HorsesAss.Org

Mother Jones on “The Peace Movement and Darcy Burner.”

In all, five anti-war leaders spoke during the Take Back America panel discussion and not one of them devoted more than a half-sentence to the surge, which any reality-based observer would admit seriously complicates the anti-war movement’s efforts to generate popular opposition to the war. And none made any mention of how America ought to withdraw.

But then Darcy Burner spoke.

A former Microsoft middle manager who is taking her second run at Congress in Washington State, Burner said that she was fed up with telling voters she wanted to end the war, only to be stymied by the question of how she planned to do so. So she met with Paul Eaton, the retired army general responsible for training the Iraqi military between 2003 and 2004, and developed a comprehensive withdrawal plan.

On the key issue of removing troops, Burner’s 30-page plan, dubbed “A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq,” glosses over the details. It notes that “troop draw-downs should begin immediately and continue until no more troops remain in Iraq,” but the timeframe for the withdrawal and the path(s) out of the country aren’t described. Eventually, they will be “based on planning provided by our military leadership.”

But the plan is comprehensive in every other respect. Using a combination of Iraq Study Group recommendations and legislation already before Congress, the plan provides for refugee assistance and a diplomatic surge that would bring together regional leaders and aims to initiate political reconciliation within the country. It would create non-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams that would “strengthen the capacity of towns and villages to resist the insurgency” and would reach the “entirety of the Iraqi population.” It calls for the departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Justice, and the Treasury to work with international groups to rebuild the country. In short, it de-militarizes the occupation.

The plan also aims to restore habeas corpus to detainees, make extraordinary rendition illegal, and phase out the use of private military contractors. (It can be read in full here.)

It is far from a perfect plan, and it would likely get seriously reworked if it were introduced in Congress, no matter how large the Democratic majority. But it recognizes the anti-war movement’s need to add depth to its rhetoric. For that, Darcy Burner has done folks like Cagan, Chaudhury, and Swan a great service.

At last count, 29 Democratic challengers have already signed on to the Responsible Plan, with more to follow shortly. I’ll post a complete update tomorrow.

Another installment of “The Best of Goldy”:

David Irons Jr.’s mother has mixed emotions about her son. On the upside, she says he’s “very good with his hands.” On the downside, she claims he’s used them to beat her.

An HA classic if there ever was one, read more of “Raging Bullshitter: the sad twisted tale of the Irons family feud.”

I keep hearing nervous talk from several segments of the progressive community that Gov. Gregoire is “wavering” on several key pieces of legislation passed during the recent session: the climate change, toxic toys, and working families credit bills.

Gee… I sure hope not, and I gotta say, I’d be surprised if the chatter proved true. The climate change bill was the environmental community’s top priority this session, and actually came at the governor’s request, while the toxic toy legislation — which merely requires that children’s toys be… um… nontoxic — has broad appeal across ideological lines. I’d imagine the working families credit to be the most vulnerable of the three because in the long run, it actually costs money, but in a state with the most regressive tax structure in the nation (by far) it may be the most important legislation of the session, and a veto would surely piss off a large chunk of the Dems’ progressive base.

Gov. Gregoire needs to win big in King County this November, and vetoing any of these three bills would be an inauspicious campaign kickoff. So for the moment, I’ll choose to believe these rumors are nothing more than that.

If you read this blog with any regularity, you know that Goldy’s show on KIRO got the ax not too long ago. KIRO dumped all of their weekend live and local talk not too long ago. While this might be new to local talk radio, it’s nothing new to commercial music stations.

The dirty details:

KNDD-FM/107.7 laid off two staff members and is making a style change in its midday show. Gone from the modern/alternative rock station are assistant program director Jim Keller and midday host DJ No Name.

The new midday show is “Radio Impulse,” in which listeners are encouraged to use e-mails and phone text messages to request songs and get responses on whether and when that request will be played. The interactive show is an attempt “to come up with a midday show that speaks to our audience,” said Jerry McKenna, Entercom’s vice president and market manager.

