HorsesAss.Org

This screenshot was taken at uSP. That’s quite a reading list: Dino Rossi’s Lessons and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What’s next, Tim Eyman’s How I Fought Herpes and Won and Mein Kampf?
———————————————————————————————–

During his September 26 broadcast Rush Limbaugh described service members who advocate for a US withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers,” prompting anti-war veteran Jon Soltz to challenge Limbaugh to have him on his show and say it to his face.

My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I’ll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security.

Is Limbaugh man enough to meet Soltz’s challenge? Nah… he’s a big old coward. But why not call his show at 800-282-2882 between 9AM and Noon PST and ask him anyway?

We’ve all seen those “Reject R-67” ads the insurance industry is running, featuring a fake family making fake claims about how R-67 will raise your premiums, or the laughably fake law firm made out to look like a parody of your typical lawyer joke. Well the first “Approve R-67” ad just hit the airwaves, and it somehow manages to use a real person — not an actor — to speak honestly about the kind of real personal tragedy the bill addresses.

Personally, I find the real person more persuasive than the fictional one.

P.T. Barnum once famously said, “there’s no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right,” a dubious maxim Jane Hague seems intent on putting to the test. For the umpteenth time this campaign season the King County Councilmember has found her ethical and legal travails chronicled in both daily newspapers, and you’ve gotta believe the bad headlines are taking a toll.

The Seattle Times reports this morning that Hague has agreed to pay $9,500 in fines to resolve multiple public disclosure violations first uncovered by her opponent, Richard Pope. Hague and her spokesman, Bret Bader, continue to belittle the violations as “a small technical matter” and “a nuisance complaint,” but if so, that begs the question why she would agree to paying more than twice the $4,200 maximum fine the PDC can levy? Could it be that Hague feared stiffer penalties should the case be referred to the state attorney general for further action?

Looking at the scope of the violations, I’m guessing yes. In settling the complaint, Hague acknowledged that she:

• Filed three itemized reports of contributions 20 to 49 days late and six financial summaries 20 to 407 days late;

• Twice deposited contributions late;

• Failed to identify donors’ occupations and employers 37 percent of the time; and

• Received eight contributions over the limit of $700 per election.

On her surplus-funds account, Hague acknowledged filing late reports, failing to identify vendors who received payments, making prohibited expenditures for campaign lunches, and improperly reimbursing herself for contributions she made to other campaigns.

Hague was 275 days late in reporting a $7,547 contribution she made to her 2005 campaign to cover checks after the bank account was depleted by campaign aide Jennifer Hildebrand.

Bader, who’s Madison Communications has already billed the 2007 Hague campaign over $50,000, once again proves that Hague is not only incapable of keeping track of her money, she can’t spend it wisely either. At least not when it comes to damage control:

“These problem filings originated as a result of Jennifer Brzusek Hildebrand’s embezzlement of nearly $150,000 from the Hague campaign,” Hague spokesman Brett Bader said, “and they were forced onto the PDC’s agenda by Jane’s political opponent.

Hey Brett, thanks for a) Reinforcing the perception that Hague can’t manage money; and b) Continuing Hague’s pattern of blaming everybody but herself! Over the past few years Bader has been the primary consultant on such high-profile losing campaigns as Luke Esser, Bret Olson, Jeff Sax and Yes on I-912. If Hague gets beat by Pope and his couple thousand dollars worth of yard signs (and at this point a Pope victory is more than possible,) Bader’s public comments should be enshrined as a textbook illustration of how not to do crisis management.

The issue here is not just that Hague committed numerous public disclosure violations or can’t seem to manage her own campaign finances or lied about her college education or cursed out police officers after pulling her over for driving drunk… the issue is all these things taken together in context, and Hague’s insistence on shifting blame to others while refusing to come straight about her own actions. The issue here is trust.

And until Hague attempts to rebuild that trust by taking full responsibility for her DUI, her fictional diploma, her campaign finance turmoils and other actions, I’m guessing her headlines are going to continue to get worse.

If you said 50 cents a day (and a buck-fifty on Sunday), you’d be wrong.

At least, that’s according to “Slim” Jim MacIsaac, who’s goofball numbers are getting front page treatment at the P-I.

