HorsesAss.Org

Pat Robertson fooled me once, but I…I…I can’t get foolded again. This one’s for real…

So relax…let’s not get too worked up about things like this (via Think Progress):

…when the fact is, Federal Way’s own climate expert and modern-day Nostradamus, Frosty Hardison, has foreseen that the world, as we know it, will end today. The rapture is upon us.

He made his prophecy on KIRO 710’s Dave Ross Show on January 24th, 2007.

Dave promised to have ’em back on if the world doesn’t end, which it will. Really. Frosty said so.

(Hat tip: mercifurious.)

I don’t believe this. Forty years to the day after the beginning of the Six-Day War, and we have a massive buildup of warships off the Iranian coast along with a Category 5 hurricane approaching the Persian Gulf. I have no idea what the hell’s going to happen, but I’m sure that some people will be blaming God.

Last night I posted a rant about how, in a “post-9/11 world,” common sense has surrendered in the pursuit of pseudo-security. I used an example from an Indian student at Purdue University who is on trial for his inflamed political rhetoric on an internet chatroom.

Twelve hours later, Kos diarist chiniqua posted this diary detailing her experience of being the target of an investigation based on her perfectly legal web page.

Apparently, her MySpace page elicited concern when, using her handle China, she said:

China’s Interests:

The eventual destruction of the capitalist system and the military industrial complex, revenge, culty TV shows, narcotics trafficking and naps.

Wow. Terrorism, drug trafficking, pop culture and sinister siesta speech all in one brief sentence!

She also linked to the New York Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) Underground, after getting a myspace friend request. The CCRB investigates complaints against the police department, and chiniqua used to work as an investigator for the CCRB.

Clearly this woman is a terrorist who presents a clear danger to those around her. Well…she presents a danger if you’re a cowardly, bed-wetting, irony-impaired idiot!

So she was being investigated by an NYPD-FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force team:

The detective pulled out a folder and took out a piece of paper. It was all the pictures from my myspace page printed out. He pulled out some more papers and (basically) said this:

Some ‘concerned citizen’ was trolling myspace and came across CCRB Underground. Somewhere on [the CCRB underground page] there was the quote from Back to the Future about how Doc got the uranium to power the time machine by stealing it from some Libyan nationalists: “They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shiny bomb-casing filled with used pinball machine parts.” This citizen took it upon his or herself to look at who the friends were on this site and found me. […]

He or she then sent an email through the NYC.gov site saying (as far as I can tell) CCRB Underground was some sort of terror group and I advocated armed revolution and narcotics trafficking. Somehow this ended up on the Mayor’s desk the Commissioner got upset and then the gears went into motion. A priority investigation was launched and, they said, the original CCRB Underground guy had his computer confiscated.

The detective proceeded to ask me if I traffic in narcotics, if I am involved in terrorist activities or armed violence, what is my primary email address, who do I live with, where do I work, what do I do, how long have I been there, whether I had travelled outside the country in the last ten years, who the other people in the pictures on my page were, if I knew anyone involved with CCRB Underground, or recognized any of the people from the page.

Investigated for a fucking MySpace page? Computers confiscated for quoting Back to the Future? (But…but…but isn’t Libya a partner nation in the War on Terror™ now?) Yeah…this kind of thing is making us safer.

I wonder if this is how it happened to the Roman Empire, too?

Join us tonight for another exciting edition Drinking Liberally (Seattle Chapter).

This is your chance to falsify the rumor that Goldy’s “break” is a polite way of saying he’s been incarcerated. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area, check out their chapter of Drinking Liberally. Jimmy will have the details. For dates and times elsewhere check out the Drinking Liberally web site to find a chapter near you.

And if you don’t find a chapter near you, start one!

I know I said I was stepping back, but as far as statements from public officials go, this has got to be the best press release ever.

Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” by Cher and Nicole Richie was not indecent.

I completely disagree with the Court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families. I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that “shit” and “fuck” are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.

The court even says the Commission is “divorced from reality.” It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word “fuck” does not invoke a sexual connotation.

[…] If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can’t restrict the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.

That was FCC Chair Kevin Martin responding to yesterday’s ruling that the networks could not be fined for inadvertently airing blurted expletives on live broadcasts.

As my regular readers know, I am fond of foul language. And there is no better example of how expressive and powerful these words can be than the fact that Martin chose to illustrate his point by using the words “fuck” and “shit” ten times during the brief course of a two-page press release.

