HorsesAss.Org

Thanks for the comments, folks.

Some people suggested I look for a cheap-o bike for sale on Craigslist or in the neighborhood or something. Because I’m without a car, this sort of garage sale, Craigslist type method can be a real pain. This is why I’m looking into buying from an honest-to-God store at this point.

Cross bike or Mountain bike? I’ve found that new mountain bikes are cheaper than new cross bikes. So I’m leaning mountain bike right now. The bike shop guys told me the UW campus is perhaps the most “bike theft” prone place in the Pacific Northwest. Since I plan to be riding to the UW in the relative near future, I’m very conscious of the price I’ll be paying for the bike, considering it seems likely to be stolen at some point. But if I do get into riding as a real activity, I’ll look into getting a dope ride.

drool said:

Performance Bike offers free lifetime tuneups if you buy from them at their brick/mortar store.

Very nice!

rae said:

Hopefully it goes without saying, but judging the number of cyclists I see running red lights, please remember that those and other traffic laws, apply to you as well.

Well, you’re right, but when a cyclist runs a red light, the cyclist is dead, whereas the car that hits him isn’t. Cyclist have a lot more to lose. Sometimes cyclists aren’t able to trigger the sensors in the roadway that makes the lights change. While it is technically illegal, I have no problem seeing cyclists look both ways and go.

Also, I’ve heard conflicting things about bike lanes. Use ’em or not? I’ve heard it’s safer just to ride in the regular lanes.

Yesterday, GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani sent out an email to supporters boldly proclaiming his “12 commitments to the American people”:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

And Giuliani will be able to fulfill all these campaign promises because… well… I guess, because he’s God. An angry, Old Testament God. And a somewhat nutty one, at that.

Let’s just consider Giuliani’s “12 Commitments” one at a time.

“I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.”
Because “if we don’t fight them over there…” blah, blah, blah, and all that. Though a little defense wouldn’t be so bad either. You know, like protecting our ports, securing our nuclear facilities, inspecting cargo containers, and other boring stuff like that. On the bright side, in promising America an endless war, you can’t accuse Giuliani of pandering to voters by, um, actually listening to them.

“I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.”
Just like he did in New York — all we need are 12 million taxi medallions. But really… identify every non-citizen in our nation? How’s he gonna do that? How large an immigration gestapo is he gonna need to “check the papers” of all 301,139,947 US citizens and residents? How militarized a border is Giuliani envisioning, and what exactly does he plan to do with the 12 million “illegals” he rounds up? I’m not sure what’s more frightening — that Giuliani thinks he can deliver on this promise… or that he wants to?

“I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.”
For example, just think of all the wasteful spending Washington could save if the Justice Department doesn’t have to respond to habeas corpus writs from the 12 million Mexicans Giuliani plans to round up? On the other hand, fighting the eternal “War on Us”, building a wall around our nation, and identifying, detaining and deporting 12 million people, well, that costs big bucks. So I suppose to both restore fiscal discipline and pay for his ambitious foreign and domestic agenda, Giuliani is going to have to raise taxes, right?

“I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.”
Oops. My bad.

“I will impose accountability on Washington.”
And, um, I suppose if Giuliani “imposes” accountability on Washington, that must mean Washington will be accountable to him? Is he running for President or Dictator?

“I will lead America towards energy independence.”
The rendered fat from an average Mexican immigrant could fuel a bio-diesel powered SUV for a week. Hmm. Giuliani’s immigration plans are beginning to make sense.

“I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.”
Because the ultimate “portable free-market solution” is for Americans to pick up and move to a country that actually offers affordable health care. You know, like Canada. Now if we can only sneak past the troops at the border….

“I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.”
Just like he did as Mayor of New York. And of course, nobody is better qualified to “protect the quality of life for our children” than a man whose own kids won’t campaign for him.