Radio stations all over the country are dumping real live deejays in favor of these mass-produced, low overhead syndicated programming like “Radio Impulse.” In a drive to better relate to their younger audience, radio stations are trying to be more like an iPod, all the while not realizing that people listen to the radio because it’s not like their iPod.

As a long time The End listener, I’m pretty much done with the station. I grew up with Marco Collins, stuck with them through their fascination with “rap metal,” and stuck with them after they fired No Name the first time. But I’m done. They’re killing everything I like about radio, everything worth turning off my iPod for.

UPDATE:

If you want to help out our buddy DJ No Name, check this out:

DJ W. NONAME PRESENTS: RADIO IS AWESOME!

An evening of comedy, stories, surprise local celebrities and one of Noname’s favorite bands to close down the show. Event will be immediately followed by an Audience Q&A where attendees can ask DJ W. Noname anything they want!

WEDNESDAY APRIL 9TH

MAINSTAGE COMEDY AND MUSIC CLUB. 315 1ST AVE N. SEATTLE WA 98109. 206-217-3700

Doors 7pm, Show 8pm

Tickets $20

Or

$40 for VIP (includes priority seating and champagne reception at 6pm with Noname and Friends)

Tix available Friday at 5pm at Mainstage Box Office or by calling

206-217-3700

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest doesn’t even have wild-ass guesses yet. I may have to post a clue for this one.

UPDATE: Also, if you haven’t already seen it, check out Joel Connelly’s column on Rick Steves’ marijuana conversation initiative.

It was a good Friday for US financial markets today, free from the volatility of the past few weeks, because, of course, it was Good Friday, and Wall Street was closed. But come Monday, we’ll be back to partying like it’s 1929.

I went to a Friends of Seattle event last night titled:

Post-Proposition 1: The Future of Transportation in Seattle

*Seattle City Councilmember Jan Drago, Chair of the Transportation Committee
*Rob Johnson, Transportation Choices Coalition’s Regional Policy Director
*Mike O’Brien, Sierra Club’s Cascade Chapter Chair
*Greg Walker, Sound Transit’s Policy and Planning Officer
*Moderated by the Seattle Channel’s C.R. Douglas

(As an aside, would it kill you to have a blogger on your panel? I’m not saying this as a plug for myself. Maybe one of these guys, or this guy, or one of these guys. I’m just sayin’.)

A thought for anyone who puts on a panel discussions. Please try to make more time for questions for the panel. I’ve always found the Q&A time more informative than anything else. It would be nice to be able to ask questions throughout the discussion, instead of just at the end. While I don’t go to a lot of these things, for the ones to do go to, this is SOP. And that’s a bummer.

About the discussion:

ROADS

What was the deal with C.R. Douglas’ questions, over and over, about roads? Nobody gives a shit. We’re Seattle liberals, C.R., we don’t care about finding more money for I-405. On a more serious note, finding money for more highways isn’t a problem. Even thought voters said “no” to Roads and Transit, lots of roads projects are moving forward.

LIGHT RAIL ON 520

Also, what’s the deal with light rail on 520? Douglas and the panelists waxed on and on about it being built, and, in the Sierra Club’s case, before it’s built on I-90. From what I’ve learned, light rail won’t work on 520 if it’s built before light rail is built on I-90. It’s a complicated issue, but arguing for 20 minutes on something that isn’t even technically feasible… well, that’s the Seattle way.

TAXES

Some complained about Sound Transit using sales taxes to pay for light rail. I don’t see what the problem is. I mean, wasn’t it his income tax plan that swept Ron Sims into the governor’s mansion? Yeah, the sales tax isn’t the best way, but it’s what we got. So it’s either pay for this stuff with it or wait, and I don’t want to wait.

DON’T TRUST THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE

Jan Drago is working with the Discovery Institute guys to find a way to dig a deep-bore tunnel underneath Seattle from the stadiums to Mercer. Why she would partner-up with an organization that doesn’t believe in the scientific method, I have no clue. I would never dirive in a faith-based tunnel, and I don’t want to pay for one either. While I generally like Drago, she’s totally out to lunch on this.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

When I learned that the Mayor was slated to give an introduction before the panel discussion, I had to smile. See, Greg Nickels is Sound Transit board chair. While the panel included some knowledgeable people, including a Sound Transit policy guy, it didn’t include anyone from the board. Mayor Nickels has way more say about what happens “Post Prop 1” than anyone, really, and he only spoke for five minutes before the panel. Like I mentioned to a friend:

Me:

So before the panel talks for two hours about what they want to see happen, Mayor Nickels is going to talk for five minutes about what’s going to happen.

