HorsesAss.Org

Every time I launch into a screed assailing violent, right-wing rhetoric, or warning of our nation’s precipitous slide towards fascism, I do so with the full understanding that some will judge me melodramatic, hyperbolic… or even paranoid. So why do I do it?

Dave Neiwert answers that question well today on his blog Orcinus, where he routinely chronicles the eliminationist rhetoric and actions of the far right:

Regular readers know that the main reason I keep harping on the rise of right-wing eliminationist rhetoric is that history tells us that this rhetoric always precedes action.

Last weekend, Jacob Robida acted out this dynamic in real life: He walked into a tavern in New Bedford, Mass., and, after inquiring whether it was a gay bar — and being informed that it was — began a murderous rampage with a hatchet and a handgun, leaving three bar patrons injured, one of them in critical condition. When pulled over in Arkansas for a traffic violation, he shot and killed a Gassville police officer, launching a 20-mile pursuit that culminated when his car was disabled in nearby Norfolk. He then killed his female passenger, 33-year-old Jennifer Rena Bailey, and then was shot himself when he pointed his weapon at police.

Like all such rampages, this one did not occur in a vacuum. Robida had a Web site on which he posted a number of entries regarding his fascination with all things Nazi and murdering people in general. A search of his room turned up Nazi regalia and literature.

[…]

Jacob Robida’s rampage was all about reminding gay Americans that they are unsafe in our society — that their lives are forfeit because haters like Robida say so. People like this get their fuel from demagogues who claim that inflicting this kind of violence on such outcasts is their right. Not only is it their right, but it is the right thing to do.

Contrary to what some people may think, I do not awake each morning expecting today to be the day my government locks me away in a “detention center,” nor do I lay my head down at night expecting my sleep to be shattered by a right-wing-militia-fueled, 21st century American Kristallnacht.

However… I know my history, and I know that it is possible, if not imminently likely.

Our national reaction to the isolated attack of 9/11 was a preemptive war abroad, and a surrender of civil liberties at home… the quiet acceptance of a “1984”-like scenario in which a unitary executive claims extra-constitutional war powers in a War on Terror that even he admits is likely to extend for decades, if not indefinitely. At the same time, the increasingly violent rhetoric of the far-right continues its steady creep into mainstream politics.

So what would be our response to a major disaster, such as a nuclear, chemical or biological attack on an American city? While 9/11 was a nearly unparalleled American tragedy, there are reasonable scenarios with death tolls 100 times greater… or even higher. What freedoms would we surrender then? What freedoms would our government — or extremist vigilantes — attempt to take by force?

I write about these things now, not because I believe they will happen, but because I know they can happen. I write about these things now, because we need to at least imagine the worst — just like we should have imagined terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers — so that if these things do happen, we can at least anticipate the violent, anti-democratic reaction that will surely be generated. I write about these things now, while I am still free to write about these things, without fear of official or unofficial retaliation.

I write about these things because I know my history.

Voters went to the polls mailboxes yesterday throughout the state to vote on school levies and other special elections, and at least in King County, support for our children has been overwhelming. Nearly every school levy in the county is not only surpassing the 60 percent threshold by a comfortable margin, many are passing by well over 70 percent.

For years now, an innate anti-tax sentiment has almost been taken for granted by politicians, pundits, and calculating hucksters like Tim Eyman. Yet homeowners consistently vote to tax themselves to provide essential services like schools, libraries, parks, and public safety. The public may often talk cynically about government, but what greater show of public faith in government is there than voting to raise one’s own taxes?

The steady popular support of school levies (what else consistently garners over 70 percent of the vote?) also demonstrates broad popular support of public education in general. I just wonder when our state’s lawmakers are going to realize this, and finally craft a populist package to increase basic funding of education? Voters are more than willing to pay for it… if you give them value for their money.

