HorsesAss.Org

Nothing says "fun" like a bunch of drunken bloggers sitting around a table discussing tax policy. No, really… nothing does say "fun" like that. In fact, I think we’re going to have to invent a whole new word.

Joining me in a wonkishly entertaining and surprisingly passionate discussion of tax restructuring were Mollie, Will, Carl, Sandeep, Lee and newbie Ray. Topics of discussion included Washington state’s incredibly regressive tax structure and creative proposals to fix it, plus Eastern Washington secession (the great state of Martha?), Eastern King County secession (wouldn’t it be great to have two Democratic counties in the region?), the partisan battle over vote-by-mail, and Congressional Republicans’ refusal to prohibit spending on illegal surveillance.

The show is 53:09, and is available here as a 34.2 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

Oh no, Roger… watch out!

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m coming straight from our school’s PTA meeting, so you can be sure I’ll be needing a drink.

If you happen to be a liberal drinker on the other side of the mountains, the Tri-Cities chapter of DL also meets Tuesday nights, 7 PM, Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd., in Richland. Go ask Jimmy for more details.

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the rule of law today, and call me a cynic, but I’m guessing the rule of law will fail.

Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Bob Inglis (R-SC) will offer the following one-sentence amendment to the pending Defense Appropriations bill (H.R.5631):

None of the funds made available in this Act may be expended to conduct electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)) of any United States person (as defined in section 101(i) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(i)) in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

This should be one of those “duh-uh” votes — an amendment so simple in both language and intent that even a congressman can understand it — for all it does is merely prohibit expending funds on surveillance activities that are already prohibited by law. Well, um… duh-uh.

So I’m not sure what is more ironic (or frightening): that such an amendment is even necessary, or that a majority of Republicans will likely vote against it?

Relying on an extreme version of the unitary executive doctrine and certain undefined wartime powers, the President and his men have chosen to interpret FISA and other laws as they see fit. With the Republican-controlled Congress lacking the will or the balls to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role as a coequal branch of government, the only Congressional power not left up to Presidential interpretation is the power of the purse.

That is the power the amendment’s bipartisan sponsors seek to exercise here, and it is hard to understand how their colleagues can possibly argue against it. Don’t appropriate money for illegal activities! What’s so controversial about that?

Of course our vaunted checks and balances have long since collapsed under a Republican leadership that values party loyalty over that to the Constitution, and seems to ignore the possibility that the next imperial President could be a Democrat. Still, Rep. Inslee — the amendment’s lead sponsor — remains hopeful that the amendment will pass and the rule of law will prevail. For if we don’t do something to rein in this “radical and dangerous” expansion of presidential power he said, “we might as well kiss off Democracy.”

Pucker up, America.

[Cross-posted at Huffington Post]

UPDATE:
After much spirited debate, the amendment was defeated on a voice vote. The cowards weren’t even willing to go on the record.

Members of the intelligence committee refused to verify if the current wiretapping program complied with FISA. So much for the rule of law.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, apparently there was recorded vote, and the amendment failed 207 to 219. Closer than I expected. But still, the vast majority of Republicans refused to pass an amendment that would have prohibited spending taxpayer’s money on illegal activities. What’s up with that?

Tomorrow, Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) intends to offer an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R.5631) that would prohibit the use of all such funds to conduct electronic surveillance in contravention to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

More later.

Every time I talk about An Inconvenient Truth, the deniers come out in full force, regardless of whether they have actually seen the documentary. The science is bogus, they tell me. They insist that there is no scientific consensus that climate change is a reality, or that human activities have led to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Um… well… tell that to the insurance industry:

The planet’s most conservative, risk-averse businesspeople now recognize the reality of global climate change.

The insurance industry, which has to pay up if the consensus of scientists is correct, has quite literally bought into the scenario.

[…]

Lloyd’s of London, the oldest insurance market in the world, released a report this month on the threat the industry faces. “Climate Change: Adapt or Bust,” warns, “If we do not take action now to understand the risks and their impact, the changing climate could kill us.” While the report “focuses on adaptation … we recognize that mitigation of the risk itself (i.e., the reduction of CO{-2} emissions) is crucial.”

Marsh, the world’s leading risk and insurance services firm, released a report in April in which it called climate change “one of the most significant emerging risks facing the world today.”