“I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.”
We need judges who will strictly construct the US Constitution. Except for those pesky Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. And possibly the First. And certain inconvenient paragraphs in Article I, Section 8. And some other parts. Other than that, we need strict constructionist judges.

“I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.”
You know, just like Giuliani prepared New York City for 9/11 by ensuring that police, fire, and other rescue workers used communications systems that could not communicate with each other, and by insisting on locating the city’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) crisis center in the heart of New York’s most likely terrorist target. (The thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 to power OEM’s backup generators was a particularly bright idea… except for the part where the fuel spilled, burned, and likely led to the building’s collapse.) With preparation like that, who needs terrorists?

“I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.”
And nothing increases access to quality education like defunding public schools by siphoning dollars to religious institutions and for-profit “charter” schools. After all, an unfettered free market always leads to the most efficient allocation of resources. (You know, except when market forces entice 12 million Mexicans to come across the border to fill low wage jobs.)

“I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.”
… By deporting 12 million workers, and staying the course in Iraq.

Giuliani doesn’t bother to tell us how he will keep these commitments, just that he will keep them. Apparently, all of our nation’s problems could be easily solved if only America had a president who had the will to solve them. And the power to impose his will.

No, Giuliani isn’t a God, he’s just a man. A man who would impose his will on the American people. A man whose apparent embrace of unitary executive theory makes George Bush look like James Madison.

All hail Benito Giuliani.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is making some very interesting claims:

NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.

“There’s irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this,” Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. “It’s certainly coming from the government of Iran. It’s coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government.”

I’ve written a lot about Afghanistan at Reload, and I just want to quickly explain why we should be very skeptical of what Burns is saying. This post will be short on links because I’m on my lunch break, and I don’t have time to look up everything I’ve cited in the past on this.

Long story short, Afghanistan, as we all know, is the major opium producing country in the world – by far. The heroin that’s produced in hidden labs throughout Afghanistan is smuggled out in several different directions, most of which ends up in Europe, but a growing percentage stays in the countries along the smuggling routes (India, Pakistan, Russia, and Iran). Iran actually has one of the worst heroin problems in the world, and this is very clearly something that the theocratic Iranian leadership is not happy about.

The attempts by NATO forces and the Karzai government to destroy the opium production from within Afghanistan is beyond futile. The industry is roughly one half of the entire country’s GDP. You can’t just wipe that out militarily. Even with the unanimous support from outside the country to eliminate the trade, drug smugglers still dominate large areas of Afghanistan – especially in the south. But because the trade is still illegal, and coalition forces still have a mandate to assist the Karzai government in destroying the opium fields, the Taliban have been able to set up a protection racket, where they can collect ‘fees’ from the drug smugglers in exchange for making sure that their fields are spared when the eradication teams come through.

The Taliban doesn’t get paid in stacks of bills, though. Instead, they get paid in something that’s more valuable to them – weapons that they can use to fight the coalition forces. That’s where the Iranians come in. Seeing the massive increase in drug smuggling coming across the Iran-Afghanistan border, the Iranian government began to more heavily patrol the area. The intention was never to arm the Taliban, but that was the inevitable result. The Iranian government is notoriously unable to enforce its own strict laws, and high-ranking Iranian officials were bound to find ways to get in on the massive profits to be made by helping all that heroin make its way to London. This is why Iranian arms have ended up in the arms of the Taliban.

Obviously, these accusations aren’t coming out of nowhere. We’ve got a fleet of warships off the southern Iranian coast and we continue to have dimwitted Congressmen making severe threats against the regime. There’s a strong movement among a small subset of Americans to start a war with Iran, a move that would end in disaster. Those of us who still have our common sense intact need to keep dealing with the facts.

But I’m going to do it. I’ve been putting it off for years, but I’m finally going to do it.