This is from an email received earlier today:

Using the same methodology reported in the PI to arrive at the $160B cost figure for the joint ballot measure, the Seattle PI costs a reader $60,000.

Here’s how it works: 50-cents per day for 6 days a week, plus $1.50 for Sundays. That’s $4.50 a week, multiplied by 52 weeks a year for $234 per year. But wait – those are 2006 numbers. Using MacIsaac’s terms, you go back to what you’ve been paying since 1996 and go forward to what you’ll pay through to 2057. Using ST’s/MacIsacc’s/PI’s annual inflationary factor of 5.2%, you deflate back to 1996, inflate up to 2057, add it all together and you get $60,075.37 – the true cost of the PI to the reader. I like Joel Connelly, but he doesn’t seem like much of a bargain at that price, now does he? Curiously, the PI does not use these figures to encourage purchasing their product.

But wait again – this is the “true cost” of the PI for one reader, not all readers combined. So, to find the “true cost” of the PI to the community you have to multiply the per reader cost by their circulation figure (since a growth inflator of 5.2% was already in the per reader figure, you don’t have to apply it again to the circulation figure). Keeping in mind that my degree is in Political Science, not Mathematics, the number I get is $7,943,946,401.21, or $8 billion.

I too love Joel’s column, but at 60k, that’s one expensive paper.

The criminal case out of Louisiana commonly known as the “Jena 6” has now become a major news story highlighting the disparities in our criminal justice system. The heart of the case involves 6 black teenagers who were charged with attempted murder after they allegedly assaulted a white teenager last December, while white students arrested in similar incidents were given much more lenient treatment.

The broader time line behind this case started earlier last fall when a black student at Jena High School, a predominantly white school in central Louisiana, asked the principal during an assembly if he and his friends could sit underneath a particular tree where white students usually sat. The principal said that it was fine, but the following morning, several nooses were found hanging from the tree. The white students behind that act were disciplined and sent off to an alternative school for a month, but over the next several months, racial tensions at the school boiled over, and there were a number of racially motivated fights and other incidents, including an arson at the school.

On December 4, 2006, a white student named Justin Barker was assaulted by a group of black students. Barker was taken to the hospital and released the same day. The police then arrested six black students and District Attorney J. Reed Walters charged five of them with attempted second-degree murder. The youngest of those charged as an adult was Mychal Bell, a 16-year-old who an adult witness says was not directly involved with the beating, but who already had a number of previous juvenile offenses on his record.

Bell’s case went to trial first, and while the charges against him were lowered to aggravated second-degree battery, an all-white jury convicted him, somehow agreeing with the prosecutors that Bell’s tennis shoes should have been considered a “deadly weapon.” Bell’s public defender, a black man by the name of Blane Williams, did little more than show up at the courthouse. He didn’t challenge the composition of the jury pool and he called no witnesses on his client’s behalf. For those who follow trials like this, especially in the southern United States, this isn’t terribly uncommon behavior for a public defender.

On September 14, a Louisiana Appeals Court overturned Bell’s conviction on the basis that he shouldn’t have been tried as an adult. Two other Jena defendents have since had their charges lowered from attempted murder to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy, but since they were 17 will still be charged as adults. Last week, on the day that Bell was originally supposed to be sentenced, tens of thousands of people descended on Jena to protest what was happening (see the Wikipedia link for referenced articles on the background).

As someone who has made these kinds of racial disparities in law enforcement a focus of my blogging, I’m happy to see this topic being discussed more in the media, but I also have to admit that I was puzzled as to why this particular incident is the one that has made such a widespread impact. So many other incidents have occurred in recent years that have demonstrated how corrupt and racist our justice system can be. Many of them have been in the news, but none of them have drawn the kinds of crowds that showed up in Jena last week. Just to name a few:

– In Tulia, Texas in 2000, a single police officer by the name of Tom Coleman, arrested over 10% of the town’s African American population on what turned out to be completely fabricated drug charges. Many of the defendants ended up getting long prison sentences before the mounting evidence of the officer’s past transgressions was finally allowed to be presented and the convictions were thrown out.

– In Hearne, Texas, also in 2000, a drug task force arrested 15% of the town’s young black male population on the word of a confidential informant who later recanted his testimony. To give you an idea of how bad the justice system can be in rural Texas, seven of the completely innocent people actually plead guilty. Thankfully, this and the Tulia incident led to reforms in drug task forces.

