HorsesAss.Org

…because life is too short to hold it all in.

Darcy Burner won the sole endorsement of the Pierce County Young Democrats this week in her primary race against Rodney Tom for the Democratic nomination in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

“Darcy [Burner] is the right candidate for the 8th District,” said Sam Ross, PCYD Chair. “She’s right on the constitution, she’s right on healthcare, she’s right on the Iraq occupation, she’s a leader on technology and economic innovation. On all the issues that Young Democrats believe in, Darcy will stand with us always, and on all the issues that truly matter, Darcy will do what she knows to be right.”

This early endorsement in a high profile primary is important for a number of reasons. First, the Young Democrats have strong chapters at University of Puget Sound and Pacific Lutheran University, and have promised aggressive recruitment, doorbelling and phonebanking drives at local colleges and universities. Second, it demonstrates the strong appeal Darcy has amongst one of the fast growing segments of the Democratic Party: younger voters.

In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, notes that the share of Republican voters aged 55 and over has increased from 28% in 1997 to 41% today, whereas the share aged 18-34 has fallen from 25% to 17%.

The Democratic Party is getting younger, which not only bodes well for the future, it bodes well for candidates like Burner who appeal to their values. It’s kinda cliche to say it, but our young people are our nation’s future… as are future leaders like Darcy Burner.

Yeah sure, I’m no economist, so the other day when I said “fuck inflation” in response to the Federal Reserve’s refusal to cut interest rates in the face of a looming credit crunch that threatened to suck the broader economy down the sub-prime toilet, many readers appeared more offended by my economic heresy than my foul language.

Well… fuck you:

Fed seeks to calm markets with a flood of cash

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve, trying to calm turmoil on Wall Street, announced today that it will pump as much money as needed into the U.S. financial system to help overcome the ill effects of a spreading credit crunch.

The Fed, in a short statement, said it will provide “reserves as necessary” to help the markets safely make their way. The central bank did not provide details but said it would do all it can to “facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets.”

The Fed pushed $35 billion in temporary reserves into the system today morning, on top of a similar move the day before.

Hey… flooding the the financial system with cash… isn’t that supposed to be inflationary? You know, just like cutting interest rates?

I’m not suggesting an interest rate cut necessarily would have preempted or softened the market meltdown we’ve seen over the past couple days, but it certainly does appear that the Fed’s OCD-like focus on inflation blinded it to the severity of what has now become a worldwide credit crunch. And of course, rather than just assuring market liquidity — you know, propping up corporatist interests — cutting interest rates might have helped some threatened homeowners avoid foreclosure by making refinancing more affordable.

I’m just sayin’…

In the past, it seemed that President Bush was much more careful about how he misled us into war than to tell blatant and easily debunked falsehoods:

US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons — an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

“It’s up to Iran to prove to the world that they’re a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon,” he said during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

But Iran has repeatedly said that its nuclear program, which is widely believed in the West to be cover for an effort to develop atomic weapons, is for civilian purposes.

Brian Beutler gives kudos to AFP for clearly calling bullshit on the President’s bullshit. In the previous go-around with the Bush Administration and their propaganda catapult in 2002 and 2003, this wasn’t happening. For example, take a look at this speech from October 7, 2002, which had 13 separate falsehoods (search for “October 7” to see the list), hardly any of which were ever critically reported in the media, even though most of them were already known to be false at the time. In software testing parlance, this is a bug, not a feature when it comes to how the media should function. Even worse, many people in the media today recognize this, even lament it, but have decided that it’s a Won’t Fix.

For example, Robin Wright of the Washington Post responded to ThinkProgress today for their criticisms of her column about the neocon mindset towards Iran. Wright claims that it’s not her intent to pass judgement on them, just to make us aware of what their viewpoint is. It’s true that when you have a difference of opinion, someone like Wright shouldn’t inject her personal bias into the story, but that’s not what the complaint is about. Wright wrote:

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute recently wrote that assuming that Iran wants stability in Iraq is “as naive as it is dangerous. . . . U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are diametrically opposed, and will continue to be until one side wins and the other loses.” He depicted diplomacy with Iran as “a mirage, a tactical tool to divert U.S. policy attention away from the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence officials charged with implementing the Iranian leadership’s objectives.”

Rubin’s claim that U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are “diametrically opposed” is not an opinion, it’s a falsehood. Many of our interests in Iraq are in line. That’s why we’ve been sitting down and talking to them about how to deal with the situation there. Wright’s inability to call this out is not a noble effort to be free from bias, it’s lazy journalism. There’s a very big difference between leaving your opinions at the door and failing to identify something that’s not true as being such. When high profile people who have great influence over our foreign policy are believing in fairy tales, that’s something you need to tell people.

