the basement, added a first-floor deck, re-roofed the upper deck, rewired part of the house, added furniture and a new gas range, and even had some sort of “car exchange” to give Stevens a new vehicle. In total the gifts (or unpaid loans) were worth an estimated $250,000.

The problem for Stevens is that he did not disclose these as either gifts or as loans on his 1999-2006 Senate disclosure forms.

I received a news release this morning announcing that King County Executive Ron Sims had endorsed Dr. ChangMook Sohn for State Treasurer… which I suppose would be a significant coup for Sohn in this very low profile statewide race, if not for the second paragraph:

“Dr. Sohn has the experience to be State Treasurer: he’s been the state’s top economist for more than two decades; he’s founded a bank; and he’s taught economics at two state universities,” said Sims, who also endorsed Seattle legislator Jim McIntire for the post.

Sims has endorsed both McIntire and Sohn? Isn’t that kinda like buttering your margarine?

One more sign of the favorable political climate facing Democrats this cycle is the sudden reversal of Republicans’ formerly unassailable fundraising advantage in districts nationwide. And we’re not just seeing the inevitable impact of Democratic incumbency here; according to an analysis released today by CQ, of the best-funded House challengers this cycle (as measured by cash on hand), nine of the ten top spots are held by Democrats.

And who should we find near the top of the list, in position number three?

3. Darcy Burner, Democrat, Washington’s 8th ($1.2 million). Burner, who was formerly employed by Microsoft, is taking on two-term Rep. Reichert ($916,000) in a suburban Seattle district in which she came within three percentage points of unseating the congressman in 2006. Burner’s challenge is one reason why Reichert is among the most vulnerable Republican incumbents; so too is the likelihood that his district will back Barack Obama over John McCain for president. CQ Politics Race Rating: No Clear Favorite.

Burner is also one of the few challengers on the list with a substantial cash on hand advantage over the incumbent… a margin that I expect to substantially widen at the end of this month’s pre-primary reporting period. And as CQ notes, this isn’t the only advantage Burner is likely to have come November:

Some of these Democratic challengers may also benefit from added assistance from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of House Democrats that has tens of millions of dollars more than its partisan counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, to spend on television ads and other campaign communications.

The DCCC has already booked a million dollars worth of TV ads in WA-08 this fall. No word yet of an NRCC ad buy on Reichert’s behalf.

Obviously, Burner’s hard fought fundraising advantage puts her in a better position to win this November than she was heading into the 2006 election, but it also tells us a bit about the relative support of the two candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, Burner and Reichert have raised similar amounts in-district and in-state, but the real disparity comes when looking at individual vs PAC contributions. Thus far Burner has raised 84% of her funds from individual contributors, a constituency that provides only 59% of Reichert’s funds. That’s a huge difference, and a disparity that’s likely to grow between now and November.

It’s gonna be a nail-biter, but if I were Reichert I’d be pretty damn worried.

Over the weekend we’ve been following a story here in Clark County about a local couple who appear to be the target of racist vandalism simply because they dared to put a Barack Obama yard sign in front of their home. The Columbian ran a small item on Friday night:

Someone scratched the words “White Power” on a car belonging to a Vancouver family who recently posted an “Elect Obama” sign in their front yard.

On Sunday, Frank Wastradowski, who lives northeast of Southwest Washington Medical Center, noticed the vandalism on the side of his wife’s 1993 Plymouth. The letters, likely scratched with a key, were about 8 inches tall.

“It’s a hate crime and it’s time we get past racism,” he said.

Wastradowski said he won’t take the sign down, adding, “That’s my freedom of speech.”

Now KPTV-12 in Portland has a story up about the incident, and we learn that the words “I’m gay” were also scratched into the car. Since the KPTV story features Karen Wastradowski, Frank’s wife, one can only conclude that the vandals were quite intent on displaying their vast stupidity for the world to see.

There are a couple of things worth noting here. Yes, Clark County has its share of unrepentant bigots. Earlier this year the son of a Battle Ground city council member was charged with cyberstalking over virulently racist emails sent to a black council member and other community members. So while vandalism is not exactly an unusual thing during the summer months, it’s also not acceptable to just shrug off racist defacement of private property as “just kids being kids.” They learned it somewhere.