– In Prentice, Mississippi in 2001, a 21-year-old black man with no criminal record named Cory Maye was asleep in his duplex with his daughter when he heard people breaking into his home. The intruders were actually drug task force cops who mistakenly raided his unit in the duplex. As he was jarred awake, Maye fired on one of them, killing an officer by the name of Ron Jones. He was tried, convicted, and sent to death row, despite the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly backed up Maye’s assertion that he didn’t know Jones was a cop. His death sentence has since been overturned.

– In Georgia in 2006, a 17-year-old named Genarlow Wilson was given a 10-year prison sentence for engaging in oral sex with a 15-year-old. The prosecution relied on a loophole in Georgia law that could be used against thousands of Georgia teenagers, but prosecutors have still fought tooth and nail to keep Wilson behind bars rather than lobbying to close the loophole.

– In Texas, a man named Tyrone Brown had served 17 years of a life sentence given to him for testing positive for marijuana while on probation for a $2 robbery. The judge who sentenced him gave a much lighter sentence to a white man who actually killed someone while on probation. Brown was recently given a conditional pardon by Texas Governor Rick Perry.

– In Atlanta in 2006, a 92-year-old (some reports have said 88-year-old) woman named Kathryn Johnston, was shot and killed in her own home in a predominantly black neighborhood by narcotics officers who raided her home based upon the word of an unreliable source who said he bought cocaine there. The officers later tried to get another informant to lie for them to cover up the fact that they didn’t follow procedures.

Some of these cases have gotten some attention. The Tulia case is being made into a movie next year with Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry. The Maye case became well known in the blogosphere after it was publicized by blogger Radley Balko. Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy also provided pro bono counsel for Maye. Balko originally discovered the case as he was doing research for his Overkill white paper, which documents numerous other cases like what happened to Maye and Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta. Public pressure has certainly played roles in obtaining justice for both Genarlow Wilson and Tyrone Brown. But so far, nothing has generated the kind of overwhelming response that Jena has.

While I’m certainly happy to see stories like these starting to come out of the dark, I was initially at a loss to explain why this particular case has generated such a tipping-point reaction that the other cases did not. For one, the case is much more nuanced than some of the other cases we’ve seen. The actual crime that occurred is much more indefensible for those who actually committed it and is certain to generate an ugly backlash from the usual suspects. But even if Barker called his attackers the ugliest racial epithets, the response was obviously unjustified. The way Bell was tried and convicted was a disgrace, but this is far from the only time a likely innocent young black man has been convicted and sent to jail with a public defender sleeping at his side (and after convincing him to take whatever kind of deal he could get from prosecutors).

Obviously, I don’t mean to downplay it. What happened in Jena is worthy of our outrage and I hope it’s the spark that compels us to start dealing with the enormous problems we have with our prison system – and our eagerness to send way more of our citizens to jail than any other country. But I was truly clueless as to why what happened there provoked such a huge reaction compared to other incidents. I’ve realized that I just don’t quite grasp the powerful effect that evoking the horrific history of lynching has on African-Americans. The fact that all of this started with nooses hanging from a tree far outweighs the very different ways in which injustices against the black community are carried out today. And it brings many people back to a time when many thought that we would no longer have nooses hanging from trees (and pick-up trucks) in the 21st century.

It’s just been, you know, one of those days. So I’m stealing Carl’s schtick for a quick recap of all the political bullshit that’s accumulated over the past 24 hours.

Frank Reichert
Rep. Dave Reichert sure does like to be frank with his constituents. No wait… Reichert likes to frank his constituents, becoming perhaps the biggest drain on House Post Office resources since Dan Rostenkowski. Reichert recently mailed out his umpteenth piece of franked mail (ie, taxpayer funded campaign literature) since squeaking past Darcy Burner last November, and like all of them, this one includes a little survey so that he can pretend he’s actually carrying on a two-way conversation with voters.

Hmm. Notice anything missing? I’m guessing Reichert failed to include “The War in Iraq” as one of the top-ten pressing issues, because few 8th Congressional District constituents tend to select it from a top-ten list that doesn’t include “The War in Iraq” as an option. Or something like that.