But first, I have to buy a bicycle. Since I’ll be parking it around the downtown area, I was advised not to spend too much on my ride. About 400 bucks should do it. However, I think I’ll spend at least 50 bucks on a lock. And an ice pick for those times the cars get too close… Heh heh…

I’m looking around for a good bike. A mountain bike looks like a necessity (sorry Howie), considering the condition of downtown streets.

I like these bikes. I think. I haven’t bought a bike since junior high.

I’m looking forward to it. I just hope none of this stuff happens to me…

Do you have any advice? Any insights? Discounts on funeral services? Let me know in the comments.

Today Gov. Christine Gregoire completed the recurrent training requirement to earn a “red card” that certifies her to be on the scene of a wildland fire.

The story was all over the news this afternoon; but, in fact, she first earned a red card in 2005:

“I want to understand the conditions that our firefighters face in keeping our families, communities and resources safe,” said the governor. “Having this training means that I will be able to safely enter these areas to get the most up-to-date information.”

Gregoire is the first governor in Washington history to receive this training. She completed the firefighters work capacity test by walking one mile in under the 16 minute-limit and properly deploying her fire shelter. Department of Natural Resources staff in a non-suppression role are expected to undergo light physical fitness training as well as an eight-hour annual firefighter refresher course.

The “Red Card” is a federally recognized Interagency Incident Qualification Card that lists qualifications and currency of people certified as wildland fire personnel. Based on the training she undertook, I suspect Gregoire re-certified as a Field Observer under the Wildland Fire Qualification System (see pg. 103).

No word yet on whether Dino Rossi will try for a Real Estate Broker license in response.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for another exciting evening of politics under the influence. This is your chance to hound Goldy about those “pressing projects”, and get an idea about how much venture capital you’ll invest. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Drinking Liberally’s Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss contributer TheHim (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area, check out their Drinking Liberally; Jimmy will have the details.

The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 212 chapters in 44 states (plus DC). And if you don’t find a chapter near you…start one!

Seattle City Council candidate Joe Szwaja sent out an email this morning announcing that he has raised $20,121 thus far — $17,091 at his Kick-Off party alone. Considering his late entry into the race against incumbent Jean Godden, I suppose that’s not bad.

The Council is technically non-partisan, though we all know that all of the current council members are at least nominally Democrats. We also all know that Szwaja is a key member of the Washington State Green Party. Which leaves me a bit conflicted about this race.

On the one hand, ideologically, I align myself very closely with much of the Green philosophy. On the other hand, politically, I find both the local and national Green Parties to be misguided, self-destructive, vindictive… and strategically retarded.

On the one hand, while I like Godden personally, I’m having a hard time recalling what, if anything, she’s accomplished during her four years on the City Council. On the other hand, while I came away rather impressed the one time I had the opportunity to speak with Szwaja at length, um… this is apparently the guy who vetted Aaron Dixon. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

That said, my main criticism of the Greens has always been strategic: their eagerness to play the spoiler in high profile races for US Senate and President, while refusing to do the gritty, hard work necessary to actually build a party. Most of electoral politics is tedious, time consuming and far from glamorous. Sure, it might be more fun for a third party candidate to run for Congress or Senate, than, say, fire commissioner, but barring substantial electoral reforms like proportional representation or ranked-choice voting, such high profile candidacies are at best futile, and at worst, a dangerous distraction from the real candidates.

So I guess I should congratulate Szwaja for finally entering a race he has a snowball’s chance of winning. City Council is not exactly starting at the bottom — which is exactly where the Greens need to start if they’re ever going to build a base — but it is local, it is nominally non-partisan, and it is nominally winnable.

This is a race that’s worth watching.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave a talk on energy legislation before the Center for American Progress yesterday. He began by offering a few observations about some political colleagues:

My staff told me to make sure that I stayed away from presidential politics today. And I’m going to do that. Other — I’ve learned one thing in listening to all the debates and reading about all these people running for office, and the one fact I’ve learned, I can’t get out of my mind, is that Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney’s been hunting.…

(Via Political Wire.)

