HorsesAss.Org

People keep asking me why Tim Eyman, known for his stupidly conceived, and even more stupidly-er written anti-tax initiatives, would file an initiative aimed at overturning the recently passed gay rights bill.

Hmm. Well, this could be a reason. And this. And I suppose, this, this, and this. You see, Timmy is an initiative whore, and any opportunity to get himself in the papers or in front of the cameras fellating our initiative process seems well worth his while.

Or on the radio, for that matter. Timmy’s scheduled to appear on the John Carlson Show today in the 4 pm hour (KVI-570), to explain to listeners exactly why we should all celebrate our God-given right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But as it turns out, I’m a bit of whore myself, so I’m slotted to be on the show sometime after 4:15 to share a few words with Tim.

Tune in if you can bear it.

UPDATE: (4:41 pm)
Tim accused me of trying to monopolize the debate. Now that’s rich.

UPDATE, UPDATE: (4:47 pm)
Um… judging from the fact that two of the first three callers wanted to talk about something else, it looks like Tim may have a little trouble generating buzz behind this initiative.

I’ve been known to occasionally voice subtle criticisms of the Seattle Times editorial board, but when they’re right, they’re right:

RAISE the state gambling age from 18 to 21 for casinos, cardrooms, the state lottery and scratch tickets, horse racing and bingo games with cash prizes.

That is our starting point for the conversation the Legislature is likely to have between now and the 2007 session. Current efforts to raise the gambling age appear headed toward a task force to sort out the details. Companion legislation in both the House and Senate is getting bogged down in the artful muddle of questions about whether the church carnival ring toss constitutes gambling.

Yes, raise the gambling age; that should be both our starting point and our ending point in the 2006 session. The science overwhelmingly supports it, as does a bipartisan majority in both houses of the state Legislature. This is such a commonsense policy, that when queried, most voters believe the legal gambling age already is 21.

Even the two biggest players in the state’s multi-billion dollar gambling industry — the tribal casinos and the commercial card rooms — apparently recognize the terrible impact of gambling addiction on our youth. The vast majority of tribal and commercial casinos already refuse to admit patrons under the age of 21, and as long as the law is applied uniformly, they will not oppose SB-5523/HB-2872.

This bill is a no-brainer that achieves real results now, and is totally in line with the anti-gambling sentiments of voters who overwhelmingly rejected Tim Eyman’s stupid slot machine initiative in 2004. It will, in some form, sail through the Senate this session, and the only thing apparently standing in the way of a lopsided victory in the House, is Commerce & Labor Committee chair, Steve Conway (D-Tacoma).

At a hearing last week, Rep. Conway expressed concerns that the bill might have unintended consequences by outlawing carnival games. He suggested that the proposal should be sent to a “task force” for further study.

Hmm. This subject has been studied ad nauseam for years, and I sincerely doubt a new task force will come to a different conclusion. Every major scientific study has recommended raising the gambling age to 21, and most other states having already complied. With the explosion in access to gambling we have experienced over the past 15 years, and the media’s new youth-focused poker craze in full swing, it is long past time for Washington state to follow suit. If there is a problem with the language of the bill, fix it and pass it.

As to horse racing and charitable bingo, whose lobbyists would like an exemption, and the state lottery, whose representatives raised the issue of the cost of lost revenues, I think the Times succinctly picks apart their selfish arguments:

Are the casinos, cardrooms, lottery games, horse tracks and bingo halls prepared to argue they will go under if the traffic fades from 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds?

No, of course not.

As much as 50 percent of all gambling profits come at the expense of problem gamblers, and teens have three times the addiction rate of adults. It would be irresponsible to argue that the state lottery, for example, should be funding education on the backs of addicted teens.

The science is clear: the earlier the age of exposure, the higher the incidence of addiction. It’s time to stop playing games with teen gambling, and raise our gambling age to 21.

Sen. John Kerry has a passionate piece on The Huffington Post, arguing the case for filibustering the Alito nomination.

So let’s get this straight. The time to fight is now – before we make the irreversible decision of confirming a new Supreme Court Justice. When you’re talking about the Supreme Court, you don’t live to fight another day. It’s a zero sum game. Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there’s no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don’t get to ‘take a mulligan’ when choosing a Supreme Court Justice. The direction our country takes for the next thirty years is being set now. Will it matter if we speak up after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants? Will it matter if we speak up only after a woman’s right to privacy has been taken away? Will history record what we say after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor? No. History will record what we say and what we do now.

[ … ]

I know better than anyone that elections have consequences and that the President has every right to nominate whomever he chooses to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But I also know that Senators have the right – in fact, they have a constitutional responsibility, to question whether that nominee is the right choice. That is why the Framers required the Senate to provide advice and consent. We are not meant to be a rubber stamp. We need not rush to judgment simply to satisfy the political deadline of a State of the Union address.