Murderabilia Roadshow
You know what else didn’t make the list? The “Murderabilia” bill… Reichert’s bold attempt to take the profit motive out of raping and strangling women by preventing serial killers from making money selling personal items. “I personally have seen the pain, the suffering of victims and their families,” said Reichert, who has built his political career on the myth that he caught the Green River Killer. “This industry is an exploitation of that pain and that suffering.” Um… by “this industry,” was he referring to murderabilia or politics?

Now if only Reichert’s bill also prevented incompetent sheriffs from profiting off bungled 18-year investigation, it would have my enthusiastic support.

Weapons of mass distraction
So what does it say about Dino Rossi’s prospects for 2008 if he had to resign from the Forward Washington Foundation so that he wouldn’t be a distraction to his own campaign? And what the fuck exactly is the meaning of the word “resignation” when it applies two weeks retroactively, but allows you to continue to receive your paycheck six more weeks into the future?

And could somebody please explain to me what Rossi means when he criticizes the media, saying:

“And they pound you into the ground with, you know, with what the future can be.”

Um… no… I don’t know. Perhaps Rossi’s “idea” man, Lou Guzzo can explain it to me?

Dino Rossi on the issues
Speaking of Rossi, if you really want to know what the man stands for, check out his new campaign website at www.dinorossi.com. Deep.

I’m not demonizing Dan Satterberg…
Because, you know, Dan seems to be a nice guy and all that. But it sure does seem to be a massive conflict of interest to have a guy serving on a Seattle Archdiocese panel dealing with sexual abuse allegations turn out to be the same guy in the prosecutor’s office who refused to subpoena church records… you know, subpoenas like those that were issued in dozens of other cities, and that turned up tons of evidence of church cover-ups. I’m just sayin’.

At the filing deadline back in June, King County Councilmember Jane Hague probably chuckled with relief to learn that her only opponent was ten-time perennial loser Richard Pope. But it’s beginning to look like Pope is the candidate in the race who lucked out by drawing an unstable, self-destructive opponent.

King County Councilmember Jane Hague’s re-election campaign took another strange turn this week, when the campaign reported a potentially record-setting contribution by Hague and her husband — and then said the report was a mistake.

[…] The Bellevue Republican’s campaign reported to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) that Hague and her husband, Ed Springman, contributed $50,000 to the campaign Monday — an amount believed to be more than a County Council candidate has ever given to her own campaign. […] The reported contribution quickly prompted Hague’s opponent, Republican-turned-Democrat Richard Pope, to file complaints with state and county authorities, saying that Springman’s share violated the state’s $700 limit on how much anyone other than the candidate can give.

Jesus… what, was she drunk or something? Probably…

The latest misstep follows disclosures that Hague was arrested June 2 on suspicion of drunken driving and that she signed a biographical sketch during her 1993 campaign claiming a college degree that she didn’t have. She has pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving under the influence.

Democratic Political uber-consultant John Wyble, who is not involved in the race, has his own take on Hague’s recent misstep:

“It sounds like she’s nervous…”

Or… drunk…

… given all the things that have happened in the last few weeks. She may be in trouble … I don’t think I’ve ever seen a County Council candidate throw in their own money, especially $50,000.”

But of course, there are two sides to every story. (At least, in traditional journalism.)

But on Tuesday afternoon, Hague’s campaign spokesman, Brett Bader, said no contribution had been made. He said the campaign’s report to the PDC was “inadvertently filed,” and he didn’t know how the mistake had been made.

“There was no contribution made nor deposited,” Bader said.

Hague has no idea how the mistake was made. Hmm. I’m guessing we should just blame it on some staffer. That said…

Bader said Tuesday it is possible that Hague will make a significant contribution — on her own.

Say… $50,000?

When a candidate puts his or her own money into a campaign, he said, that’s “a demonstration that the candidate is committed to winning and doing what needs to be done.”

Or, that she’s discovered even her traditional Republican donors don’t want to give money to a blame-shifting, drunken liar, who can’t seem to manage the enormous sums of money they’ve already given her.

Hague at the time reported total contributions of $268,142, but her campaign said Tuesday $47,400 of that was intended for a separate surplus account and was accidentally deposited in the 2007 campaign account. The money has been returned to the correct account, according to the campaign.