When I’m not guest posting for Goldy I enjoy chronicling the bullshit that comes out of this state. From the blogs to organizations to the media to the Republican Party, and the elected officials, we produce quite a bit. The Mars Hill post is kind of what I do. Lee, blogging as thehim, also does an amazing job of it. And there are plenty of bullshit chroniclers on national issues. So here’s my favorite bullshit from the past week:

The (un)Sound Politics crew have been at it this week. Sharkansky seems to think that buying an espresso machine that will pay for itself in less than two years and then will get money to pay for operations and for school lunches is a dastardly big government plot. And that the school district should just have a coffee machine instead. Because getting money to the general fund and paying for school lunches is bad.

Sound Politics second fiddle and even lesser light Jim Miller is convinced on his own blog that the Bush economy is the best economy EVAR! Because George Will said so.

Outside of (u)SP, local crazy people organization, Faith and Freedom Network are celebrating LGBT Pride Month by overreacting. They want a Christian Pride Month (because nothing says “Christian” quite like one of the deadly sins) or at least a Straight Month.

Nationally, the bullshit artists are horrified that Bush attempted to pass an immigration bill that didn’t completely hate Mexicans and other immigrants. This cartoon is the funniest thing I’ve seen on the subject. Digby’s post here makes much the same point, and has an added bonus of pointing out how far the right wing has gone from its supposed ideological roots.

But lest you think that the righties have suddenly developed a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, fear not! They still love the way he fights terrorism. And issues press releases about how he fights terrorism. And get upset at the fact that the New York Times doesn’t like how he issues press releases about how he fights terrorism.

And oh by the way, the surge is working. So there!

In explaining why state Republicans chose to replace Diane Tebelius with Luke Esser as WSRP chair, one GOP wag privately remarked that “Luke has balls.” I suppose that’s true. Most dicks do.

And as evidence of the WSRP’s ballsy dickery under Esser’s new leadership, the state GOP (or one of their surrogates) is preparing a TV ad attacking Gov. Chris Gregoire for denying Washingtonians the right to vote. How can I be so sure? Well, I happen to have come into possession of a preliminary storyboard:

Storyboard text — Per Account 1267 — DHG, Com5

Followup with client re: cable buy dates, saturation, and market analysis

===Bill 4 hrs===

(6/1/07, 6/2/07) @rate1

Ad specs per conv. 5/31 4:32pm

==Board 1==

[Elderly voters, Am. flag in breeze]

< Screentext >

All over America…

On Febuary 5, 2008…

…People will be going to the polls

…For AMERICA’s First National Primary Day

< /screentext >

< narration: same; soundtrack: "upbeat", "patriotic" >

***

==Board 2==

[Gregoire stock photo, b/w, low contrast]

< screentext >

Except You!

< /screentext >

< soundtrack: file, "despair" >

< narration: same, "angry voice" >

***

==Board 3==

[Prison bars over ballot box]

< screentext >

Gov. Gregoire and her party…

…Don’t want you voting on Feb. 5!

< /screentext >

< narration: same, melodramatic >

< soundrack: same >

==Board 4==

< note: discuss with client*** >

Why?…

…What are Gregoire and the Democrats so afraid of?

< discuss >Why doesn’t she like you?! < /discuss >

That’s pretty much the storyboard as I received it, though I’ve inserted the attached images in their appropriate places in the text.

What a bunch of dicks.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) requires state parties to choose all their delegates by either a primary or a caucus, and it was the 178 members of the WA State Democratic Central Committee (WSDCC) who voted to choose the latter. So of course, Gov. Gregoire had absolutely nothing to do with the decision.

But that’s besides the point, and the Republicans know it, because what this ad is really intended to say is: GOV. CHRIS GREGOIRE STEALS ELECTIONS!