Ironically, despite Martin’s foul-mouthed objections, even he acknowledges that this ruling might push the FCC towards a more First Amendment friendly, free market solution.

Today’s decision by the Court increases the importance of Congress considering content-neutral solutions to give parents more tools and consumers generally more control and choice over programming coming into their homes. By allowing them to choose the channels that come into their homes, Congress could deliver real power to American families.

Permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns. All of the potential versions of a la carte would avoid government regulation of content while enabling consumers, including parents, to receive only the programming they want and believe to be appropriate for their families. Providing consumers more choice would avoid the First Amendment concerns of content regulation, while providing real options for Americans.

Hmm. Given an a la carte option, I might actually subscribe to cable. For example, I might subscribe to educational programming like the History Channel and Animal Planet, while shielding my daughter from the obscenity that is FOX News. Sounds fuckin’ good to me.

I’m gonna be stepping back from HA for a couple weeks, to give me time to work on some other pressing projects. I’m kinda addicted, so I’ll still post, but not with same frequency or loquaciousness to which we’ve all grown accustomed.

To help fill the gap, please welcome TheHim and Carl Ballard to my growing community of co-bloggers, which also includes Darryl and Will (and technically, Geov.) TheHim posts at Blog Reload, and both he and Carl post at Effin’ Unsound. Given their pedigree, I’m pretty sure we can expect a little snark from time to time.

So remember, before you post your vicious, dimwitted, anti-semitic responses in the comment threads, please double-check the name of the author first. Only one of my co-bloggers is Jewish. And only half Jewish at that. Please save the Jew-baiting for us purebreds.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

So four years into a preemptive occupation that has seen US casualties escalate as Iraq descends into a bloody civil war, it is interesting to explore how Congressman Dave Reichert’s position has evolved in response to changing conditions on the ground:

“I support the troops and the president’s decision to go to war in Iraq.”
— Seattle Times, 10/22/04

“Reichert says the invasion of Iraq is part of the broader war, and he would back the invasion again, even with information now showing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
— Seattle Times, 10/22/04

On national security, Congressman Reichert says, “I put my trust in the president.” — KCTS Connects, 1/8/06

“I would have voted to go to war with the majority of Congress and support the president’s decision. After September 11th we were attacked and people must remember that. We are at war! We are at war!”
— Speech to Seattle City Club, 1/23/06

“And what I do is that when you ask me, as a sheriff, should there be a timeline? It is clear to me: no.”
— Speech to Seattle City Club, 1/23/06

“I see us being in Iraq for a while.”
— Speech to Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, 8/16/06

Hmm. With Bush administration officials preparing the American people for a 50-year military presence in Iraq, it is time to ask Congressman Dave Reichert if he still puts his trust in the president, and if he too supports a permanent presence in Iraq?

8th District voters need to know if a vote for Reichert is a vote for insanity.

I know some of you were a bit concerned with Goldy’s claim that he was “planning to blow up SeaTac.”

And I understand your concern. It wasn’t about the safety of SeaTac. I mean, really, even the dopiest brainwashed rightwing wackjob couldn’t read Goldy’s post and seriously believe he was out to get SeaTac. Rather, the concern was the possible ramifications for Goldy’s liberties (and, who knows, maybe Goldy will yet announce that he is taking a “break”). It seemed conceivable at first glance that Goldy might get himself into deep trouble, because we now live in an America where “security concerns” are allowed to override common sense. We’ve been hoodwinked into believing that being “safe from terrorism” has a higher priority than our freedoms.

Here’s how it happened. After the initial overreaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001, an insidious erosion set in because the Bush Administration was constantly fear-peddling. America’s collective psyche sank into some kind of post-9-11 cowardly funk. Now some significant portion of our population is actually fooled into believing that their safety is tangibly threatened by terrorist acts. Sure, acts of terrorism very slightly increase ones risk of death or injury in the actuarial tables. But, this risk is trifling compared to every-day risks like crossing a busy street daily or driving an hour a day in a car.

The real injury from terrorism is the fear; the larger tragedy of terrorism is that people limit their life and willingly give up their liberties to accommodate those fears. You know who I am talking about. They’re the cowards who say things like, “I don’t care if they listen to my calls and read my emails—I have nothing to hide.”

Pussies!

