HorsesAss.Org

It looks like after 6+ years of being in Afghanistan, we may have finally come across something that can end their domination of the opium industry…

Competition

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is posted.

Josh Feit, Olympia edition:

Earlier this week, I slogged from Olympia that a battle was brewing over tolling.

The question: How should money generated from tolling be divvied up between roads and transit? (Note to Will at HorsesAss, “Transit” means BRT, HOV, bike lanes, light rail and light rail connections among other investments that get us out of cars.)

Considering both Josh and myself are already out of our cars, I figure he’s using the royal “us”. That is, unless he’s referring to my occasional Flexcar use to visit family on holidays in rural NE King County. In which case, good luck getting me out of that car, since there’s no light rail to Carnation. But I digress.

From the comments to Josh’s post:

Josh, if you really, really want to kill the tolling idea for 520, this is exactly the way to do it. Tolls are supposed to pay for the 520 replacement. I have no problem with using part of the toll money for transit… if it’s built into the replacement bridge. Two HOV / transit lanes down the center, with dedicated ramps, like I-90? We can do that. But the farther the money moves away from the bridge itself, the greater the public outcry and the chances of the toll idea being shitcanned.

If we’re getting a new bridge, it makes sense to make robust transit-oriented functionality a part of the design of the bridge. This means HOV and bike lanes. This means bigger light rail-carrying pontoons and interchanges that make bus travel easier. If we make these investments, does it really matter how we we divide the tolls?

There are a wealth of high-profile races on the ballot this year, and, well, the contest to replace retiring State Treasurer Mike Murphy isn’t exactly one of them. But that doesn’t make it any less interesting to political junkies like me.

Murphy, allegedly a Democrat, is backing his top aide, Allan Martin, a licensed funeral director and embalmer, who has declared as a Republican. Democratic Rep. Jim McIntyre, an economics professor and former Finance Committee chair, is giving up his House seat to seek the Democratic nomination.

Also seriously exploring a run is Chang Mook Sohn, the state’s chief economist and longtime revenue forecaster. But while Sohn is reportedly planning to run as a Democrat, you’ve got to wonder about his party credentials, what with his name appearing on a petition by the libertarian Cato Institute calling for Social Security privatization:

… we support giving workers the option of shifting all or part of their Social Security taxes into individually owned, privately invested accounts, similar to individual retirement accounts or 401(k) plans. We believe that only a system based on savings and investment can provide a safe and secure retirement without burying future generations under a mountain of new taxes.

Huh. Dismantling Social Security doesn’t particularly sound like a Democratic value to me.

I’ve had my run-ins with McIntyre when he chaired the Finance Committee, but at least I know where he stands on the issues. How exactly the State Treasurer impacts these issues, I’m not really sure. But I intend to find out.

NARAL Pro-Choice Washington is holding its 17th Annual Chocolate for Choice event on Tuesday, January 22… the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The event takes place at the First Base Club at Safeco Field, and tickets start at $35.

I’ve been invited once again to serve as a VIP Judge (along with folks like Darcy Burner, Dow Constantine, Jean Godden, Mike Kreidler, Larry Phillips and others), and let me tell you from personal experience that it is well worth the price of admission. Last year’s event featured an amazing and overwhelming selection of chocolate treats from some of the region’s best confectioners and pastry chefs, and of course, all proceeds go toward protecting women’s reproductive rights.

Hope to see you there; I’ll be the one stuffing my face full of chocolate.

Geez… if I ever run for office, I hope my fourth grade teacher lies.

Huh.  So first the state Democratic Party schedules its presidential caucus on a Saturday, and now we learn the county conventions are scheduled for Passover.  I’m loathe to attempt to speak for my fellow Jews, but… what are we…? Chopped liver?

On a side note, if you’re trying to make up your mind on whether to attend your county convention or your family seder, I’ve been to both.  It might be hard to believe, but county conventions are even more tedious and more frustrating than even the longest Passover seder (think of the platform debate as the four hundred questions,) and the food isn’t nearly as good.  Stick with the seder.

One of the big stories in the presidential primary season thus far has been the youth turnout.  Young people turned out in higher than expected numbers in both Iowa and New Hampshire, overwhelmingly voting with the Democrats.  And even in yesterday’s Michigan primary, where the GOP had a real race while Democrats refused to participate due to party rules, youth turnout was strong:

100,776 young voters aged 18 – 29 participated in yesterday’s Democratic Primary (choosing “uncontested” over Hillary Clinton, 48% – 43%). They were 17% of the Democratic electorate. Comparatively, 112,833 18 – 29 year olds voted in the Republican Primary, and they were just 13% of the Republican electorate.

