HorsesAss.Org

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.

There’s a fascinating US Senate race going on in Oregon, where Republican incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith is viewed as eminently vulnerable, and two progressive Democrats are vying for the right to challenge him. Jeff Merkley is the Oregon Speaker of the House, an affordable housing advocate and former Congressional Budget Office analyst. Steve Novick is a successful environmental attorney, the US Justice Department’s lead counsel on the Love Canal cleanup settlement, a political consultant and activist, and a victorious opponent of Bill Sizemore, Oregon’s version of Tim Eyman. Both are passionate public advocates who rose from modest means to earn Ivy League educations and impeccable progressive credentials. Both appeal to Oregon’s netroots, for example, dividing my friends Carla and TJ over at Loaded Orygun. Both would surely serve the citizens of Oregon better than the Republican incumbent. I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and chat with both candidates, and find it really tough to take sides.

Forced to wager on the outcome, I’d guess the odds substantially favor Merkley, the more establishment candidate with better access to money and endorsements, but as always Novick is determined to make his perceived weaknesses his greatest strengths. Standing at four-foot-something, with a metal hook in place of a left hand, Novick’s promise to “fight for the little guy” is both ironically self-conscious, and, well, believable. No, Novick certainly doesn’t “look like the typical politician,” and in this anti-status quo year, it will be interesting to see if his promise not to “act like one” can catch on with voters enough to overcome Merkley’s inherent advantages.

I genuinely like both candidates, but I love this ad, which started airing today in Oregon. In the end, Oregon Democrats will likely make a decision as to which man is best able to beat Smith in November; if the Novick campaign continues in this theme, and manages to defeat the better financed Merkley, it will say a lot about the mood of this year’s electorate.

UPDATE:
Moments after posting I discovered an email notification that the Novick campaign had purchased an ad on HA. Just thought I’d mention it since I suppose the timing might look suspicious.

The Seahawks lost. I know, they lost back on Saturday, but apparently that’s still the big local story consuming half the front page of the Seattle Times. Also, police officers and city officials don’t see eye to eye when it comes to the disciplinary system, but anybody who’s ever watched a police show on TV knows that, and buying individual health insurance coverage sucks. Tell me something I don’t know.

Meanwhile, apart from a front page column from Nevada by Joel Connelly (apparently, not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,) this morning’s Seattle P-I looks more like a PSA than a newspaper, continuing its (laudable) campaign against artificial butter flavor, and issuing a dire warning to pedestrians not to get hit by cars.

Good advice, but does anybody actually work at the Times or the P-I over the weekend, or does nothing ever happen around here on our days off? Sheesh.

In other news, God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos: What really happened in New Hampshire?
Daily Kos contributing editors DemFromCT, DHinMI and MissLaura join me for a wrap up of Iowa and New Hampshire, and a look ahead to the remainder of the primary season. Did Clinton simply have a better ground game? Was Obama torpedoed by the “Bradley Effect”? Or were the pollsters just plain wrong? And what kind of bump will this give Clinton heading into the heart of season? Join the conversation.

8PM: Will Washington voters approve “Death With Dignity”?
Former Gov. Booth Gardner has filed a controversial initiative based on a similar Oregon law that would allow doctors to prescribe a fatal dose of barbiturates to terminally ill patients diagnosed with six months or less to live. Some oppose this measure as “assisted suicide.” Proponents call it “death with diginity.” Gov. Gardner joins us to discuss his initiative and take your calls.

9PM: Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float in Olympia?
Gov. Chris Gregoire has proposed early tolling on the 520 floating bridge to help pay for its replacement, touching off a debate on how we pay for our critical infrastructure.  Rep. Judy Clibborn, chair of the House Transportation Committee joins us to share her view of whether the proposal will float in the Legislature, and what else we might see on the transportation front in the coming legislative session.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

At the last Drinking Liberally, somebody asked me how much a post at Horse’s Ass would cost.

To answer, it costs this much:

But from anyone else, it might cost more. FYI.

Seahawks coverage is going late, so please tune in to an abbreviated “The David Goldstein Show” tonight, from 7:30PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7:30PM: TBA
The usual liberal propaganda

8PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Fiet
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins us for the hour for our regular look back at the week’s news, and a peek ahead toward what’s coming up. Did the “Bradley Effect” sink Barack Obama in New Hampshire? Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float? Can former Gov. Booth Gardner breath life into his death with dignity intiative? All that, plus a look ahead toward the coming legislative session.

9PM: Saturday night comedy with Julie Mains
If you enjoy my Saturday night chats with local comedians, you’ve got Julie Mains to thank for hooking me up with guests. Julie is the proprietor of the Mainstage Comedy & Music Club and an accomplished performer in her own right, an actress, singer and songwriter familiar to Seattle audiences. Julie joins me for the hour to make it full night of fast-talking, East Coast Jews.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Enjoy the game today, everyone. I’m kind of torn. It’s hard not to root for Brett Favre to keep his season going, but I’d love to see a Giants-Seahawks NFC Championship game at Qwest Field next week.