Other Guy: [Nods and smiles]

But that’s usually how things operate in Seattle. We like to sit in a circle, talking about our feelings, while the People Who Are Making Things Happen are hashing it out in the next room. Mike O’Brien talked about how he’d like to see a greenhouse gas study of any ST2 plan, but then said “we need lots and lots of light rail.” There’s nothing wrong with doing tests, but what’s the endgame? Are we going to suddenly find out that light rail is worse for the environment? It’s not clear what the motivation is here.

What drives me up the wall is that we heard all of this last year:

“Vote no so they’ll come back with something better.”

Well, that’s what’s happening (to my surprise), and it’s aggravating that Mike’s answer to C.R. Douglas’ question, “will you support Sound Transit this fall?” was “gosh, we’ll have to see what the package looks like.”

The right answer? “You bet, C.R., we’re following the lead of Mayor Nickels, an environmental leader in his own right, and we’re all for light rail this fall. Enough waiting, let’s go!” While I understand his concerns with park and rides (a minor issue, at best) and 520, the idea of supporting a light rail package that isn’t paired with something like RTID should be an easy, easy call to make.

What isn’t a sure thing this year is the Sound Transit board getting the message that we want them to go to the ballot this year, not next year, not the year after that. No more waiting. For transpo/enviro nerds, we’ll always be able to argue about variable tolling, congestion pricing, and arcane land use code issues. But winning this fall is the most important thing.

With Seattle soon to take receipt of a Major League Soccer team, folks have been wondering:

What are they gonna call it?

Some want to stick with our minor league team’s name, Seattle Sounders. Team brass, however, are looking for something with a little more international appeal. But the recently-released finalists aren’t amazing the fans, it seems.

The finalists are… Seattle Alliance, Seattle Republic and Seattle FC. The “FC” stand for “football club,” in case you were wondering.

“Good Lord these suck,” wrote one online Seattle P-I reader, among many upset about the names. “The Seattle Alliance sounds like my health care plan.”

[…]

“We want to start a new tradition and a new direction and we’d like our name to reflect our attempt to have a global connection on and off the field,” said MLS Seattle part-owner and general manager Adrian Hanauer, who also owns the Sounders. “I love the Sounders brand and the Sounders history. That will always be a part of Seattle soccer. … This is a new team in a new league and we want to start fresh. … This is a good opportunity for our fans to choose our name.”

Unlike other sports, soccer teams don’t necessarily have specific nicknames the same way American teams do. The dominant team in Britain is the Manchester United Football Club, or Man Utd. for short. Their nickname is “The Red Devils,” but you don’t hear it used much. My team is their crosstown rival Manchester City. Some refer to them as “The Citizens,” “The Blues,” or just “City.”

Here are City supporters in action, singing their song, “Blue Moon”:

As far as I’m concerned, name the team Seattle FC and be done with it. That’ll be the official name for the box score, but let the fans call them what they will. (I think we should steal “Blues”) Let the fans make up their own chants, their own songs, their own rivalries. For Premier League teams, all of these things have arisen over the hundred plus years of their existence. When Seattle FC takes the field, fans will put their own mark on the team.

Five more Democratic challengers have officially signed on to the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq, including Alan Grayson (FL-08), Harry Taylor (NC-09), Leslie Byrne (VA-11), Bill O’Neill (OH-14), and Greg Fischer (KY-Senate). That brings the total number of endorsers to 25 from 16 states, with several more expected shortly.

On this week’s podcast, the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly explains that challengers are generally loathe to get out in front on issues like this because the safer strategy is to make the campaign less about themselves and more about the incumbent. So why are so many challengers willing to stick their necks out on the Responsible Plan? Well, it could just be that the Plan is surprisingly, well, responsible.