Democratic challenger Eric Oemig is going to have a tough time attacking state Sen. Bill Finkbeiner for voting against popular legislation during the 2006 session… because so far, Finkbeiner hasn’t cast a single “no” vote.

Truth is, Finkbeiner hasn’t really cast many votes at all. Of the 35 bills that have come to the Senate floor thus far, Finkbeiner has missed 15 of them, for a lackluster 57 percent attendance record. I guess he wasn’t kidding when he resigned his post as minority leader, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family.

Finkbeiner was widely praised for boldly breaking with the Republican party line (and his own prior voting record) by casting the deciding vote in favor of landmark gay civil rights legislation, but he has been decidedly less decisive the rest of the session. Of the 19 other bills he bothered to vote on — all of them “yes” votes — 13 were passed unanimously, and three more with only 1 or 2 nays.

Indeed, apart from the anti-discrimination bill, the only bill Finkbeiner voted on that could remotely be considered close was Senate Joint Memorial 8039, which passed 27 to 21, and requests that Congress make changes to Medicare Part D. But I suppose that’s not even really a bill.

Finkbeiner may have voted his heart on the controversial anti-discimination bill, but he also voted the sentiments of his district. Other than that one vote he’s apparently decided to avoid making any tough decisions that may come back to bite him during what is sure to be a tough election challenge.

But don’t worry Eric. If want you want to use Finkbeiner’s voting record against him, all you have to do is look back to 2005.

At a 9:30 AM press conference, King County elections director Dean Logan released plans to transition the county to all vote-by-mail elections by the August, 2007 primary election. The implementation plan is detailed in a 30-page document, “Moving to Vote By Mail.”

King County Executive Ron Sims first proposed the move back in December, at which time he instructed Logan to study the issue and come back with recommendations. The resulting proposal was guided by the following planning objectives:

Adopt and implement a vote-by-mail election system to:

• Simplify and streamline election administration
• Be a model jurisdiction for accountability, accuracy and transparency
• Increase voter participation
• Enhance access to voting

Hard to argue with those objectives… though I’m sure some people will try.

Insiders tell me there is council support for the required ordinances and funding, so this move is virtually guaranteed. When the transition has been completed, King County will be the largest jurisdiction in the nation conducting all vote-by-mail elections.

I’m still reading through the document and will update with further analysis later this morning.

UPDATE:
I’ve skimmed through the report, but it’s kind of detailed, so here are a few quick observations.

With 70 to 80 percent already voting by mail, it has simply become too costly and too inefficient to simultaneously maintain two different election systems. In addition to increasing voter turnout, particularly in low profile elections…

Voting by mail means we move to a single, common voting system. It means simpler instructions for voters and more streamlined and efficient systems for election workers. As we move to voting by mail, there will be fewer provisional ballots and decreased dependency on manual processes. Voting by mail offers the opportunity to eventually provide something new for voters that they have told us they want: the ability to track their own ballot.

Again, I’ve repeatedly stated my preference to vote at the polls, but all this is a good thing, and the motivations behind this transition are based on pragmatism.

One thing the report makes perfectly clear is that the complexity of this transition is not being taken lightly; that’s why the final implementation has been pushed back to 2007. This is a very thorough report that realistically discusses the technical, organizational and political obstacles to a successful transition. For example, the report outlines a number of legislative changes that need to be made, and how their failure might impact the transition.

The report also notes the import of getting things right the first time:

In implementing the vote-by-mail system countywide, the biggest concern (and greatest threat to success) is the potential for missing critical path deadlines in a large, complex, and highly visible public process. Though the average voter does not understand the many processes and complexities inherent in running the largest vote-by-mail system in the country, they will know without a doubt if something goes wrong in their individual case, or if the system is implemented in a way that increases the potential for error. We will not get a second chance to make a first impression about how well this was done.