A small ad-hoc group of us here is working on setting up a donation fund for the Wastradowski’s so they don’t have to drive around in a car that says “White Power” on it. My fellow blogger Aneurin at Politics is a Blood Sport has been following the story here and here. Aneurin has talked to Frank Wastradowski, and unsurprisingly the couple did not have full coverage on the car (nothing against 1993 sedans, of course.) We’re working on some details about how to set the fund up and to do it in a way that will aid the Wastradowskis rather than just make a partisan statement.

In a larger sense, if someone can’t place a yard sign for a major party candidate in front of their home without this sort of thing happening, we don’t really have much of a democracy. At this point we are hoping some local Republicans will also come forward and denounce this attack and perhaps throw in a small donation as well.

As things progress I’ll keep HA readers up to date. It might be easy to ignore a relatively small and stupid act of vandalism, but the Wastradowski’s need to know that the community won’t tolerate this sort of thing and will take positive actions to counteract it.

And one other thing, which is in the “gee, that’s kind of curious” file, is that Frank Wastradowski used to be the campaign treasurer for former state Senator Don Carlson, R-Vancouver. There’s no way to know if the vandals knew that, unless someone is caught, but it’s still pretty ironic.

Sure, the guy is nuts, but this is what inevitably comes from violent, eliminationist rhetoric:

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday’s mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he described his feelings and why he committed the shooting, Owen said.

Adkisson said he was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job and how much he hated the liberal movement, Owen said.

Adkisson hated liberals… and so he shot up a Unitarian church. During a children’s play.

Committing suicide by going on a shooting rampage in a Unitarian church is like shooting fish in a barrel and expecting the fish to shoot back. The Unitarians I’ve known are about the most peaceful and harmless folks I’ve ever met; indeed, the only church less likely for Adkisson to find armed resistance would have been a Friends meeting house. (And even then, only maybe.)

So of course this guy was crazy. Sane people don’t go on shooting rampages.

But hatred like his doesn’t grow in a vacuum; it is nurtured, shaped and focused by hate-mongers like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, who cheer at the notion of killing a few liberals to keep us in line, or who have made careers out of vilifying the political opposition as terrorists or traitors or worse. No, neither Coulter nor O’Reilly nor any of their cohorts pulled the trigger, but they surely understood that their words might feed the insanity of someone who could. If these are the mullahs of the extremist right, then the liberal-hating homicidal Adkisson is a suicide bomber of their own creation.

Say what you want about the aggressive rhetoric of netroots activists like me, but we don’t advocate violence, because we understand that ultimately, the sole purpose of advocacy is to incite action.

UPDATE:
Sam Smith at Scholars and Rogues weighs in:

Jim Adkisson was an unbalanced man, and perhaps it was only a matter of time before he snapped. But two questions to ponder: first, who created the conditions that hastened the snap? And second, when the train jumped the tracks, who created the bogeyman that the diseased brain latched onto as the cause of all the pain?

[Read more…]

When I clicked on the headline in today’s Seattle P-I, “Statewide primary races getting little voter attention,” and saw that it was an AP wire story, I just had to laugh.

Do ya think, maybe, the reason voters are paying so little attention to down ballot races, is that our dailies are paying so little attention to them?  Hmm.  It’s a plausible theory, you gotta admit.

It’s been nearly two weeks since Seattle Police raided the Lifevine offices in the University District. The return of the medical records for several hundred patients resolved the most egregious error made that day, but the police continue to hold onto 12 ounces of medicine which was also confiscated. The medicine belongs to Martin Martinez, a registered medical marijuana patient. The police recognize that Martinez is a registered patient, was allowed to be in possession of the marijuana, but for unclear reasons, they are refusing to give it back.

(Just to provide some perspective, I have no idea who provides medicine for Martin, but if he were forced to replace what was taken through the black market, it would cost him a couple thousand dollars)

I briefly spoke with Leo Poort, an attorney working for the Seattle Police Department, who was vague about why the police were doing what they were doing and referred me to Martinez’s attorney, Douglas Hiatt. At the Cascadia NORML website, the following explanation of the relevant law is provided:

There is no justification for police to seize medical marijuana from a legal marijuana patient. WA State law is very specific on that point. RCW; 69.51A 040 reads: “If a law enforcement officer determines that marijuana is being possessed lawfully under the medical marijuana law, the officer may document the amount of marijuana, take a representative sample that is large enough to test, but not seize the marijuana”.