In a commentary posted to Democracy Arsenal, Moira Whelan of the National Security Network addresses the understandable skepticism with which “national security wonks” and other experts generally greet any candidate plan: “… you roll your eyes [and] you know it’s not wonky enough to meet your standards… right?” But, she continues, “Not so with this plan…”

Folks at NSN have become pretty familiar with this plan in the last few weeks. When we got a call asking us to meet with Darcy Burner, who drafted a plan, we thought of it as nothing new…after all, lots of candidates want to find the silver bullet to change things in Iraq, and often don’t have a feel for all of the moving pieces in Iraq and around the globe. Sometimes, candidates are more concerned with developing the plan that won’t get them in trouble, rather than the one that embodies their approach and forces real change. We were pleasantly surprised by Darcy.

Darcy laid in front of us 20 pages of a comprehensive approach to Iraq—a project that started after a conversation with General Paul Eaton. She’d done her research, and based her ideas on legislation already introduced in Congress. She went beyond the idea of troop deployments, and political stability to address more systemic problems with the US government that got us into this mess in the first place. The Responsible Plan for Ending the War in Iraq looks at things like media accountability, government transparency, torture, FISA and trade-offs on issues such as Afghanistan. She wrote the whole thing herself, and sought advice from “experts” as well as her fellow challengers. In other words…her plan is peer reviewed…and approved.

Two things make the plan especially compelling, and demonstrate a changing dynamic in elections that we’re surely going to see this cycle.

First, the people who drafted it—the 10 candidates who’ve attached their names to it so far—understand Iraq in very real ways. Burner’s brother served in Iraq. Donna Edwards is a military brat. Tom Periello worked in Iraq and Afghanistan doing development work. The list goes on and on. In other words, the idea that progressives “don’t get it” is completely blown out of the water based on those who are introducing it. Not only do they get it, they’ve embraced it and are now running for Congress to change the realities they see—that’s public service of which you can be proud. They’re actually walking the walk.

Second, voters and candidates care about Iraq and the rest of the world—in a detailed way. Contrary to what some political advisors are saying, these candidates started this strategy because “what are you going to do about Iraq?” is the top question they’re getting from their voters. It’s no longer sufficient for candidates to say they believe in ending the war, voters want to know how they’re going to do that. Voters are insisting on details because they know the details. In other words, our candidates and our voters are smarter on Iraq and the world we live in than we’ve seen in recent elections.

[…] A few months from now, people will look back on this crew with a “where it all started” approach. We’ll be counting this class as a new generation of leaders who are smarter and stronger on security than ever before. More will adopt their plan as a blueprint, and they’ll walk into the halls of Congress with a mission, with allies, and with knowledge.

Through his spokesman, Dave Reichert insists that he wants to bring our troops home from Iraq as well. The difference is, Darcy Burner is actually attempting to do something about it.

Another in our exciting lazy new series, The Best of Goldy: “Goldy responds to the Republican Governors Association.”

See, here in the other Washington, we have something we call “laws,” which are written by democratically elected legislators, not half-witted, cirrhotic PR hacks like you. And according to our laws, Christine Gregoire was duly elected governor. So rather than cynically laboring to undermine the electoral process of a state no Republican governor has called home for over twenty years, why don’t you just focus on something you’re good at… like helping your members devise new and exciting ways to deny poor children health care.

Read the whole thing. Or not.

This is the funniest thing ever. PZ Myers just got kicked out of the crazy new creationist movie.

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I’m blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I’m too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.

Read the whole thing, it gets better.

We had so much fun (and perhaps, beer) at Drinking Liberally Tuesday night, that I haven’t gotten around to posting the podcast until Thursday.

Joining me (Goldy) in our typically insightful and inciteful evening of drunken discourse were Chris, Carl, Lynn and Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly. Topics of discussion include Barack Obama’s possibly historic speech on race, Hillary Clinton’s gender problem, Darcy Burner’s "Responsible Plan" to end the war in Iraq, Rep. Dave Reichert’s ridiculous flip-flop on earmarks, and the teetering state of the national toilet economy.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_march_18_2008.mp3]

The show is 53:21, and can be downloaded here as a 48.8 MB MP3.