I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong choice for America. In fact, I am convinced that he is a dangerous choice for America. This is a rare moment in Washington. We are facing the vote of a lifetime – a vote that will shape the law for generations to come. Despite the predictions of the pundits, the story is not over until the last vote is cast. We cannot win unless we try. The time to take a stand is now, to fight for the rights and freedoms of all Americans is when they’re endangered not after they’ve been diminished. It is time to take a stand against Judge Alito, and take a stand for the kind of America we’ve been for over two hundred years.

I know there are a lot of strategic reasons why the Democrats are ill-prepared for a filibuster at the moment, but I agree with Steve Gilliard, it’s better to go down fighting.

9am Monday morning shut down the Senate switchboard.
You can use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

And after you call the Senate, be sure to call Senators Cantwell and Murray directly:

Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, 202-224-3441 (phone), 202-228-0514 (fax)
Everett, 425-303-0114 (phone), 425-303-8351 (fax)
Spokane, 509-353-2507 (phone), 509-353-2547 (fax)
Vancouver, 360-696-7838 (phone), 360-696-7844 (fax)
Tacoma, 253-572-2281 (phone), 253-572-5859 (fax)
Seattle, 206-220-6400 (phone), 206-220-6404 (fax)
Richland, 509-946-8106 (phone), 509-946-6937 (fax)

Senator Patty Murray
Washington, 202-224-2621 (phone), 202-224-0238 (fax)
Everett, 425-259-6515 (phone), 425-259-7152 (fax)
Seattle, 206-553-5545 (phone), 206-553-0891 (fax)
Spokane, 509-624-9515 (phone), 509-624-9561 (fax)
Vancouver, 360-696-7797 (phone), 360-696-7798 (fax)
Yakima, 509-453-7462 (phone), 509-453-7731 (fax)

I’m busy, dammit. Talk amongst yourselves.

Well, the state GOP elected Diane Tebelius as their new state chair, but nobody got a majority in the Democrats’ first round of balloting. The results:

Dwight Pelz: 82
Laura Ruderman: 69
Jean Brooks: 13

There was apparently a touch of drama over a disputed proxy ballot for Ruderman. Had it been disqualified, Pelz would have been declared the winner on the first ballot, but the executive board ruled overwhelming ruled to count it. So now we eliminate Brooks from the mix and move on to round two.

FYI, all my information comes from Andrew Villeneuve of NW Progressive Institute, reporting live from the meeting while I sit comfortably at home drinking tea. I’m sure he’ll have a full wrap-up after the meeting, um, wraps up.

UPDATE: (5:52 pm)
Andrew just called… Dwight Pelz is the new Democratic state chair. Final tally: Pelz 95, Ruderman 70.

Now that we have a new chair, let’s go out there and kick some ass.

Hyped up by the historic passage of HB 2661, which after 30 years finally adds sexual orientation to our state’s anti-discrimination laws, I decided to stop by the jam-packed party at the Paramount last night, one of several organized around the state to celebrate the hard fought victory. A couple of quick observations…

First of all, I discovered that a party organized by the gay and lesbian community is not a good place to pick up women… unless of course, you are one. Chalk one up to experience.

Second, the absolute joy expressed last night momentarily lifted me out of the cynical haze of political stratagem through which I often view the legislative process, reminding me of how the work of our elected officials routinely touches the lives of ordinary people. And it reminded me that the impact of such legislation reaches far beyond the actual technical language inscribed in the RCW.

In the days leading up to the historic senate vote, as passage became a foregone conclusion, some of the bill’s talking-point-opponents (you know… those who viewed the battle mostly in partisan political terms, rather than having a vested, principled or emotional interest) started to advance a new frame, which I suppose was intended to take the edge off the Democrat’s victory. Actual discrimination against gays and lesbians is exceedingly rare, we were told, and thus the bill is largely symbolic and unnecessary.

It was on this curious meme that our friend Stefan chose to base his rather measured post-vote post mortem:

Paradoxically, the bill passed precisely because of a shift in attitudes that also renders the bill largely unnecessary. Surely 30 years ago when the bill was first proposed there were many more cases of discrimination. Now (and fortunately, in my opinion), it’s scarcely less socially unacceptable to discriminate against gays than it is to discriminate against blacks and Jews. The bill passed by a slender margin not so much because there’s a still a serious ongoing problem with anti-gay discrimination that the bill is needed to fix, but because it’s perceived by many to be a largely symbolic gesture and the prevailing attitudes in the legislature, as in most cases, are a trailing indicator of public opinion.

Even if I were to concede the point that gays and lesbians are no longer the victims of discrimination, and that HB 2661’s passage was ultimately, largely a symbolic gesture — and I don’t — I would still have to take issue with Stefan’s conclusion that it was thus unnecessary. For many of those reveling at the Paramount last night, the actual day-to-day impact of the bill probably will be largely symbolic, but I can’t see how anybody who listened to yesterday’s floor debate and witnessed last night’s celebration could bring themselves to diminish the import of this symbolism.