So… um… if Pope has raised only $3,792 thus far, compared to Hague’s $268,142 (or maybe $220,742… I’m confused)… why would Hague feel the need to inject a record $50,000 of her husband’s own money into her campaign? Hmm. I wonder if she’s done any polling recently?

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Please join me in tipping a birthday mug to “N in Seattle,” who turned 57 years old young old today, and to the memory of the late Walt Crowley who was a friend to liberals and taverns everywhere.

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.

A week or two ago, I filed a PDC complaint against the Eastside Transportation Association. They’re the folks illegally campaigning against the “Roads and Transit.” Well, I heard back from the PDC:

Attached is a letter to you acknowledging receipt of your complaint received by e-mail on September 10, 2007, alleging that the Eastside Transportation Association has failed to register and report as a political committee. As noted in the letter, the PDC will investigate your complaint.

Nice.

Makes you wonder… If the PDC says the ETA hasn’t broken any laws, then what’s to keep people from campaigning like this all the time? Why file with the PDC ever? It would certainly change the way campaigns are done in Washington.

One of the things that’s always bothered me about Democrats in general and progressives in particular is our tendency to be, well… a bunch of pussies. While Republican tacticians routinely pay tribute to Machiavelli (which is a helluva lot easier than actually reading him,) my fellow Democrats often seem more inspired by The Little Prince. Politics is about seizing, maintaining and exercising power, and in a Democracy that means winning elections. Republicans seem to get this. Democrats… not so much.

Take for example the race to replace the late Norm Maleng as King County Prosecuting Attorney, where two smart, dedicated, qualified, and by all accounts decent men are running for office. Were this a primary, the decision might be tougher, but in a general election in a county with a two-to-one Democratic advantage, this race is a no-brainer: the guy with “D” next to his name on the ballot should win. And yet a fair number of Democrats have come out in support of Republican Dan Satterberg over Democrat Bill Sherman.

Pussies.

Yeah, sure… no doubt Dan is a nice guy and all that, and I can certainly understand the legal establishment’s instinctive urge to preserve the status quo. But this is about politics, and politics is about winning… and if Democrats ignore this basic tenet it will surely come back and bite us in the ass.

There is this myth that has been perpetuated by Satterberg supporters that the PAO is a magically nonpartisan office, but as Alex Fryer points out in yesterday’s Seattle Times, that is not always the case. The prosecutor controls a seat on the county’s three-member canvassing board, and as Maleng’s delegate on the board, Satterberg took some disturbingly partisan positions.

Satterberg’s tenure on the canvassing board highlights the intense political pressure on those who count the votes, and how almost every decision the board makes can be cast as partisan.

[…] During the initial vote counting, with Republican state Sen. Dino Rossi clinging to a 1,920-vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire, the King County Elections Division — on advice from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office — ruled that it would not give the Democratic Party a list of voters whose provisional ballots had been rejected because of missing or mismatched signatures.

Democrats wanted to use the list to contact voters to try to resolve the questioned signatures and count the ballots.

The issue went to King County Superior Court, and a judge ordered the names released.

[…] A few weeks later, with Rossi’s margin hovering around 100 votes after a recount, the canvassing board made what many consider a pivotal decision.

Canvassing-board members Dwight Pelz, a Metropolitan King County Council member, and Election Director Dean Logan outvoted Satterberg to direct election workers to reconsider 573 absentee ballots that county officials said had been erroneously disqualified.

In fact it was the court order releasing the list of voters with missing or mismatched signatures that likely proved more decisive, as it enabled Democrats to canvass for updated signature cards, resulting in a far larger number of qualified voters having their ballots counted. But it was Satterberg’s vote to exclude the 573 566 “Phillips ballots” that Democrats should find most disturbing.

These were ballots that were legally cast, but for which signatures could not be found in KCRE’s computer system. Standard procedure called for these ballots to be put aside until the signature cards could be pulled for comparison, but instead these ballots were forgotten… tucked away in a couple of trays inside “the cage.” Forgotten that is, until King County Council President Larry Phillips discovered that his ballot had not been counted, and inquired as to why. That led KCRE to discover 735 misfiled ballots, of which 566 were eventually verified and counted.

Understand that these were ballots of known provenance, legally cast by registered voters, and safely secured in the cage throughout the entire process, and that the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the canvassing board had the right to add these ballots to the count. And yet Satterberg voted to exclude these ballots and deny these 566 citizens their most basic democratic right.