I mean, that’s clearly the subtext. Hell, it’s not even subtext, it’s the whole ad… the script, the music, the images — stern Gregoire, elderly voters, prison bars — the whole point of this ad is to remind voters of the disputed 2004 election, and all the lies and misinformation the GOP disseminated about it.

The presidential primary? That’s just a springboard for an attack ad, and the WSRP couldn’t care less how tangential or intentionally misleading it might be. There are legitimate arguments, pro and con, for selecting delegates via caucus, but all the R’s want to do is dumb down the debate into a smear on Gregoire.

Like I said… what a bunch of dicks.

With the U.S. Senate preparing for an afternoon “No Confidence” vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the word is that senators are receiving relatively few calls on the subject, with those coming in falling substantial against Gonzales (ie, for the vote.) Sure, the vote is purely symbolic, but symbolism counts, and this is a great opportunity for Democratic and Republican senators alike to display their displeasure with the Bush administration and its cynical politicization of the justice system.

So if you have a few minutes to spare, here are some toll-free numbers for the U.S. Senate switchboard — give ’em a call and let the other Washington know that you have no confidence in AG Gonzales.

1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437

More from Firedoglake…

Update:
…or call your Senators directly:

Senator Maria Cantwell (202) 224-3441
Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
More Senate office numbers.

Mars Hill Elder Gary Shavey wrote a letter to the Seattle Times. It’s chock full of nuts, so I thought I’d share with the congregation. It’s especially horrible that it’s making me defend Nicole Brodeur!*

To the Seattle Times:
Insinuating Infanticide

Oh my

This letter is in response to the column written by Nicole Brodeur titled, “Having to make this Choice.” Nicole Brodeur’s column was on the recent Supreme Court decision on “partial-birth” abortion. Although I am aware, and she is quite clear, on her stance on abortion this column seemed to sicken me with the logical outworking of what she was promoting through an emotional argument that takes anyone down the slippery slope of abhorrence at the reality that may come. I think that the column is pretty clear that she is not really promoting anything purposely but as a columnist she is leading people, who read her column, through persuasion.

Isn’t the point of writing a column to promote something purposely? And, “seemed to sicken me”? You would think you would know if you were sickened or not.

If anyone were to recall this column, Nicole uses a couple that had a planned pregnancy. This couple, then 22 weeks into the pregnancy, found out about a malformation in the brain of their baby. Then here is the crux of the column, does a couple end the life of an unborn child in the womb rather than agonize over the struggle of life for the child outside the womb? The linkage between a diagnosis of brain malfunction of an unborn child to that of a child born critically ill is clear. Then in this column we see that abortion is the better choice. Why would parents go through the agony of seeing their child struggle through “heroic measures” to attain life then ultimately die?

Look, if the family wants to keep the child that’s their decision. And the state should be doing everything that it can for any children that are born. But ultimately this decision is incredibly difficult for any family to make. And seriously, fuck you for thinking that you can make it for them.

Pause for a minute here. What has just happened? There is a major shift taking place here. We would rather kill the unborn child than give the opportunity of life and letting nature take its course? The link was already made, that the option was, “if death was soon after birth what difference would it make if death happened in the womb?” The couple in the column grieves their child even though they made the decision to extinguish life in the womb. Where do we go next with this type of thinking? Do we start jumping on the bandwagon of Dr. Singer (professor at Princeton) that promotes the option of killing babies after they are born (infanticide) because they will die anyway or they are a major inconvenience to the parents and society? This all seems like a decision of convenience for the parents apart from the thought of sanctity of life. It seems that the slippery slope is that if parents are able to end life of a child in the womb because of the possibility of a critically ill life, then there is nothing stopping parents from killing their child outside the womb anywhere up to 9 months after birth because of a critical illness that may pervade a child.

I know, and the only proper infanticide is biblically approved infanticide. Like when a child who, “curses his father or mother must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother and deserves to die.” It sounds harsh, but if the B-I-B-L-E The Book for me says it, it must be moral.