That Democrats still managed to split the youth vote despite having no race in their primary is good news, and if this trend continues it bodes well for Democrats up and down the ticket next November.  And this apparent demographic shift could pay off huge dividends for years to come.  Young people now self-identify as Democrats in growing numbers, and as they age and participate more regularly in electoral politics, this new generation of voters could form the base of a new progressive majority.

According to Bloomberg.com, it looks like Boeing is going to announce another delay for the 787 Dreamliner:

Boeing Co., the world’s second- largest commercial airplane maker, today may announce a delay in its 787 Dreamliner program that could jeopardize the company’s plans to deliver the first jetliner by the end of the year, according to people familiar with the program.

The 787’s maiden flight, already moved to the end of March from last August, may now be pushed back to June, said the people, who didn’t want to be identified because they aren’t authorized to disclose the information. Boeing will announce a revised Dreamliner delivery schedule before U.S. stock markets open, the people said.

Already six months behind schedule, Dreamliner production has been hurt by parts shortages and assembly delays. Boeing has racked up 817 orders valued at more than $120 billion, making the Dreamliner its most successful new aircraft in sales. Boeing last month reiterated its goal for first delivery to All Nippon Airways Co. before the end of 2008.

“Compressing the test program to six months for a December delivery is dangerous,” said Michel Merluzeau, an aviation consultant at G2 solutions in Kirkland, Washington. “Boeing needs to do a very necessary mea culpa and delivery to All Nippon has got to be reset to spring 2009.”

Back in the late 90s, when I worked for Boeing (my first job after college), I saw some discontent within the engineering team I worked in. There was a lot of anxiousness over how the company was spreading out so much of its engineering work to places all around the globe. I worked with some hard-headed older guys who’d been working in the same place for a while and weren’t really known for their ability to change, and some of them had been down to the newly acquired McDonnell Douglas facilities in California and saw a preview of how this kind of outsourcing approach affects a flight control group.

I left the company during the engineering strike in 2000 and never really looked back. I can only wonder if some of the concerns my ex-co-workers had about the new direction of the company have been realized and are what’s causing the parts shortages and assembly delays today. Whatever is really causing the problems, it does concern me that they might rush their deliveries. This is ultimately why I find myself at odds with the popular libertarian notion that government regulation only results in a negative outcome. There are just times when companies have significant financial incentives to cut corners on safety. As much as I was impressed by how strongly Boeing did care about safety, it was impossible to ignore the fact that the work of the FAA was part of that equation. My experience there definitely moved me away from more extreme notions of having government “leave us alone.”

Then again, if the Far East keeps sending us toys with lead in them, maybe we should send them planes that aren’t fully tested yet.

[Note to trolls: That was a joke]

[UPDATE]: Commenter rhp6033 posts his thoughts on the delays and what’s been causing them.

Well, that was quick. Just a few minutes after the polls closed, NBC called the Michigan Republican primary for Mitt Romney. Of course Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa are all moot, what with Guiliani’s brilliant Florida strategy about to catapult him back into frontrunner status.

Meanwhile, over in Bushistan…

Hmm. If that were Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards posing, imagine the outrage. Baghdad Barack? Hegira Hillary? Jihad John?

UPDATE:
I’m watching the Nevada Democratic debate right now, and all I can say is… fuck Tim Russert. I mean really, fuck him. He has this great opportunity to ask the three leading Democratic candidates (one of which will likely be the next president of the United States) about important issues facing our nation, and all he wants to do is focus on race and gender in the hope of sparking a cat fight. It ain’t working.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
According to the Seattle Times, it’s very, very close in Michigan. Mitt Romney “edges” ahead, just “narrowly” leading John McCain in early returns.

Um… the headline and lede were supposedly updated at 6:12 PM, at which time Romney was leading McCain by 9 percentage points, and projected by all three networks to be the winner.

Not that I’m implying an intentional bias, but narrow lead my ass.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Tonight’s theme song, in support of the Mitt for Michigan movement: Free for all by the Motor City Madman, Ted Nugent.

Not in Seattle? Check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Josh Feit:

It seems to me, the real environmental battle in Olympia this session is going to concern tolling.

[…]

The battle will be over this: What percentage of the money that’s generated from tolls should go to roads and what percentage should go to transit? The annoying negotiating starting point is a 90/10 split—90 for roads.

The transportation chairs in both the senate and the house […] are reportedly leaning toward keeping the dollars funneled toward roads for now.