I’ve written lots of negative stuff about Mike McGavick, but I completely concur with his statement from two days after 9/11 (Seattle Times, Sep 16, 2001. pg. D.2, [my emphasis]):

“I guess now I know more about the evil humans are capable of than I did before, and I’m sadder for it.”
[…]

“There is nothing a coward can do to change my behavior,” he said, anger filling his voice, “and that’s a rule I’m not going to start to break.”

That’s American Spirit! But the Bush administration will have none of it. It has methodically undertaken the pussification of America (as Jon Stewart might put it)—and they’ve done it to consolidate and hold domestic political power.

Now, in our “post 9/11 world,” every time some group of crackpots, oppressed street persons, or angry youths talk to an undercover FBI agent about “the revolution,” the FBI sets up a sting operation. Someone “offers” funding and support…they bite…a bust is made. The news headlines play up the “thwarted attack” of “horrific proportions” on the skyscraper or an airport.

“But it was more aspirational than operational.” (Doesn’t the idea of an “aspirational crime” have the look and feel of a “thought crime?”)

And a few more persons of color are sent off to jail for a long, long time.

Now, when Goldy makes a point through an outrageous statement, we stop to contemplate whether this might trigger some kind of “security concern” that gets him thrown in jail. A student at Purdue University learned about this the hard way. He is in deep shit because he “threatened” Bush administration officials in a chat room:

A judge refused to throw out a Purdue University student’s indictment on charges alleging he urged the assassination of President George Bush and made threats against other administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife.
[…]

Buddhi, an Indian national who was attending advanced engineering classes at Purdue’s West Lafayette campus, faces an 11-count complaint for alleged comments he made in an Internet chat room in 2005 and 2006.

Oh…and do you think that being a foreigner with a non-Christian-sounding surname had anything to do with it?

What were those egregious threats he made?

“It is now legal under international law to bomb key sites in the USA. Iraqis! Give Anglosaxons the tit reaction for the tat action of Bush and the Republicans,” Buddhi wrote in one posting, according to federal court records.
[…]

For example, on a message board pertaining to defense contractor Halliburton, Buddhi posted that “Bush is a President of Mass Destruction” and “should be electrocuted.”
[…]

[He called for] for someone to “Kill GW Bush” and “Rape and Kill Laura Bush”

So there you have it…”threats.”

In the past, these statements would be dismissed as sophomoric, heated rhetoric, but rhetoric that falls under the protections of free speech:

… a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case in which an 18-year-old war protester told a crowd at the Washington Memorial, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ (President Johnson).”

The high court ruled the protester’s comments were simply crude political speech and overturned his conviction.

Unfortunately, the post-9/11 pussification of America means that Mr. Buddhi will lose his liberties for some time until a court throws out the charges.

I look forward to the day that Americans get past this post 9/11 bedwetting-chickenshit-scared phase, take a little advice from McGavick and grow a pair! Because giving up parts of the Constitution out of fear—and fear that is largely manufactured for political gain—is just so…fucking un-American!

Postscript:

On a lighter note, and just to demonstrate that I haven’t completely lost my sense of humor this evening, here is an instructional video on the topic of forbidden speech:

Standing Tower Guard on a 6′ scaffold at the Federal Building in downtown Bellingham, Iraq Veteran Evan Knappenberger, 1st BDE, 4th Infantry Division, started a week-long vigil on June 1st to draw attention to the US military’s STOP-LOSS and INACTIVE RESERVE policies, which he submits are being used as a substitute for conscription in a political war.

More…

There’s a poll at Daily Kos on this question:

So is there really a point to having Gravel, in between advocating English as an “official” language and promoting his right-wing flat tax, sit on the debates doing nothing but attack other Democrats?

I voted no.

Partisan presidential debates are not the JV squad, where the policy is “no cut” and everyone gets to play. These debates are a tool for Democrats to advance their message. Democrats should be able to decide who gets to participate in a Democratic debate.

Debates are a great tool for candidates to “break out” from the pack. I don’t think Mike Gravel’s rightwing talking points are going to do him much good, in or out of the debates.

Joel Connelly:

But this week, council members allocated $8.1 million to study the “surface-transit option” in replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Surface transit is a pet idea of those who seem to be forming Seattle’s agenda these days and pushing for a gentrified, politically correct, largely childless, heavily taxed city, a place that embraces bicycles and exiles NBA basketball.