When push came to shove, that was the kind of nonpartisan office we got from Norm Maleng. And that is the kind of nonpartisan tradition Satterberg promises to continue.

Had Republicans controlled the canvassing board in 2004, just enough legally cast ballots might have been suppressed to give Dino Rossi the governor’s mansion, and don’t believe for a moment that isn’t the primary motivation behind a GOP-backed ballot measure to make the elections director an elected office. How else to explain the bizarre February special election called for in the proposed charter amendment, perfectly designed to permit a Republican to squeak through a crowded field in a low-turnout, nominally nonpartisan race? And if they succeed in taking the PAO and the elections director, Republicans would seize a two-thirds majority on the canvassing board that oversees elections in a two-thirds Democratic district encompassing one-third of the state’s electorate.

The PAO is a partisan office that plays a major role in the administration of our elections, serving as both KCRE’s attorney, and controlling one of three seats on the canvassing board. This is a partisan political race, and Democrats need to wake up to what is at stake. This is not about whether Satterberg is a good lawyer or an experienced administrator or decent guy. It’s about whether or not he is a Republican.

And in this race, facing a qualified Democratic opponent, that should be all we need to know.

Hopefully Goldy will forgive me for two pot-related posts in the past 24-hours, but Paul Kiel has the latest silliness from the Duke Cunningham corruption scandal:

In a filing today, prosecutors allege that John Michael, who’s been indicted for laundering Cunningham’s bribes and lying to investigators, hid incriminating documents by keeping them with what prosecutors call “a stash of personal entertainment materials and paraphernalia.” You can read the filing here.

The prosecutors don’t identify exactly what those items are, but note that “Michael has expressed extreme embarrassment” over them and that “their nature objectively supports his perspective” (read: he has good reason to be embarrassed). They say that they’ll identify the materials at a court hearing if need be.

Prosecutors want to introduce evidence of Michael’s embarrassing “stash,” in order to prove that he knew the Cunningham documents were, in their own way, as embarrassing. That he kept documentation of Cunningham’s sketchy mortgage details in a place where he also stored “materials he did not want to anyone else to learn about” proves, they write, that he knew he was up to no good.

It’s important to remember that Duke Cunningham’s son went to jail for this:

Randall Todd Cunningham was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in federal prison yesterday for marijuana smuggling, after his father, the Republican congressman from Escondido, made a tearful plea for leniency.

The term was half the mandated five years and was supported by the prosecutor. In imposing sentence, Judge Reginald C. Lindsay noted that the 29-year-old Cunningham had no prior convictions and had provided information that led to the arrests of higher-ups in the smuggling operation.

It was the first time Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham had come to the court in Massachusetts since his son and several others were charged with smuggling 400 pounds of marijuana from the San Diego area to Lawrence Airport on Jan. 17, 1997.

Of course, Duke Cunningham has always been a staunch drug warrior:

Crucial to winning the war on drugs are education and community campaigns. So on Thursday, my House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families will team up with Government Reform Oversight to send a strong message to Americans: Drugs kill. We will hear from health and community experts on what can be done to reverse the drug crisis. And we will also examine ways to marshal community leadership and resources to start local anti-drug coalitions.

Finally, I believe we must revive in word and deed the simple phrase, “Just Say No,” coined by Nancy Reagan in the 1980s. While cynical elites once joked about its effectiveness, I believe it played a significant role in reducing drug use.

That editorial appeared a few months before his son was arrested.

UPDATE: In comments, RonK doubts that the “stash” is drug-related. He could certainly be right, as “paraphernalia” could refer to items of an embarrassing sexual nature as well. I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough as the trial progresses.

Time to MoveOn edition.

* So, yeah, I’m about as pissed off as Brad. The country has gone nuts. Seriously, 22 Democrats, fuck the heck (and thank goodness our Senators weren’t among that group)? Of course, nobody seemed to be mad when Republicans you know, did much worse. But at least the liberal media will stand up to this nonsense. And just because we’re pissed off at some Democrats doesn’t mean that the righties and their pathetic excuses get a pass. Anyway, the best way for MoveOn to get into the good graces of the far right is probably to needlessly insult Muslims.

* And if you want to know who hates the troops, the real answer is the anti-sex right.