Tolls collected by bridges should be spent replacing or maintaining bridges. I don’t know what kind of transit Josh is alluding to here. Light rail? Buses? Light rail is too expensive to be paid for with tolls on bridges. Maybe Josh is talking about “transit as mitigation” during construction. (Lots of new buses, getting stuck in traffic through Kenmore as they go around the lake. A sight to see!)

How about this: Spend bridge tolls on the bridge. Then, continue tolling, putting that money in a bank account. Then, in 50 years, when that 520 bridge is falling apart, we can just write a check to replace it. That way we can avoid the whole “90/10” argument, the whole “roads vs. transit” argument, and other dumb arguments that keep our region from getting shit done. I’m no Jim Vesely, but that seems like a good way to go.

John McCain is one wild and crazy guy:

At an event this morning in Michigan, John McCain joked that going on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show is “dangerous experience”:

I also want to assure you that from my encounters with young Americans in the military and Google and colleges, universities, high schools, even — I even went on MTV Town Hall — interesting experience. Going on Jon Stewart: That’s a dangerous experience. Letterman, Leno — I try to reach out to young people. And every time I’m around a group of young Americans, I am enthusiastic and my faith is restored.

McCain is, of course, joking. But I think it’s funny that a conservative Republican, running for President, thinks that going on a cable show somehow wins him points with his GOP base. McCain has always been somewhat of a media whore. Take, for example, his turn hosting Saturday Night Live, for which he missed a critical spending vote.

I also find it odd that McCain says that his “faith is restored” by the young people who show up for The Daily Show taping. Those kids are high. Either McCain is one hip guy or he’s not paying attention.

Now that’s got to be a fun comment thread. I’m sure everybody is polite and moderate, in a very Times kind of way.

[UPDATE]

Critics of Oemig like to whine incessantly… If he’s so bad, then how’d he put away a top notch GOPer like Toby Nixon? I don’t think it’s Toby’s fault; folks just wanted some progressive change.

Either way, in 2010 the folks in the 45th LD will get to have their say. The idea that impeachment is going to hurt him somehow is a GOP precinct captain’s wet dream.

A week ago, I posted about the case of Marc Emery, the Vancouver-based marijuana seed entrepreneur who was facing an extradition hearing on the 21st of this month. I planned to follow the hearings pretty closely, but it looks like there might not be much to follow. Emery appears to be taking a plea bargain:

Marc Emery, Vancouver’s self-styled Prince of Pot, has tentatively agreed to a five-year prison term in a plea bargain over U.S. money laundering and marijuana seed-selling charges.

Facing an extradition hearing Jan. 21 and the all-but-certain prospect of delivery to American authorities, Emery has cut a deal with U.S. prosecutors to serve his sentence in Canada.

I was a little surprised to see Emery do this, as he seemed to be really looking forward to the publicity that would’ve surrounded his trial in a U.S. court. But the deal was apparently done in the interest of sparing his two co-defendants, one of whom is a medical marijuana patient who fears she will die in an American prison. Still, Emery is clearly ticked off by what happened:

“I’m going to do more time than many violent, repeat offenders,” he complained. “There isn’t a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, ‘I was hurt by Marc Emery.’ No one.”

Of course, there are some out there who would argue that this isn’t true. A number of people think that flouting our drug laws to the extent that Emery has hurts everyone, and “sends the wrong message to children.” And many of these people, unfortunately, still have prominent jobs in our government. Only recently have we started to see them as the radical extremists that they really are.

In Canada, Emery’s business was technically illegal, but ultimately tolerated. He paid his taxes and forged good relations with the Canadian government. But in the end, America’s zealousness in fighting the drug war has always been able to trump such trivialities. Marc Emery, a man who hasn’t even visited in the United States in many years, will be sent to a Canadian prison for 5 years solely for being the supply that matched up to the American demand for the seeds of a plant that humans have used recreationally for thousands of years.

In other news out of Canada, Glenn Greenwald posts about another set of unjust laws, hate speech laws. Unlike the laws that are sending Emery away to jail, these laws don’t come out of pressure from the American government. Instead, they come from those who take an extreme view of multiculturalism and protecting minorities. Greenwald writes:

Ezra Levant is a right-wing Canadian neoconservative who publishes Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal — a poor man’s Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons. In February, 2006, he published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which prompted an Islamic group’s imam to file a complaint (.pdf) against Levant with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, charging Levant with “advocating hatemongering cartoons in the media,” and the imam specifically accused Levant of “defaming me and my family because we follow and are related to Prophet Mohammed.”

Rather than dismiss the complaint as a blatant attempt to punish free thought and free speech, the Alberta Human Rights Commission announced that it would investigate. To do so, they compelled Levant to appear before a government agent and be interrogated about the cartoons he published, his thoughts and intent in publishing them, and the other circumstances surrounding his “behavior.” Under the law, the Commission has the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties on Levant.