Looks to me like Logan has learned an important lesson from the 2004 election… perception counts. The whole purpose of the move to all vote-by-mail is to make voting more secure, reliable, accessible, and efficient. In doing so, Logan plans to bring in important new technologies like high-speed ballot tabulators, automated signature verification, and voter-verifiable ballot tracking. But when it comes to rebuilding public faith in our election systems, all this will go to naught if KC trips up out of the gate.

I’ll write more on the subject when I have the time to give this report the detailed attention it deserves.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Please join me in the 9PM hour for a live recording of our weekly podcast.

I’m also pleased to announce that Drinking Liberally Tacoma will hold its inaugural gathering tomorrow at 9PM, at Meconi’s Pub near 7th & Pacific, and meet every Wed. thereafter.

“Ching-ching, ching-ching-ching.”

It turns out that slot machines and those ubiquitous Coinstar machines may have a lot more in common than the sound they make when you dump in your change. This morning, Senate Ways & Means allowed SB 6523 to die in committee, largely due to the machinations of Coinstar, Inc. and it’s uber-lobbyist, Vito Chiechi.

Why the hell would Coinstar want to kill a bill that raises the state’s legal gambling age from 18 to 21? And why the hell did state senators allow them to do it?

Well, here’s what I think I know.

In addition to coin-counting machines, Coinstar also has a $5 million a year business on amusement games, like the stupid giant claw you sometimes find near the entrances of supermarkets, enticing children with the elusive promise of a big prize. At the hearing, Coinstar testified to their concern that the bill would also raise the age on carnival and amusement games… testimony which I initially dismissed as silly; the bill clearly defined to which activities it applied, and the giant claw was not one of them.

What I hadn’t realized is that representing Coinstar was the dean of Olympia’s lobbyists, Vito Chiechi, a kind of mini-Jack Abramoff, with strong ties to gambling, alcohol, tobacco and other sin-related industries. Chiechi saw this bill as an opportunity, and he jumped at it.

It turns out that Coinstar has had a running battle with the state Gambling Commission, chafing at requests for financial records and other documents, and yearning to get out from under the Commission’s oversight. So Coinstar and Chiechi had Sen. Jim Honeyford — once described by an industry trade journal as “the best bet for expanding gambling in Washington” — insert an amendment that removed references to “amusement games” from the gambling statutes, thus removing Coinstar’s activities from Gambling Commission oversight.

So today the bill goes to Ways and Means — the last day for a bill to move out of the committee and onto Rules — and it’s “suddenly” discovered that by removing all references to amusement games, the Honeyford amendment may have inadvertently made these games illegal! Rather than fixing the language, Ways and Means chair, Sen. Margerita Prentice decided to table the bill entirely.

On its face, this is an example of Prentice and her senate colleagues sacrificing the welfare of our states’ teens to protect the interests of a large corporation. What started as an effort to raise the legal age on our multi-billion dollar gambling industry, was scuttled due to concerns from Coinstar and its $5 million worth of amusement games.

But perhaps this goes much deeper?

Prentice — a frequent beneficiary of campaign contributions from both tribal and commercial gaming interests, as well as other organizations associated with Chiechi — also sits on the Gambling Commission, and thus is very well versed in the gambling statutes. The bill, as written, only raises the gambling age at facilities where alcohol is consumed on site, and clearly does not apply to any “amusement games” that might be played by anyone under the legal drinking age. She could have amended the bill to reinsert the references to amusement games in the broader statute… but then that would have left Coinstar under Gambling Commission oversight.

Of course the bill’s death must surely please the rest of the gambling industry, none of which wanted to publicly oppose such a commonsense measure, but which certainly had nothing to gain from its passage. Delores Chiechi — Vito’s daughter — representing the commercial card rooms, quietly took no official position on the bill. Perhaps her tepid statements of support were genuine… or perhaps she knew something the rest of us didn’t know? Perhaps this bill has been dead for weeks, but nobody bothered to tell the sponsors?