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is still unsolved. I think I have to give a clue since it’s such a tough one. The clue it’s that this town is so plain and conservative that there just weren’t any views that stood out for me to use.

Finally, after way too long of a wait, the third edition of the Crackpiper Chronicles is now posted (as always, keep sending me your favorite stupid comments, although I already have some good material for Part 4).

Brit Hume has a fireside chat with Dick Cheney:

(This and over 80 other media clips from the last week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

From The Stranger, who quote Grist:

On Monday, Clinton named Joy Philippi, the former president of a the National Pork Producers Council, the main trade group representing confined animal feeding operators, as co-chair of Rural Americans for Hillary.

You known who’s in change of rural outreach for the John Edwards campaign?

John Edwards.

I was listening to some music, when iTunes automatically played the next file in the cue: an old episode of Podcasting Liberally from June 6, 2006, with me, Molly, Will, Carl, Ed Murray, Dan Savage and Eli Sanders. It was kinda a blast, and I especially enjoyed listening to us make our presidential predictions. (Hey Will… how’d Mark Warner work out for you?) Feeling nostalgic? Tune in and enjoy the fun:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/drinking-liberally-june-6-2006.mp3]

[FYI, I believe this was recorded the day before 710-KIRO offered me my show.]

Can you imagine the howling we’d hear from the Seattle Times editorial page if it was Sound Transit that had flushed 97 million dollars down the toilet, and not the Port of Seattle? Or if it was Sound Transit that was under investigation by the Justice Department and not the Port of Seattle?

Sound Transit was pounded by the Times during last year’s Prop 1 campaign. After Prop 1 failed, the Times editorial page took plenty of cuts at Sound Transit and at light rail. The Port of Seattle, meanwhile, gets the kid glove treatment.

With the Port of Seattle’s recent malfeasance, you’d think the Times would be all over it.

Nope. Nothing yet.

If somebody at Sound Transit so much as palms a twenty from petty cash, they get the third degree from Balter, Vesely and the gang. Port of Seattle under investigation? Doesn’t move the meter.

Is the Oprah & Obama Show coming to Seattle in advance of WA’s February 9 caucus? That’s what the new blog Emerald City Scion wonders after gleaning this interesting little tidbit:

ECS has learned that talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey and Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barak Obama are on the guest list of VIPs invited to a post-swearing in reception for newly-appointed United States District Court (WD. Wash.) judge Hon. Richard A. Jones set for the end of this month. ECS has not been able to confirm whether either will attend the event.

I’ve joked (fantasized?) for some time that the race for the Democratic nomination will come down to WA’s caucus, but with the unsettled state of the race after Iowa and New Hampshire, that’s no longer so unrealistic. Coming just four days after Super-Duper Tuesday, WA could serve as the momentum setter in an otherwise split race. Under that scenario, an Oprah/Obama event in Seattle could pay off huge dividends.

Hmm.

I stopped by the open house at the Vance Building last night, where a bevy of progressive organizations have set up office, proving there’s camaraderie, if not necessarily safety in numbers. There was free food, always an attraction to starving bloggers, and the halls flowed liberally with booze and schmooze; it was kinda like a roaming, multistory Drinking Liberally, but with a less embarrassing ratio of men to women.

Wandering from office to office, each with their own special interests and their own particular agenda, a common theme arose in regard to expectations for the coming legislative session. It will be a busy two months the various activists and organizers told me, hopefully filled with some small victories on important issues. But the really ambitious agenda — the substantive legislation on issues ranging from tax reform to transportation to publicly financed campaigns and more — well, that would have to wait until 2009.

It was like a Passover seder (but with cheese on the crackers, and potable wine,) as a common prayer arose from the Vance Building last night: “Next year in Olympia.” Next year, I was repeatedly told, after Gov. Gregoire wins reelection, and the Democrats hold or expand their legislative majority, that’s when we can expect a truly progressive agenda. Next year, with the burden of electoral politics temporarily lifted from their shoulders, the Democrats would apparently be free to make progress on some of our most pressing issues.

Of course, a lot of things can happen in a year that can lead to an awful lot of disappointment. Voters don’t always behave the way we expect them to behave, and candidates don’t always run the kind of campaign they should. And even if we manage to keep our unchallenged hold on Olympia, the Democratic leadership there has often proven more bold at maintaining and expanding its majority than actually using it. Finally, even if an emboldened Gov. Gregoire does attempt to leave her mark during a second term, her agenda will necessarily be limited; even the most successful legislative session will leave the halls of the Vance Building scattered with winners and losers.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I were tasked with pushing a bill, I’d be pushing it hard in 2008, with the Democratic governor and near legislative supermajority we have now, rather than waiting for some political heaven on earth next year in Olympia. But then, I’ve never been a man of faith.