As much as I would probably find Levant’s politics to be a mixture of hysterical and terrifying, his actions should never, ever be considered a crime for any reason. This is one thing that nearly all of us in this country tend to get right. We understand the value of free speech and that restricting it will always unleash unintended consequences. However, as Greenwald points out, these laws are more common in both Canada and Europe.

Whether we’re talking about U.S. drug laws or the hate speech laws in Canada, any time you make laws which aim to protect the public’s peace of mind by restricting the liberty of others, you start down the path of totalitarianism. You chase an unattainable utopia that eventually alienates the public it aims to protect. Both the United States and Canada can look across our common border to take the first steps towards backing away from our extremist tendencies.

Hillary Clinton’s poll-defying victory in last week’s New Hampshire Democratic primary had pollsters, pundits and conspiracy theorists scrambling to explain the difference between Barack Obama’s 8-point average lead in the preceding surveys, versus Clinton’s 2-point victory on election night. Polls are often wrong, but rarely this wrong, and so not surprisingly, the post election narrative was as much dominated by the unexpected nature of the results as the results themselves. Whereas Obama left Iowa with a surge of positive press, Clinton came away from New Hampshire with a gigantic question mark.

Over on Daily Kos, DemFromCT has an exhaustive roundup of the latest thinking on what went wrong (or what went right, depending on your perspective,) and while I tend to agree with the conclusion that multiple factors led to the pollsters’ pratfall, I think there is one theory that deserves closer examination, not in spite of its lack of supporting evidence, but because of it. Of course, I’m talking about the supposed “Bradley Effect.”

The Bradley Effect (also referred to as the “Wilder Effect”) describes the observed phenomenon in which black candidates score significantly higher amongst white voters in public opinion polls than they ultimately do on election day. This is popularly represented as evidence of a degree of racism amongst white respondents, who apparently shy away from telling pollsters their true leanings, for fear of being perceived as racist. But as Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut explains in the New York Times, the demographic underpinnings of the effect are actually much more subtle:

In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.

It is not so much that white voters generally lie to pollsters, Kohut argues, but that “poorer, less well-educated” white voters — who we’re told are less likely to support a black candidate — tend to be under sampled in the typical survey. But I wonder if, in the context of a presidential primary, the Bradley Effect might actually insinuate itself into voter behavior in an even more subtle way, spinning questions about electability into a self-fulfilling prophecy? The most widely cited examples of the Bradley Effect come from general elections, but all things being equal, primary voters, particularly in our currently polarized environment, tend to be focused on selecting the nominee they believe to be most capable of winning in November. No doubt race has always been a dominant theme this election season, hence the big story coming out of Iowa being the unprecedented victory of our nation’s first viable black presidential candidate. But if New Hampshire voters — black and white alike — remained unconvinced that our nation is ready to elect a black man to the White House, might they ultimately cast their ballot for a white candidate, despite their honestly stated intention to vote for Obama?

So, does the Bradley Effect at least partially explain the pollsters’ flop in New Hampshire? Probably not… but that doesn’t really matter, for the very discussion of the Bradley Effect has the potential to impact the behavior of Democratic voters in primaries down the line.

In reality, the much ballyhooed polling discrepancy involved Hillary Clinton’s numbers only; Obama received pretty much exactly the same percentage of the vote on election night as the pre-election polls had predicted, so it’s hard to argue that the polls oversampled Obama’s support when he largely performed as expected. The data doesn’t necessarily disprove a Bradley Effect, but it doesn’t particularly support it either.

But it’s too late for pundits to take back their speculation, and it is unlikely that the specter of the Bradley Effect won’t continue to be raised in the days leading up to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond. On its surface the Bradley Effect, whatever its mechanism or evidence, appears to be a reasonable enough explanation for at least some of what we saw in New Hampshire, and if Democratic primary voters believe it to be true, it could influence their vote as well, not because they are racists, but because they perceive a substantial number of their fellow Americans to be racist themselves. If Obama subsequently underperforms pre-election polls in other contests, “evidence” of the Bradley Effect builds, as does its place in the public narrative. What results is a self-catalyzing recursive process in which Democratic primary voters, focused on electability, transform unsupported speculation of a Bradley Effect into a reality, withholding their genuine support for Obama because they believe he cannot win. It’s not racism per se that defeats Obama, but the perception of racism in others. (Which I suppose is racism, if only in a nuanced, institutional form.)

Of course, this is all just speculation. But speculation has an odd way of coming true, even when it’s not.