I also can’t help but wonder what game Coinstar is really playing at? Standing right next to the Coinstar machine in most supermarkets is also a lottery ticket vending machine… could it be that Coinstar plans to be a big player in gambling as well? The Lottery’s own marketing plan describes 18-20 year olds as part of “a key market the lottery intends to pursue”… what role does an innovative company like Coinstar plan to play in deploying new, youth-oriented gambling technologies? How would have SB 6523 impacted its future plans?

Still, whatever the circumstances, it’s hard to blame Coinstar, the gambling industry and the Chiechis for the bill’s failure. It is their job to protect their own self-interest.

It is the Legislature’s job, on the other hand, to protect the interests and welfare of citizens of this state. This was a simple bill with a simple purpose, specifically designed to meet a need defined by the state Lottery’s own problem gambling research… a bill that had earned broad bipartisan support. By allowing the bill to die in committee, for whatever reasons, Sen. Prentice and her colleagues have failed to do their job.

The “legislative declaration” that prefaces our state’s gambling statutes starts as follows:

The public policy of the state of Washington on gambling is to keep the criminal element out of gambling and to promote the social welfare of the people by limiting the nature and scope of gambling activities and by strict regulation and control.

It is now up to the House, where companion bill HB 2872 currently sits in the Rules Committee, to live up to its responsibilities, by forcing senators to live up to theirs.

The other day I posted a broadside in support of Sen. Maria Cantwell, accusing her critics of being a bunch of whiners and crybabies. Of course, what I got in return was a lot of whining and crying, accusing me of being a “machine Democrat” and a “Cantwell apologist.”

Yeah, whatever. What I am is a realist. Cantwell has been an outstanding senator on many issues, like the environment and energy (and the Bankruptcy bill, on which, contrary to critics’ claims, she actually voted nay), while on other issues… not so much. Yet I get the feeling that a lot of the people attacking Cantwell for her vote on say, Iraq, are also some of the same people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Well, hate to break it to you folks… but you are a lot more responsible for the Iraq war than Cantwell.

But my biggest complaint about the left-leaning, anti-Cantwell camp is how goddamn lazy they’ve been in championing an opponent. Mark Wilson? You gotta be nuts. You know, one of the objectives in politics happens to be winning.

Over on Eat the State, Geov Parrish also opines on subject, and his take is somewhat different from mine. Geov obviously doesn’t think much of Cantwell’s politics. But….

Progressives like to piss and moan a lot about being unrepresented in the political process, and that’s true. It’s also true that the deck is stacked against our participation in many different ways. But difficult is not impossible. It’s up to us to build the coalitions, energize the constituents, and field the campaigns that will win us respect and influence when it comes to impacting public policy. That means more than laying out critiques and alternatives and mounting protests and position papers and expecting the world to salute. It means organizing, and it means listening to others and incorporating their concerns and ideas, and it means packaging our issues and candidates attractively and organizing more, and then organizing again, and agsin, until the world is forced not to salute but to get the hell out of the way of the fast-moving train.

But have any of Cantwell’s hard-lefty critics actually bothered to do any of this hard work? Hell no! Instead, they just hitched their wagon to Wilson, an ex-Libertarian perennial candidate who for this election decided to toss out his Cato Institute Handbook in favor of some more liberal-sounding website prose. The guy’s a fringe candidate, and no amount of saying otherwise will change that.

If we want to start electing more progressive candidates to Congress, then we’re going to have to follow the lead of organizations like Progressive Majority of Washington, who are out there recruiting, training, and supporting progressive candidates at the local level, so we can build the farm team from which future political superstars will rise.

80 percent of first-time congressional candidates who win, have previously won elected office. So if we want a better shot at electing a strongly progressive US senator, then we’re going to have to elect more strongly progressive council members, commissioners, and state legislators.

But if you’re just going to sit back and complain about Cantwell, and then go support some dufus loser like Wilson, well… you’re not going to get any sympathy from me.