This is almost Falwell-esque:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

Jesus, we embrace bicycles? And stopped having kids? We have gone too far.

To the hyper-sensitive, sports-hating, condom-using, tax-and-spend, Capitol Hill enviro-fascists, Joel points his finger at you.

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

7PM: Is the Port of Seattle taking on water?
With the Port of Seattle in the midst of an ethical scandal, Port Commissioner Alec Fisken joins me in the studio to answer some blunt questions about the culture at the Port, and what needs to be changed. Should Commissioner Pat Davis resign for authorizing a golden parachute for outgoing Port CEO Mic Dinsmore? Do the Port Commission’s executive sessions violate state “sunshine” laws? Call in and ask Fisken for yourself.

8PM: Is the U.S. becoming a prison state?
Author Sasha Abramsky joins me for the hour to talk about his new book, American Furies: Crime, Punishment and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment. With over 2 million people imprisoned on any given day in a system that emphasizes vengeance over rehabilitation, Abramsky argues that “America’s incarceration infrastructure … has started to eat away at the country’s democratic institutions from the inside out.” Abramsky will be in Seattle doing a book reading and signing on Thursday, June 7, 7PM at the Elliot Bay Book Shop.

9PM: When is a terrorist plot not a terrorist plot?
This week’s high profile foiling of an alleged terrorist plot to blow up New York’s JFK Airport made screaming headlines around the nation, but didn’t even manage to make the front page of the New York Times. Why? Maybe because it was hard for the Grey Lady to get worked up about a plot “so nascent that there was no developed plan for how the plotters would get explosives, let alone gain access to the tanks and pipelines they hoped to target.” Kinda like my threat to blow up Sea-Tac Airport.

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

If you’ve watched TV, listened to the radio, read a newspaper or browsed the InterTubes in the past 24-hours, then you’ve surely heard about the “unthinkable” plot to blow up JFK Airport, that was foiled just in the nick of time:

A retired airport cargo worker and a former member of parliament in Guyana were among four men charged with a plot that officials said was intended to cause mass casualties and cripple one of the world’s busiest travel hubs.

Investigators acknowledged, however, that the scheme was so nascent that there was no developed plan for how the plotters would get explosives, let alone gain access to the tanks and pipelines they hoped to target.

Um… forgive me for being cynical, but we’ve been lied to so many times before, with Bush administration propagandists transforming the angry ramblings of narcissistic pizza-boys into sophisticated, 24-like conspiracies, well… I’m having trouble taking any of these stories seriously. I mean, I suppose I wouldn’t chafe so much at the inconvenience of the enhanced security restrictions put in place in the wake of the infamous “plot” to bring down a jetliner by mixing a high-powered liquid explosive mid-flight, if the would-be terrorists actually had the resources or know-how to carry out their threat, or if the plan was at least, you know, scientifically possible.

“The devastation that would have been caused had this plot succeeded is unthinkable,” Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said at a Saturday afternoon news conference in Manhattan to announce the arrests.

Yeah, and one of the things that makes this plot so “unthinkable” is that it couldn’t possibly have worked. Fuel pipeline and storage tank explosions do occasionally happen, and while they can be tragic in their own right, they don’t result in the immolation of entire storage facilities or miles of pipeline. Fuel is volatile, and so engineers tend to build in automatic cutoffs and other safety stuff like that. It’s not like you can just light a fuse and the entire thing goes boom.

Can one imagine a plot like this succeeding in temporarily shutting down JFK? Sure. But then, so can a blizzard or an afternoon thunderstorm. Hell, if disrupting air travel is your goal, I’m guessing a bomb threat could be just as effective as an actual bomb, and much easier to execute. Leave a few identical, unattended bags scattered throughout the terminals, and then just sit back and watch the mayhem.

And while government officials were publicly painting the main suspect as a “self-radicalized New Yorker … plotting to betray his adopted country with a catastrophic attack,” off the record, a federal law-enforcement official admits that the suspect seemed more like a “sad old guy who’s got a lot of spit and vinegar in him.”

Mmm. Add a little salt, pepper and spices, and you’ve got the makings of a low-cal salad dressing.

Defreitas “had some ideas” about what he wanted to do, said the U.S. law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “But he was a long way off from being operational or even coming close to getting explosives or posing a direct threat to JFK.” The official characterized the seriousness of the plot as “a notch below Fort Dix” — the recent case in which a group of Muslim men in New Jersey were charged with planning a sniper attack on the military base.