Seriously, according to Broderur’s column, the family already has one child. Should we subject that child to poverty as well as the parents so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of a few out of the mainstream Christians?

And what the fuck kind of slippery slope is that? Birth is a much more clear line than the consequentialist notions of Dr. Singer or the life magically becomes worth saving at some point in the womb approach of the Christianist faction. It is the clearest line in the sand. But please, go on and tell us how giving women choices over their own bodies is a step on the road to fascism.

Close friends of mine in California had just delivered their third child in late 2000. Little did they know that their daughter would have a rare skin disorder called Epidermolysis Bullosa, which basically means the skin does not adhere to the body along with other major complications internally. The mortality rate the first year is 87%. Besides the agony of losing their child along with the million dollar medical bill why didn’t they just extinguish life rather than live with the burden and loss of their little one? This is the option being promoted. Fortunately they did not and she is still alive to this day. She will never have a life normal to that of the average American girl but the parents and community are glad to be blessed that she is still around. There is something about the society promoted by Dr. Singer and even suggested by Nicole Brodeur that is very saddening. The ramifications of enabling choices to preserve convenience and the pre-emptive strike of avoiding agony of lost loved ones may be extremely damaging to our society, if not already. The thought that my friend’s little girl along with countless others would not have made it past their first birthdays, is astonishing. May we think past the pragmatics of today to the peaceful world we are suppose to drive towards. Where would we draw the line? When does the topic shift to euthanasia of burdened elderly people or to that of any handicap that puts a burden on society? This sounds all to similar to the paradigm that drove the fascist regimes of World War II.

Brodeur isn’t suggesting anything beyond that people should be able to abort if they chose. Even late term. For whatever reason they chose. She isn’t advocating infanticide, hell she isn’t advocating people make the same choice, and the line she has is clear as day. Christ.

Nobody is saying your friend has to or should have had an abortion. What we are saying is that what was the right decision for them might be the wrong position for other people.

Thanks,
Gary Shavey

Welcome,
Carl Ballard

* Having to defend her isn’t actually so horrible. I may not be her biggest fan but I did meet her once and she was perfectly delightful. And this column was spot on.

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

7PM: Is Bill Sherman the next King County Prosecutor?
Longtime King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng recently passed away, suddenly turning the election to replace him into the marquee race of the political season. One of the two declared Democrats, Bill Sherman, joins me in the studio for the hour to take your calls and make the case for his candidacy.

8PM: When is Rep. Adam Smith going to fire his communications director?
First, Congressman Adam Smith subjects himself to the inevitable humiliation of going on The Colbert Report, and now he lowers himself to an extended segment on my show. Rep. Smith joins me by phone for a half hour to discuss what it is like to “spar” with Colbert, and to take your calls on the issues of the day.

9PM: The blog that time forgot.
TRex lives! And he joins me for the hour by phone to talk national politics. A popular contributor to the widely read blog Firedoglake, TRex always brings snark and wit to his biting commentary and analysis. I’ve got a feeling we’re going to bring up Fred Thompson’s name a lot.

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

Again, forgive my cynicism, but considering the Seattle Times editorial board’s track record of transparently passing off Frank Blethen’s narrow partisan agenda as the public interest, I instantly assumed the worst when I read today’s headline: “Watch carefully as Justice is named.”

And I wasn’t disappointed. Or, uh, I was disappointed. Um… you know what I mean.

The Times argues that the public should carefully watch Gov. Chris Gregoire as she appoints a replacement for retiring Justice Bobbe Bridge, and while the unsigned editorial offers no names, it does “have some thoughts on qualifications.”

• It would be good to add to the diversity of experience on the court, which has a former appellate judge (Gerry Alexander), tribal judge (Susan Owens), special prosecutor for child abuse cases (Barbara Madsen), specialists in voter initiatives (Jim Johnson) and bankruptcy and collections (Mary Fairhurst) and several trial attorneys (Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Tom Chambers). What it does not have is someone with major experience as a criminal prosecutor.