The reality in 2006 is that we desperately need to put more Democrats in the Senate… any Democrats. And any dissension in our ranks this late in the game only serves to help the Republicans.

The anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, announced plans to picket Seattle’s civic mourning in the wake of the Seahawk’s disappointing loss in Super Bowl XL.

The city’s championship dreams collapsed last night under the weight of sloppy play, questionable clock management, and drive-killing penalties, which the Rev. Fred Phelps blamed on “divine retribution” for recently passed gay civil rights legislation, declaring “The Lord works in mysterious ways… and sometimes through the zebras.”

The controversial church is best known for picketing military funerals, shouting at mourners “God hates fags” and other scripture. But Rev. Phelps has recently expanded his missionary work to more high profile events, including last month’s memorial for the 12 miners killed in the Sago Mine disaster, where protesters held signs reading, “Thank God for Dead Miners,” “God Hates Your Tears” and “Miners in Hell.”

Phelps and his church have protested at the funerals of Matthew Shephard and Mr. Rogers, and have also announced plans to picket the funeral of civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. Citing her vocal support of gay issues, Rev. Phelps called her “an ingrate — unthankful and unholy,” who brought down the “wrath of God” upon herself:

“God hates fags and fag-enablers! Ergo, God hates Coretta Scott King and is now tormenting her with fire and brimstone…”

Rev. Phelps struck a similar chord in talking about Seattle’s Super Bowl loss, saying that God chose to torment fans with momentum-turning penalties and dropped passes in retaliation for the city’s unholy abomination: “God hates Seattle! It was Seattle’s fags who hardened God’s heart, and it was God’s wrath that turned Jerramy Stevens’ hands to stone.”

As for Pittsburgh, he described the Steelers’ home town as a “manly, God-fearing” city… except maybe for some excessive hugging in The Deer Hunter. “That was a little faggy,” Rev. Phelps admitted, “but God already punished director Michael Cimino with Heaven’s Gate.”

So the Seahawks lost. As a lifelong, diehard Philadelphia Eagles fan, I can tell you from personal experience that I feel your pain, but that life does go on. After all, you always have next season to look forward to… you know, when your team loses 13 starters to injured reserve, and finishes far out of the playoffs.

Yeah, it was a big game. But it’s only a game.

As for me, I’ll still start every season believing that this year is going to be our year. So here’s to an Eagles vs. Seahawks NFC championship game next year. May the best bird win.

UPDATE:
Andrew Jonathan thinks the Hawks wuz robbed.

To put this in perspective, I always think the Eagles are robbed too. That’s healthy. Better we find an outlet for our paranoia in sports than in politics.

Hmm. I sure hope it’s somewhere warm, but not too muggy…

The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq.

KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space…

Huh. “New programs that require additional detention space.” Gee, I wonder what those new programs might be?

On Tuesday, the Seattle Times editorial board came out demanding that the Supreme Court force Sound Transit to pay off its bonds and stop collecting car tab fees.

Justice Bobbe Bridge of the Washington Supreme Court raised a question in oral argument last Tuesday about what power the court has to protect the rights of voters. The answer should be clear enough. It has the same power it has to protect the rights of investors.

The question involves Initiative 776, which the voters of Washington approved in 2002. This was one of Tim Eyman’s efforts to get the cost of license tabs down to $30. This page did not support I-776, but the voters did, and the question now is to what extent Sound Transit is permitted to ignore that vote. To a certain extent, we believe Sound Transit is exempt from a strict interpretation of I-776, but not totally, and not forever.

Uh-huh.

But before getting so uppity about the “rights of voters” and all that, I wonder if the Times should have asked itself a couple of questions? Like… the rights of which voters? And… what exactly are these rights?