Uh-huh. And I suppose, as far as serious terrorist threats go, the headline on this post ranks just a notch below the alleged JFK plot. We just don’t know how widely spaced the notches are.

I’m not implying that this story was fabricated or that we shouldn’t maintain our wariness, but while there are crazed religious fanatics out there, seemingly intent on destroying America, none have the means like those who currently occupy the White House. As sure as night turns into day, or our terror alert level turns from yellow to orange in the weeks before an election, the Bush administration routinely trots out hyperbolic accounts of would-be dirty bombers and pizza snipers and other such evil-doers in a transparent effort to frighten the American people into propping up their sagging support for a war in Iraq that is needlessly killing thousands of American soldiers, bankrupting our children’s future, and destroying our credibility overseas.

Ironically, these mini victories in “The War on Terror” prove exactly the opposite of what the Bushies contend: it is not a massive display of military force that disrupted these “terrorist” plots, but good, old fashioned police work. If the JFK and Fort Dix conspiracies really were anything more than just idle, angry fantasies, then they were criminal acts, and our law enforcement officials should be thanked for yet another job well done. But these same officials do themselves and our national security a disservice when they allow their efforts to be manipulated for propaganda purposes by our war-mongering White House.

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

7PM: “The Stranger Hour” with Erica Barnett
We’re kicking off a new feature, in which a writer from The Stranger joins me for the hour to recap the week’s local news, and give a preview of what’s coming up in the next issue. Erica Barnett is my first victim, and topics will include the Sound Transit II and Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) plans that have just been finalized, as well as a discussion of Seattle’s controversial nightlife ordinance.

8PM: Do you believe in Obama?
4000 “Obamans” paid $25 to $100 a head, and crowded the WAMU Theater last night to witness presidential Barack Obama “make history.” Or at least, that’s what many in the crowd thought Obama was making. I’ll play clips from the rally, give my own assessment of the candidate and his supporters, then take your calls on what you want in the next president… and what you think you’ll get. It’s an on-air straw poll.

9PM: Questions over choice.
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris announced this week that her 1-month old son has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. At 38-years-old, McMorris would have surely been advised by her doctors to screen for genetic abnormalities via amniocentesis. One can only assume that her religious convictions led her to decline. Would you abort a Down Syndrome fetus? McMorris made her choice — shouldn’t other women be allowed to make theirs?

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

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
Tune in tomorrow when I’ll be joined by Seattle Port Commissioner Alec Fisken, and Sasha Abramsky, author of American Furies: Crime, Punishment and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment

This morning I thought I might write about the oil stain on my garage floor. Or, perhaps, the blue fuzzy lint I cleaned out of my navel this morning. But I was just a little too lazy to write on a topic of such irrelevance.

Besides, Alicia Mundy beat me to it this morning. In her Letter from Washington column in the Seattle Times, Alicia writes about Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-8)…and his utter irrelevance:

The annual power rankings from Congress.org have dropped Reichert, now a sophomore Republican, from 168th among 439 members to 419th. That puts him lower than emissaries from the District of Columbia (100), Guam (177) and Puerto Rico (377), none of whom represent a state or have actual voting rights in the House.

Reichert ranks lower than most Republicans, and every Democrat except Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-2), who has been marginalized ever since the FBI filmed him taking bribes.

In short, Reichert has no recent accomplishments (well…he did successfully pretend to get a school bus driver fired). Furthermore he has shown no capacity to adapt—to find some kind of functional niche—in a House controlled by Democrats.

“But…but…but, what do you expect, Reichert is only a sophomore!” Sophomore, indeed…but, Reichert ranks 38th out of the 41 Representatives in his class of 2004.

So I guess Ms. Mundy was having one of those “I think I’ll write about something completely irrelevant” days, and she reported irrelevant old news about Washington’s 8th Congressional District’s irrelevant Representative.

If Ms. Mundy had been in the mood for a little more relevancy, she might have written about, say, sophomore Rep. McMorris Rogers (R-WA-5), with a ranking of 231 of 439, or 12th of 41 in the class of 2004 (and she spent the session pregnant until giving birth last month and missed much of May as a consequence).

Ms. Mundy could have done that…but, then again, McMorris Rogers doesn’t have that head of rich, silvery hair, bulging biceps, and those washboard abs….