Last month, American International Group adopted a policy that “recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

But then, we all know that the insurance industry is nothing but a bunch of wide-eyed, liberal propagandists.

Meanwhile An Inconvenient Truth has already earned over $6.4 million in four weeks, making it the 11th-top-grossing documentary of all time.

The Seattle Times reports that some in the 43rd Legislative District think the State House seat being vacated by Rep. Ed Murray should go to a gay candidate. And with attorney and activist Jamie Pedersen being the only gay candidate in the race, such sentiments should benefit him.

Hmm. Maybe.

But it should be noted that later today, the Seattle Metropolitan Elections Committee, which rates candidates on issues of importance to the lesbian and gay community, will announce that Lynne Dodson has earned both its highest rating, and a co-endorsement along with Pedersen. Whatever that’s worth.

UPDATE:
Will has some further thoughts on this issue.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Believe it or not, The Stranger’s Dan Savage has some thoughts on this as well.

At least for now we’re calling it “The David Goldstein Show”, every Sunday night from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. But despite it’s rather bland name tonight’s show is jam-packed with interesting guests.

7PM: King County Council President Larry Phillips is going to join me at the top of the hour for an update on the future of vote-by-mail in the wake of Dean Logan’s departure. Then King County Executive Ron Sims will join me for the rest of the hour to take questions from callers.

8PM: 8th Congressional District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner will give us her take on President Bush’s trip to Seattle on behalf of his buddy, Rep. Dave Reichert. Then Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly will call in from a phone booth on Whidbey Island to discuss that and other issues of the day.

9PM: It’s “The Blogger Hour” with Podcasting Liberally regulars Will from Pike Place Politics and the Liberal Girl Next Door, Molly. Let’s see if they’re as entertaining and interesting sober as they are drunk.

Tune in or stream live and join the debate tonight from 7 to 10PM. Call me at 877-710-KIRO (5476) or leave a comment here, and I promise I’ll actually try to read the thread.

From the No Shit Sherlock Department, the Christian right has apparently discovered that initiative monger Tim Eyman is a liar.

Gary Randall and Joe Fuiten of the Faith and Freedom Network have posted a detailed chronology of their tortured relationship with Eyman during the Referendum 65 signature drive, and the Mukilteo watch salesman doesn’t come off looking so good. The final blow to FFN was Eyman’s refusal to share the petitions, and his arrogant posturing that he was merely protecting the signers’ privacy. Here are a few of the key excerpts:

Tim Eyman has a demonstrated penchant for not telling the whole truth.

Tim has not been truthful in his telling of the story.

Eyman’s explanation … cannot be true,

He is just making up that completely fabricated charge…

Joe Fuiten … has tried to get Tim Eyman to honor the agreement he made with FFN. Eyman has not been willing to do so…

Of course the real reason Eyman won’t share the signatures is that he doesn’t want anybody to know how few he really collected… which I’m guessing is less than half the 105,000 claimed. If that’s not the case then Timmy shouldn’t have any problem letting a reporter go in there and count the signatures for himself. Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

Of course, FFN’s chronology shows Fuiten and Randall to be pretty cynical themselves. Consider this passage:

On the first day that petitions were available for Referendum 65, Faith and Freedom published petitions. The FFN Referendum petitions had the FFN name on them as a return address and avoided the controversial titles of the Eyman version. Eyman’s version said “no quotas” even though there was nothing about quotas in the bill and the phrase alienated African American leaders. Eyman’s version was also titled “no gay marriage” even though the bill was only very obliquely related to gay marriage. FFN was concerned that the misleading titles might be used by opponents in a legal challenge to overturn the Referendum as they have done to other Eyman initiatives. FFN printed thousands of their version of the Referendum petition but without the questionable titles and without Eyman’s name attached. Eyman was upset and wanted all the petitions to come through his office and to bear only his name. In conversations that first weekend, Tim Eyman and FFN agreed that if FFN would withdraw its petitions, Tim Eyman would give copies of all petitions that came in to FFN. It was a simple agreement. That was the full agreement. There were no other conditions to it.