On its surface, I-776 was a statewide initiative to repeal car tab fees that were only be levied in a handful of Western WA counties. But Timmy was always very clear about its primary purpose: to kill Sound Transit’s light rail. And while it narrowly passed in the parts of the state where it had no impact, the initiative was actually defeated by a healthy 12-point margin within the Sound Transit taxing districts.

So when the Times accuses Sound Transit of ignoring voters, exactly which voters are they talking about? The voters outside of Sound Transit’s district, who voted to deny local residents the right to tax themselves to build a local transit project? Or the voters within Sound Transit’s district… the voters the board actually represents… those local voters who first voted to approve the bonds to build light rail, and then overwhelmingly voted against an initiative to stop it?

The majority of voters paying these car tab fees have twice voted to support them, so if the Times intends to make some kind of high-minded defense of the “rights of voters,” a good argument can be made that they’ve come down on the wrong side of the debate.

Of course, the law is the law, but even there the Times’ logic is muddled. Yes… the “rights of voters” must be honored and protected, but these rights under the initiative process are limited.

It is well established that the power of initiative is limited to measures that are “legislative” in nature, rather than “administrative.” Ruano v. Spellman defines the distinction as such: a legislative measure “is one to make new law or declare new policy,” whereas an administrative measure is one “merely to carry out and execute law or policy already in existence.”

Ruano v. Spellman dates back to 1973, and concerns a King County initiative that sought to prevent construction of the Kingdome, after voters had approved the stadium, and $10 million in bonds had been issued. The courts ruled that the initiative addressed administrative issues. It was removed from the ballot.

“It must be concluded that only administrative decisions remained. By its vote the electorate had declared its legislative policy… to finance it by bonds, and to repay those bonds from specified sources. The county and its agents in making those expenditures simply were executing an already adopted legislative determination.”

Sound familiar? Sound Transit’s light rail was also approved by voters. Hundreds of millions in bonds had been issued, and it doesn’t take a lawyer to see the parallels. It may be that voters simply don’t have the right via initiative to tell Sound Transit to pay off these bonds. And neither does the court.

So while I appreciate the Times noble efforts to protect my rights, I think their advocacy is misplaced. The Times has an established history of attempting to influence the courts, but personally, I’ve always felt that judicial decisions should be based purely on statute and the constitution, free from the pressure generated by special interest groups like, you know… editorial boards.

And I’m guessing that on this point, the courts are in total agreement.

You may have noticed I’ve been throwing in an open thread a bit more frequently. I’ve been busy. Deal.

I really hate talking down to my readers, particularly my fellow Democrats, but to all the crybabies out there whining about Sen. Maria Cantwell, I have two words: grow up!

Yes, she has cast some very disappointing votes, and no, on some issues she’s not nearly as liberal as many of us would like. And for the life of me, I simply cannot figure out the political calculus behind her voting for cloture in the Alito filibuster.

But… taking her entire term as whole, she has been a good senator… a hard working senator… an effective senator… and a surprisingly more progressive senator than many people give her credit for. According to Progressive Punch, Cantwell has a progressive voting rating of 88.73 percent, ranking her in the Senate’s top 20, only a couple notches to the right of Sen. Patty Murray.

But most importantly, she is an incumbent, Democratic senator, and she absolutely will be the party’s nominee in November.

Yet I keep hearing from whiners complaining that they can’t support Cantwell because of this vote or of that… suggesting that real Democrats should support real Democrats… like, you know… former Green/Libertarian candidate Mark Wilson.

Get real.

First of all, even if Wilson had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination — and he doesn’t — there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he possesses the qualifications to serve as a US senator. But even more importantly, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that he’d be even remotely as progressive as Cantwell!

For example, on the issue of health care, Cantwell scores a 100 percent progressive voting record… better than both Murray and Rep. Jim Dermott. And what does Wilson have to say on the subject? In responding to a Seattle Times candidate survey during his 2002 run for Congress (as a Libertarian against Jay Inslee), Wilson wrote:

2. What, if anything, should Congress do to expand health-care coverage?

Every attack on private health insurance markets should be resisted. A genuine free market in health care will encourage competition and help reduce costs. Comprehensive Tort Reform would take the bite out of insurance premiums and promote personal responsibility. Insane lawsuits awarding multimillions, punch taxpayers right in the fries.