Hamid Karzai’s visit to Washington this week revealed even further the stunning aversion to the truth among the Bush crowd when it comes to Iran. Karzai believes very strongly that Iran is a helpful ally. Bush was not convinced:

“They’re not a force for good,” Mr Bush said of Iran, with Mr Karzai at his side. “They’re a destabilising influence wherever they are. Now, the President will have to talk to you about Afghanistan. But I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force.”

The source of Bush’s opinion in this matter comes from where his opinions always come from, his gut. Facts, logic, history, and the opinions of knowledgeable people are mere distractions from the greater “truth” that comes from simply believing whatever he wants to believe.

When it comes to Afghanistan, Iran does have an interest in stabilizing the country. The number of Afghan refugees living in Iran has been decreasing since the overthrow of the Taliban, but that trend has slowed as refugees who have returned home are starting to complain about the Taliban resurgence. In addition, the massive drug trade originating in Afghanistan flows through Iran on its way to Europe, creating a very serious problem with heroin addiction there. The Iranian government has a strong incentive to deal with both problems there (for much the same reason that the U.S. wants to deal with the problems of immigration and drugs at our southern border). Whether or not we like or dislike the things that Iran’s pandering goofball of a President says is not as important as what they do. When it comes to dealing with the both the Taliban and the drug traffickers, there’s little difference between what we want and what they want.

But that hasn’t stopped the onslaught of accusations from the Bush Administration that Iran is supporting the Taliban in order to fight a proxy war against us. With so little attention being paid to what’s happening in Afghanistan, the effort actually managed to gain some traction, even as some high-level officials were somewhat confused on the talking points at first. It was effective enough that TPM’s Spencer Ackerman thought that it would be surprising that the Afghan Ambassador didn’t agree.

As frustrating as it was to watch our national media completely fall flat on its face in 2002 and 2003, it’s even more frustrating to see how much it’s still happening today. The idea that Iran is the destabilizing force causing both Afghanistan and Iraq to turn into such a mess is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who can’t face up to the realities of their own miscalculations and blundering. The regime in Tehran may in fact have designs on nuclear weapons. It really wouldn’t surprise me. And much of the populace is certainly highly mistrustful of our intentions to the point of paranoia – even as they also take to western culture. But the most dangerous approach to Iran right now is to once again create our own fantasy world in order to justify our desire to disarm them. It would be nice if the people who get paid to keep us informed could let us know when that’s happening.

Oh man… I can’t wait to see this ad run all over South Carolina.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is preparing to launch radio ads in the districts of 12 vulnerable Republican incumbents, and lookie who’s on the list: Rep. Dave Reichert. “This August we’re going district by district to urge Republicans to stop obstructing progress and work with us to end the war in Iraq,” says DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen. TPM Cafe’s Election Central has the details and the audio.

The ad will run locally during drive time on KING, KIRO, KIXI, KMTT, KOMO, KPTK, KTTH and KVI. And considering the coming lane closures on I-5 North, folks will have plenty of time to listen.

There’s a reason why President Bush is coming out here to raise money for Reichert, the first congressman to receive that “honor” this cycle. Reichert is desperate. And you can’t get much more desperate than inviting Bush to come out and campaign for you.

Creating the opportunity for a potentially precedent setting decision, the Washington State Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutional “scope” of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 6 at 1:30PM, and a decision would presumably come before ballots go to press for the November election.

Futurewise and SEIU 775 had filed suit in King County Superior Court arguing that I-960 should be blocked from the ballot because it is outside the constitutional scope of the initiative process, and Eyman publicly gloated when the judge refused to act on their request. Hmm. I wonder if Tim’s gloating now?

Courts are reluctant to hear challenges to initiatives prior to the ballot, but the fact that the Supremes have agreed to hear the appeal — and on such an expedited basis — indicates that a number of justices believe the case raises points of law that at least merit consideration. Such scope challenges are not without precedent, the most recent being 2003’s Goldstein v. Gregoire, in which a Thurston County Superior Court judge selectively (and unconstitutionally) barred me from submitting petitions for I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass. At the time, my attorney cogently argued:

Many initiatives are presented to the people that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the legislative power. For example, Tim Eyman’s Sound Transit Initiative would prevent Sound Transit from spending money on a “Link Light Rail” system. This proposed initiative is clearly beyond the scope of legislative power under Ruano v. Spellman and other cases holding that initiatives cannot seek to prohibit administrative actions. The Attorney General has done nothing to prevent Mr. Eyman from going forward with his initiative. Proposed Initiative 824 is a statement. The Attorney General has taken the position in the present case that statements are not legislative, yet nothing has been done to prevent Initiative 824 from going forward.