• It would be very good to have more geographic diversity. The court is all from west of the mountains. Its gender diversity is good, but its ethnic diversity is not.

• It is essential the appointee be willing to discuss his or her judicial philosophy. Some candidates have declared it is improper to talk about such things. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is all right, and we believe the voters need to know, so candidates for the court should speak their mind.

Uh-huh.

Let’s just be brutally honest. Quite simply, this editorial clearly assumes that its readers are a bunch of fucking morons.

Huh… let’s see… the new justice should be a criminal prosecutor from east of the mountains. Oh, how coy. How clever. You mean… a Republican.

And while they “offer no names,” the qualifications the Times lays out are clearly designed to eliminate all of the top names I’ve heard being bandied about by Olympia insiders. In fact, it is fair to speculate that the editorial is specifically aimed at Jenny Durkan, a prominent Democrat and close friend and advisor to Gov. Gregoire. Durkan is probably best known to Times readers as the kick-ass attorney who humiliated Dino Rossi’s lawyers in that Wenatchee courtroom. Durkan is one of the most highly respected attorneys in the state, and I’m guessing the Times is guessing that the appointment is hers for the asking… if she’s willing to give up her lucrative private practice.

To dismiss this editorial as sophistry is to give the anonymous writer too much credit. It is bullshit. Ridiculous, illogical bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit that totally disrespects the intelligence of the reader.

We need a criminal prosecutor on the bench? Why? If the argument is that we need somebody experienced in criminal law, why not a trial judge or criminal defense attorney? What’s the problem? Is Washington soft on crime? Don’t we lock up enough of our citizens? The Supreme Court doesn’t rule on evidence, it rules on points of law, an exercise whose primary requisite is constitutional scholarship and a sharp legal mind. That skill-set doesn’t exclude a criminal prosecutor, but it doesn’t particularly recommend one.

And the Times laughably argues for more diversity (other than gender) at the same time slamming the court for failing to block Seattle Schools’ racial tiebreaker? What’s up with that?

No, the Times didn’t put forth its “thoughts on qualifications” in pursuit of a qualified jurist, but rather a conservative one. What the Times wants is a court that will toss out the estate tax, legalize dog shooting and bust up organized labor. Let’s face it, Frank Blethen’s personal Hell would be a unionized Heaven.

Washington voters elected Chris Gregoire governor, presumably because we thought she was the candidate who best reflected our values. And Gov. Gregoire should follow suit, appointing the best qualified justice who best reflects her values. That’s what executives do. That’s what we expect of them.

That’s what Gov. Gregoire will do, and the Times knows it.

When the Times lays out a set of narrow qualifications, and then writes that “Gregoire needs to choose a candidate who can be defended,” what they are really saying is that she needs to choose a candidate who can be defended against attack from the Times.

Whoever the appointee is, he or she should consider today’s Times editorial as the opening salvo in their 2008 election campaign.

Before I start into this post, I wanted to introduce myself and thank Goldy again for letting me post up here. I normally post as ‘thehim’ at Blog Reload, Effin Unsound and (every once in a long while) at Washblog. I started blogging three years ago after the advent of the Iraq War made me realize how far away this country has gotten from the principles that have made it so great. But for the past 2 years, I’ve focused more on issues of personal liberty, specifically the drug war.

The reason I’ve made this my focus is because after following a number of foreign policy and domestic issues, I saw that the drug war and its inherently counterproductive nature is wreaking havoc in a number of difficult issues that we face today – from illegal immigration, to crime, to our relations with Latin America, to the war in Afghanistan, to the way our nation’s infirmed and elderly are taken care of, to our overcrowded prisons, and worst of all, to our race relations. The drug war costs us billions of dollars every year and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s based on an assumption that the government has a duty to protect adult citizens from their own decisions. This false belief has been recognized as a mistake by people as politically diverse as Milton Friedman, George Soros, William F. Buckley, and Ralph Nader. Yet it still continues, because the willingness of politicians from both parties to resort to fearmongering has never been effectively countered with basic reason and common sense.