[Podcasting Liberally is recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Darryl for producing the show, and Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

For all the criticism tough love I showed House Speaker Frank Chopp during the final weeks of the legislative session, at least the Democratic caucus isn’t totally and irreparably dysfunctional. From the Seattle P-I:

Sen. Pam Roach has been forbidden from dealing directly with Republican caucus staff because GOP leaders say she has created a hostile work environment.

In a letter sent to the Auburn Republican last week, Senate Republican leaders say Roach has shown a lack of boundaries with caucus staff, including making them listen to her recount “past perceived slights” by lawmakers, lobbyists and party leaders.

The letter says Roach asks staff to state that their loyalties lie with her and are subject to treatment that violates the Senate’s prohibition on creating an “intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.”

All contact with caucus staff must be between Roach’s legislative assistant and staff, and Roach must not contact caucus staff “in person, via phone, e-mail or through any other means,” according to the letter.

Roach was traveling in Honduras and could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but on Monday evening she sent out an e-mail blasting the leadership and saying she was being targeted for criticizing the caucus’s plan to recruit new members.

And man, what an email that was. In a fisking worthy of Effin’ Unsound, the News Tribune’s Niki Sullivan reprints the press release-ish email, adding her own emphasis and thoughtful interjections. As for Roach, her email earns the appellation of “instant classic” in what was already a vast and impressive oeuvre of id-inspired nuttery. My favorite excerpt…?

Minority Leader Mike Hewitt (R-Walla Walla) has verbally abused members in caucus, and has bent and exposed his backside to a female senator while screaming at her during a caucus meeting.

“He is a desperate man with personal problems,” said Roach.

And you can trust Roach on this, because when it comes to desperate personal problems, she’s an expert.

But there was one other section of Roach’s email that particularly stood out to me, the one in which she mentioned the late State Senator (and infamous sexual hypocrite) Jim West:

“Five years ago, Hewitt joined then leader Jim West, in attacking me fearing I would go public with questionable e-mails that were uncovered. They fired my aide who discovered and reported them, then Hewitt joined West in a campaign to silence me with smear and intimidation tactics.”
Roach was exonerated.

“Now Hewitt, with his own closet full of skeletons, is resorting to the same tactics of intimidation and harassment,” said Roach.

Back in 2005, two independent sources suggested to me that it was Roach who originally tipped off the Spokesman-Review to West’s personal indiscretions, something folks at the S-R denied. But… well… you gotta wonder….

A new feature in our open threads, something I like to call “The Best of Goldy” (although it’s really just lazy recycling) in which I link to an old post from my gloried past, and then go off and do something useful like, you know, sleeping.

For my first installment I invite you into my wayback machine to a post from October 2004, back before I had much of an audience. In this post I meticulously fisk some court depositions in a lawsuit against the Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, the main financier of Initiative 892, Tim Eyman’s “Slots for Tots” initiative that went on to fail by 23-point margin. So what sort of ethical standards did Great Canadian promise to bring to its Washington state casinos?

But apart from the fraudulent Mexteam relationship, the undocumented cash disbursements, the profit skimming, the mob connections, and the loansharking, rape and illegal cigarette sales at B.C. casinos… Great Canadian is an upstanding corporate citizen, right?

For the answer to that and other questions, read: “Keep loansharks, prostitutes, drug dealers, mobsters, and Canadians out of our neighborhoods: Vote No on I-892!”

As Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley was recording this video explaining his reasons for signing on to the Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, even more Democratic challengers were coming on board, including Faye Armitage (FL-07) and Cheryl Sabel (AL-02).

Meanwhile more national security experts are adding their public endorsement, including Rand Beers, a counterterrorism expert who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush:

“The Democratic challengers that produced this responsible plan to end the war in Iraq prove that Democrats can successfully and responsibly discuss national security issues of the first order, and discuss them in ways that represent real solutions to the real problems that we face.”

But, then, what do a bunch of generals and national security experts know about this stuff compared to the man who took 18 years to catch the Green River Killer?

Update: Darcy Burner will be on KUOW (94.9 FM) at 1:50 pm today to discuss The Responsible Plan — Darryl