Allowing the Attorney General discretion to select initiatives for challenge based on their palatability would violate the First Amendment. If pre-ballot review is to be applied to some initiatives, it should be applied to all initiatives that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of legislative power.

I still feel that I-831, written in the form of a valid resolution, was barred improperly. But if Goldstein v. Gregoire is ultimately cited in a ruling that blocks I-960 from the ballot, those will have been lumps well worth taking.

Sounds reasonable to me, but then, Kemper Freeman Jr. will run all those ads equating rail with communism, so this can’t possibly pass at the polls, right?

What’s the difference between a true netroots Democrat and an establishment Democrat? The willingness to criticize members of one’s own party when it really counts.

In her latest web ad WA-08 netroots “rock star” Darcy Burner not only sticks it to her Republican opponent Dave Reichert for handing warrantless wiretapping powers to President Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales… she also takes on the 41 Democratic House members who voted with him.

“When Republicans like Dave Reichert give George Bush everything he wants, that’s bad enough. But too many people in my own party aren’t listening either. The warrantless wiretapping bill won’t make us safer, but it will strip us of the rights so many of our families have fought to preserve, including mine.”

This race is about bringing new leadership to the House, not just padding the Democratic majority. No doubt Burner would like DCCC support and the money that comes with it, but anybody who thinks she’s taking her cues from the other Washington, just isn’t listening.

Back when Nick Beaudrot and I were talking about trying to revive the stagnant Drinking Liberally chapter here in Seattle, we wondered “How hard can it be? This is Seattle.” It turned out it wasn’t terribly hard, and Nick has made it into one of the most successful chapters in the United States, with regular high-profile guests and a great crowd showing up at the Montlake every Tuesday.

Now it’s time for a challenge. As some of you know, I’m moving from very blue North Seattle to not-so-blue Kent this fall. I’m hoping to start a new chapter down there (probably every other week on a Wednesday or Thursday), but I need some help. The key to a successful chapter is a good location. If you have any suggestions for a bar that could potentially be a host, let me know. So far, the only serious contender I can think of is The Ram at Kent Station, but I’m still getting familiar with the area. And hopefully, when we find a place, I’d love to see those of you in the south end for a pint.

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

Our Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss’ Lee (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times for a chapter near you.

UPDATE (–Goldy):
State House Speaker Frank Chopp will be stopping by tonight. Let’s see if we can get him so ripping drunk that he publicly comes out in support of a state income tax.

I’ll be filling in for Dave Ross tomorrow morning from 9AM to Noon on News/Talk 710-KIRO. Darcy Burner will be my guest during the 10AM hour.

UPDATE:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zúniga will also be briefly calling in to talk about Yearly Kos, and the importance of supporting netroots candidates (you know… like Darcy.)

In the face of a housing market going down the crapper, and a looming credit crunch threatening to take the markets and the broader economy with it, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee voted unanimously today to keep interest rates unchanged, and continue to focus on inflation:

“Although the downside risks to growth have increased somewhat, the FOMC’s predominant policy concern remains the risk that inflation will fail to moderate as expected,”

I’m no economist, but really… fuck inflation.

A little inflation can actually be a good thing, especially to people who owe money on things like mortgages, cars, credit cards, school loans, etc… you know, most Americans. And a little inflation would actually be a very good thing for the US Treasury, issuer of nearly $9,000,000,000,000 in public debt (almost $30,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the U.S.)

In fact, the people who benefit most from the Fed’s decades long focus on maintaining record low inflation are the people who hold most of the debt. Wealthy and older Americans. (And I suppose, the Chinese government.) The Fed’s inflation policy is obsessively narrow at best, and intergenerational warfare at the worst.

So fuck inflation. A few quarters of 4% to 6% inflation isn’t going to kill anybody. And if a temporary cut in interest rates revives the housing market a bit and keeps a few hundred thousand families out of foreclosure, it would be well worth it.

Apparently, anything made by McDonald’s tastes better:

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald’s foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test. […] Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids’ perception of taste was “physically altered by the branding.”

Hmm. I guess that must explain this…

Would you like fries with that? (from CollegeHumor)