So what they’re telling us is that they knew the headlines on Eyman’s petitions were “misleading” (i.e. lies) but that their primary concern was that this might be used as legal grounds to overturn the referendum. And despite being fully cognizant of this blatant dishonesty, they cut a deal with Eyman anyway, knowingly permitting misleading petitions to be distributed in their churches.

During the whole “Referendum Sunday” spat I had strongly criticized ministers for repeating Eyman’s lies from the pulpit, suggesting that there might be a Commandment against that. Now it seems clear that Fuiten and Randall at least tacitly endorsed such lies.

As far as I’m concerned, when you deal with the Devil you get what you deserve.

I’ve been busy today having a life or something. So here’s another open thread.

Hey… I finally posted again over at Huffington. Hmm… wonder what was on my mind today?

Betcha this is a picture we see over and over again in campaign literature come November. Democratic campaign literature that is.

“Everything I know tells me we need to change course… I am going to defeat Dave Reichert because he will never stop George Bush. But together, we will.”
— Darcy Burner, Westlake Center rally, 6/16/2006

Are you a Safeco shareholder? Are you pissed off by the $17 million golden parachute Safeco gave Mike McGavick after he announced his resignation? If you’re both, send me an email.

President Bush is coming to Seattle today to raise a stunning $800,000 for Rep. Dave Reichert, and I urge all of you to join a rally 11:30 AM at Westlake Center (400 Pine St., Seattle) to send a message to Bush that his failed policies and his rubber-stamp Congress are not welcome in Washington State!

Democratic challenger Darcy Burner will be there to fire up the crowd, along with a host of other local elected officials. Please show your support.

Sen. Maria Cantwell gave a 15-minute address on the floor of the US Senate yesterday, which the Seattle P-I describes as “largely a restatement of her earlier positions.” That’s mostly true, though I’m guessing most of her critics on the angry left would prefer a pithy statement of values, rather than the wordy policy speech she gave.

I urge you to read the full text of Sen. Cantwell’s speech for yourself, but the P-I article did include some very savvy expert analysis:

Much of the critical conversation about Cantwell’s Iraq stance has been conducted on the Internet. The creator of a prominent political blog in Washington state, David Goldstein, said he doubts Cantwell’s comments Wednesday would change many minds.

“Many on the left in Washington state have latched on to Senator Cantwell as the local symbol of this war, and I’m not sure if anything could dissuade them of that notion,” Goldstein, who runs the blog HorsesAss.org (www.horsesass.org), said in an e-mail.

“Instead, what we get are reasonable speeches like this in which she lays out a very pragmatic, if emotionally unsatisfying, approach,” Goldstein wrote. “While she does not explicitly say so, I read this speech as setting a goal of being ready to substantially withdraw within 18 months, and considering the security concerns, again, that seems rather pragmatic and even optimistic. But again, that won’t come anywhere near satisfying those who are demanding an immediate withdrawal.”

Man… that Goldstein guy really knows what he’s talking about.

Now before anybody jumps down my throat I want to reiterate that I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq, and I do not mean to be dismissive towards those who call for an “immediate” withdrawal. There is a legitimate debate to be had as to whether our military presence in Iraq causes more problems than it solves, and whether our objectives (assuming we have any) are desirable or achievable.

But to those who attack Sen. Cantwell for being pro-war or for having no plan to withdraw, I have to say that this simply is not true. Sen. Cantwell is clearly not for immediate withdrawal; she’s for making the best of a very bad situation by attempting to stabilize the Iraqi government, build its security forces, and internationalize the intervention so as to permit the US to largely reduce its military presence over the course of the next year and a half or so.

Whether this is possible or not, I do not know, but it is grounds for a reasonable debate. Unfortunately, the sense that I get from some people in my own party — people I largely agree with on many issues — is that they do not want a debate. They want Sen. Cantwell to apologize for her vote, to aggressively criticize the Bush administration, and to call for an immediate withdrawal. I understand this, but well… life is full of disappointments.

Anyway, I urge Sen. Cantwell’s critics to hold their fire for a moment, read her speech, and then come back and tell me what exactly is so unreasonable or immoral about her approach to what is a very difficult problem. (I mean, apart from her failure to criticize the Bush administration for its stunning dishonesty and incompetence, which would have been satisfying, but not particularly productive.)