Hmm. And where did the allegedly liberal Wilson pull that piece of rhetoric? Directly from the libertarian standard bearer Cato Institute, whose Cato Handbook for Congress states the following conclusion in their chapter on health care:

Every calculated attack on private health insurance markets should be resisted […] Health care costs will remain too high and the value of health care insurance too inadequate until we restore a genuine free market in health care…

The solution to our health care crisis is unfettered private health insurance markets and tort reform? That’s not the platform of a progressive candidate… that’s the platform of insurance industry lobbyist/CEO/GOP candidate Mike McGavick. It makes you wonder… who exactly is Mark Wilson trying to get elected?

So to my friends who are somehow enamored of Mark Wilson precisely because he is not Maria Cantwell, a little vocabulary lesson: the most that “liberal” and “libertarian” have in common is their first five letters.

Wilson is not a viable candidate, he is not more progressive than Cantwell… he’s not even a Democrat. There is only one Democrat running in this senate race, and that’s Cantwell… and if you don’t like it, then suck it up and put your energies into some other race. Dave Neiwert says he won’t be giving Cantwell any money. That’s fine. I have limited financial resources myself, so I might not give her any money either.

But every ounce of effort Democrats spend talking down Cantwell, deflating her support in the progressive base of the party, is an in-kind contribution to the McGavick campaign. See, us grown-ups have things we like to call “choices,” and the only choice next November will be between Cantwell and McGavick.

Personally, I will enthusiastically cast my vote for Cantwell.

What is the Washington State Lottery trying to hide?

The other day I wrote a piece attacking the Lottery for cynically targeting our state’s youth: “Lottery’s new market: hooking teens.” The basis for my criticism was an official document I downloaded from the Office of Financial Management’s web site entitled, “Washington Lottery Business Plan, 2005-2007 Biennium,” which described teens as “the players of the future” and designated 18-20 year-olds as part of “a key market the lottery intends to pursue.”

So how did the Lottery respond to the revelation that the primary focus of their marketing plan is promoting teen gambling? Did they issue an apology or an explanation, or a promise to at least study and reconsider their objectives?

No… apparently, all they did was remove the offending document from the OFM web site.

This morning I received an email from a journalist informing me that the link I provided no longer worked, and sure enough, the document is gone. I’ve since uploaded a copy to my own server and updated the link — you can download a copy here — but a fingerprint of the missing document can still be found on Google.

Search on a quote from the document — such as “this age group represents the players of the future” — and you find a broken link to the document, plus a cached HTML translation, courtesy of Google.

No doubt the Lottery was embarrassed to have this document publicly scrutinized, knowing what they know about the risks of teen gambling addiction. As I wrote the other day:

The Lottery’s own 1998 study revealed that as much as 18 percent of the state’s problem gamblers are under the age of 18, and that instant lottery tickets often serve as a gateway activity to more serious gambling. The study also corroborates other studies that show that at risk and addicted teen gamblers have a significantly higher rate of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other addictions.

The Business Plan had resided in a directory labeled “strategic,” and apparently it was just too strategic to share with members of the Legislature who are considering raising the gambling age to 21. Companion bills recently passed out of committee in both houses, but were weakened to exempt the Lottery.

Yet I wonder… if the full membership truly understood the Lottery’s marketing strategy — which now includes hiding such strategy from legislators — if they might not vote to raise the age on lottery tickets as well?

I suppose that might explain this mysterious, disappearing document.

I’m working on a lot of different things this morning, including some stuff I actually get paid for, so you’ll just have to be patient and talk amongst yourselves. And if you really can’t think of anything to talk about, how about this.