As this blog deals with Washington State politics, let’s look at some recent local news. Over the past school year, undercover police officers had been attending classes and pretending to be students at three Federal Way high schools. In the end, they were able to charge 3 adults and 11 juveniles with drug offenses. Two of the adults are facing gun charges for illegally selling firearms to the officers. Most of the transactions happened off school grounds once students agreed to help these officers purchase drugs.

I don’t doubt that the high schools in Federal Way have a problem with drug use. Illegal drug markets tend to gravitate towards the path of least resistance. In other words, the decision to make a living by selling illegal drugs is made more often in places where people have less opportunity. But all high schools today have some level of drug use going on. The last undercover operation like this one was at Redmond High in 2003 (you can see what one person had to say about that here).

What was done in Federal Way has been presented nearly unanimously by the local media as a positive thing. It is portrayed as a reasonable response to underage drug use. But the reality is not so neat. In any school where drug use is fairly common, these operations aren’t like finding a needle in a haystack. It’s more like shooting fish in a barrel. Undercover cops, especially female ones, can make just about any student into a drug dealer by making them feel that it would worth their while to break the law for them.

The main question to be asked is how did the cops decide who to target? In my suburban high school 15 years ago, an undercover cop could have arrested about half of the students in my senior class this way. Was it different here? Did these two officers make an effort to find out who certain main dealers were, or were they just content to arrest anyone who had the knowledge of where to find drugs? Did they only focus on a certain ethnic community? Did they only focus on kids who fit a specific stereotype (as what happened in Redmond)?

Probably the most pernicious aspect of stings like this is the belief that it helps those who get caught. I’ve seen this expressed several times, by teachers and school officials, even by one of the arrested teen’s grandfather. This is a greatly mistaken belief. No drug on this planet does more damage to a child’s prospects to succeed in life more than what a trip through the criminal justice system will do. Not to mention that all of the charged students have now been expelled. Depending on how these cases are handled, some of the arrested may find it impossible to receive financial aid for higher education or to be qualified for a number of jobs. All because they were the middleman between a drug supplier and an adult pretending to be a teenage drug user.

Despite these criticisms, I understand the train of thought for Federal Way school officials. They obviously know that drug use is widespread among their high school students. They felt like they had to do something. It’s very difficult to look at a problem like that and accept the fact that, at the local level, there’s nothing that can be done to fix it. This is a problem that needs to be fixed at the state level, by having the Governor and the Legislature finally take a stand against the federal government and start being smart about how we deal with drug use.

The reason that drugs are so readily available in our high schools stems from the fact that they’re illegal for adults as well. As a result, the supply chains exist underground and are controlled by criminals. Compare that to alcohol, where the supply chain is aboveground and heavily regulated by the government. Certainly, kids still get their hands on alcohol, but are there networks of alcohol sellers in high schools, who have large quantities of alcohol that they can sell to other students? Of course not. But this happens with drugs like marijuana, ecstasy, and cocaine, because at the higher levels of the criminal organizations that control those drugs, they could care less if a 16-year-old wants to be part of the network of low-level dealers. That’s exactly why our schools are flooded with these drugs. But if either of those two undercover cops wanted to buy alcohol from other kids, they probably would’ve been told to find someone over 21 to buy it for them.

The media occasionally raises points like these when the topic of the drugs comes up. So far, in relation to what happened in Federal Way, I’ve seen nothing to challenge the prevailing mindset that this sting is an acceptable and beneficial response to the problem of teenage drug use. If we understand that involvement with drugs is a function of having a lack of opportunity, why do we think we’re going to fix it by randomly picking off kids in a high school and giving them less opportunity to succeed in life?