* And speaking of the anti-sex right, did you know they were anti-sex?

* So how did you spend your International Day of Peace?

* Ann Coulter needs a better fact checker. Or to stop lying, I guess.

* Comcastic

* According to those guardians of the free market, crazy assed Republicans, there’s no difference between price fixing and press releases.

Locally:

* Dave Reichert still isn’t independent or bi-partisan.

* The people who named the South Lake Union Trolley should have thought a bit harder.

* Dino Rossi’s idea man can’t figure out why some people might find the name of the Washington Redskins offensive.

This is an open thread.

Every 38 seconds in this country, someone is arrested for a marijuana offense. In 2006, 738,915 Americans were charged with marijuana possession only.

In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

“Present policies have done little if anything to decrease marijuana’s availability or dissuade youth from trying it,” St. Pierre said, noting young people in the U.S. now frequently report that they have easier access to pot than alcohol or tobacco.

If past trends are any indication, those arrested are likely to be disproportionately non-white, despite the fact that drug use rates are roughly equal when compared across racial lines. Considering that 8 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses over the past decade, and nearly 100 million Americans have admitted to having used it, can anyone explain the point to all of this? Or is the only explanation that still makes sense that it gives police and prosecutors more to do?

I sometimes wonder if the Seattle Times editorial board actually reads their op-ed pieces before publishing them? Apparently not…

MoveOn.org’s ill-considered, outrageous New York Times newspaper ad calling Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, “General Betray Us” not only slimed a well-respected general, it distorted a very real and very serious debate about the course of the war. Instead of the U.S. Congress making progress on troop withdrawal, as some expected this month, the Senate wasted time debating and voting on a measure to condemn the ad.

Damn you MoveOn.org for forcing the Senate to waste time debating an ad!

No… really. That’s the logic that leads the Times to blame MoveOn.org for the Senate’s lack of progress on troop withdrawal — the same sort of sanctimoniously twisted thinking that once prompted Times editors to berate me for having “successfully placed the phrase ‘horse’s ass’ into dozens of family newspapers.” As if I held a fucking gun to their heads. Now, more than a week later, MoveOn’s evil geniuses have apparently forced the Times to waste its time as well.

The war is bad enough. Nobody needs MoveOn.org’s stupid advertising campaign.

Yeah, sure… George Bush’s trillion dollar war and its thousands of American and million-plus Iraqi dead… is… um… “bad.” But MoveOn’s ad… well that’s just inexcusable.

The Times asks why we cannot “disagree about policy without undertaking childish ad hominem attacks?” To which I thoughtfully reply: “Eat me,” for how else to respond to an editorial that equates a mere newspaper ad with a brutal war of aggression? Once again the Times confuses solemnity with seriousness, embracing a notion of civility more befitting a dying empire than a thriving democracy. It is this sort of myopically polite sensibility that permitted 19th and early 20th century British society to “civilize” the subjects of their far flung colonies by, you know… killing them, polite debate notwithstanding.

The Times’ pious call for civility is also an offensively one-sided misreading of recent history. No doubt the MoveOn.org ad is “outrageous,” and intentionally so, but it is far from “ill-considered.” In fact it deliberately adopts the same sort of rhetoric the Bush administration has so effectively used to bully Congress into authorizing and funding this ill-advised war. Every display of opposition to administration policy has been met with accusations of disloyalty, cowardice, stupidity, lack of patriotism, and even treason. But when MoveOn.org attempts to co-opt the White House’s frame, the Times finally finds this tactic beyond the pale.

As for Gen. Petraeus, it was President Bush who chose to make him a political human shield, and Petraeus who allowed himself to be expressly used for this purpose. In the heat of battle, verbal or otherwise, collateral damage is inevitable, and with so many lives at stake it would be ill-considered for the anti-war forces to hold their fire for fear of damaging a general’s honor, whatever his service to our nation.

There is nothing civil about the civil war we created in Iraq. The civility of the debate surrounding it should be judged accordingly.

UPDATE:
I just got around to reading today’s Seattle Times editorial page, and I just have to ask… what the fuck? I mean, really… what the fuck is this editorial about it, and why was it published in our state’s largest newspaper? Were they drunk or something?

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Looks like Dan Savage had the exact same reaction.