Police authorities have misconstrued that sentence to mean that officers may or may not confiscate the medicine at their discretion, but as any student of the English language can plainly see, that interpretation is completely incorrect. The word “may” in that sentence clearly applies to the last section of that sentence, not the entire subject of the sentence. We believe an educated jury will agree that WA statute 69.51A 040 means: “officers may take samples of the medicine, but they may not seize the marijuana when they have determined that marijuana is possessed legally by a patient.”

Seattle Police continue to stonewall Lifevine Attorney Douglas Hiatt who has made several verbal requests for the return of the 12 ounces seized on July 15, 2008.

On Saturday, I was at a BBQ with some friends. I’m at that age where a lot of my friends have young kids, and one of the older kids (around 5 years old) was playing with his toy phaser. The adults were playing along, pretending to get shot and falling down. Eventually, a slightly older boy saw the fun, wanted the phaser for himself, and just took it right out of his hands. His mother had to explain to him that you can’t just take something from someone for no reason. This is a lesson I expect to see being taught to kindergarten-age kids. The adults in the Seattle Police Department who we trust to serve and protect us shouldn’t need it too.

Some amount of attention has been paid in recent years to the enormous amount of special interest money that has flooded into our state Supreme Court races. This is part of a nationwide pattern in which the US Chamber of Commerce alone has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade targeting judicial races, successfully building pro-business, conservative majorities on benches in state after state.

But here in Washington we elect all our judges, from the Supremes all the way down to our local municipal court… low profile races that, given the restrictions on the candidates (they are actually barred from talking about issues), often turn on name recognition more than any other factor. And to gain name ID, you gotta spend money, mostly in the form of expensive direct mail campaigns.

Take for example the race for King County Superior Court Position 22, a three way contest between Julia Garratt, Holly Hill and Rebeccah Graham. This is one of those rare, easy judicial races for me because Graham is not only an extremely qualified attorney who has presided over thousands of cases as a Superior Court pro tem judge… she is also a close personal friend. That said, I hadn’t intended to write about the race because I don’t feel particularly qualified to judge judges, and I don’t think my personal endorsements hold much sway.

But this race illustrates a deeper problem with the way we elect judges, a problem which deserves a broader dialogue.

Take a look at the “Cash Raised” column in the PDC reports, and it looks like a pretty damn competitive race, with Garratt, Hill and Graham raising $14,370, $14,595 and $11,240 respectively. That’s the amount of money folks like you and I have given to the candidates, but in this race it tells much less than half the story, for while cash contributions represent the sum total of what Graham has raised thus far, Garratt has loaned her campaign an additional $12,600, while Hill has invested a staggering $70,000 in personal funds into her own race.

$70,000! That’s more than twice the total contributions raised by nearly every other candidate running for King County Superior Court, and from what I know about local judicial races, it’s gotta make Hill the hands down favorite. It just blows her opponents out of the water, and you can be sure that this was exactly her intent.

I don’t bring this up as a personal knock against Hill; while she doesn’t come anywhere near the valuable bench experience Graham has accumulated over her six years as a pro tem judge, I’m told Hill is both a good attorney and a good person. But are all our citizens really best served by a judiciary where personal wealth—and the willingness to use it—becomes the most important qualification?

Of course the real solution is to stop electing judges in the first place. I’m about as engaged a voter as you’ll find, and I generally have no idea who to vote for in judicial races. (I usually ask Graham and my other lawyer friends for advice.) But no matter how wise, this state is never going to vote for less Democracy, so the system we have is pretty much the system we’re stuck with.

But what we can do is move toward a system of public financing that would lift the fundraising burden from our judicial candidates (who aren’t even allowed to directly solicit funds in the first place), and remove the distorting role of money from races for offices that I think we all agree should remain scrupulously apolitical.

Unless, of course, you’re a free market ideologue who believes that society is best served when everything—even justice—goes to the highest bidder.

Now this is a great political ad.