It is symbolism that drives many in the gay and lesbian community to reject the “separate but equal” notion of civil union, and demand the right to marry their partner and legally call it a marriage. It is not enough to merely be tolerated; gays and lesbians want to be embraced by the larger society as full citizens, with all the same rights, privileges, and protections. This is not about gay rights… it’s about equal rights.

A while back somebody asked me why I was putting so much passion and energy into this issue, and the blog-room brawler in me responded, “because this is a fight we can win.” But the joy I was privileged to share last night reminded me that I’m not quite as cynical as I sometimes like to present myself.

UPDATE:
Josh Feit just posted his own report of last night’s revelry over on Slog, and it provides some of the color missing from my own, brief, first person observations.

What’s that smell? It’s an open thread!

Of course… I’m only joking. From the AP, via Fox News (via Orbusmax) for chrisakes:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. […] “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said.

Coulter then added, “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

Uh-huh.

I imagine if I were to post a similar joke about, say… President Bush, I’d have the Secret Service kicking down my door. But whenever Coulter quips about killing liberals, we’re supposed to think she’s just being cute.

HB 2661 passes, final vote: 25-23.

After thirty years, sexual orientation has finally been added to Washington state’s anti-discrimination laws. Kind of hard to believe it took so long.

A lot of people have worked extremely hard on this issue for many years, but perhaps nobody has played a larger role in its passage than the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, whose ham-fisted grandstanding in the wake of the bill’s close defeat last year was crucial in creating the blowback that ultimately led to Sen. Bill Finkbeiner voting his conscience.

Thank you Rev. Hutcherson. My fondest wish is that you and Kevin Carns team up to direct the conservative legislative agenda in WA state.

UPDATE:
Progressive Majority of Washington wants senators like Tim Sheldon, who voted no on HB 2661, to know that there is a price to pay for Democrats who betray core Democratic values. (You know… like equality.)

Progressive Majority doesn’t just elect new leaders, we hold the ones already in office accountable. But Senator Sheldon doesn’t get it

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

The Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat calls insurance industry lobbyist cum CEO cum senate candidate Mike McGavick on a subtly divisive bit of campaign sloganeering:

The other day, McGavick was speechifying in Spokane when he tossed out this odd quip: “I like to say I was born in Seattle when you weren’t embarrassed to say you were from Seattle.”

To concisely paraphrase Westneat… “Huh?”

I was born and raised in Philadelphia, a city that — thanks to its second-best proximity to the nation’s economic and political capitals (not to mention the legendary W.C. Fields) — has become a national icon of civic self-deprecation. Thus, as a relative outsider I have always found the typical Seattleite’s profound sense of civic pride to border on boosterism. I’ve often quipped that the secret to Philadelphia being one of the nation’s most affordable and livable big cities, is that unlike Seattleites, Philly-natives aren’t constantly trying to convince out-of-towners to move there and ruin it. Philadelphia is indeed a great city, but shhhhhh… that’s our little secret.

Of course, Seattle is a great city too, and Westneat’s take rings true to a 15-year transplant like me.

No, Seattle is so lacking in things to be embarrassed about that, ironically, it’s created the most embarrassing thing about us

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

It seems to me that almost from the moment Paul Berendt announced his retirement, the race to replace him as state Democratic chair has pretty much split the party in two, between those who support Dwight Pelz and… um… those who don’t support Dwight Pelz.

And so it comes as no surprise that as the party heads into this Saturday’s vote, it’s pretty much shaping up to be a two-person contest. First Greg Rodriguez, and then Phil Talmadge dropped out of the race. And tonight Snohomish County chair Mark Hintz tells me that he has withdrawn his name, and asked his supporters to “vote their conscience.” Good thing we’re not Republicans, as such an instruction might result in a lot of blank ballots.

I know that technically there’s still a couple of other candidates, but with Hintz’s withdrawal, realistically, this has now come down to a race between front-runner Pelz and Laura Ruderman. I keep hearing that Ruderman is coming on strong, particularly in Eastern Washington… but probably not strong enough. And Pelz just got a huge boost this evening when he captured the endorsement of the sixty-thousand strong SEIU Washington State Council.

I know a lot of people have gotten awfully worked up over the race for party chair, but me, not so much. Perhaps I’m naive or ignorant, but while their strengths may lie in different areas, both Pelz and Ruderman seem qualified. So at the risk of incurring Ivan’s wrath again, I just want to repeat that all I ask from the new chair is an open mind and an open door.

It makes me want to throw up.

That was the blunt, emotional response of Rep. Larry Haler (R-Richland) when asked about the fake “Sex Offender Notification” postcards the state GOP mailed out to 25,000 families across the state… and he’s not the only Republican lawmaker expressing disgust with their party’s leadership. But even while several Republican legislators have quietly apologized to their colleagues across the aisle, House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt (R-Chehalis) not only remains unapologetic, he refuses to even accept responsibility for the actions of his caucus’s own PAC.

DeBolt

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Of course, we all know that they’re constantly drinking liberally at the The Stranger. (I once quipped that I could never work there, because I don’t drink hard liquor.) But there’s also a very nice piece by Cienna Madrid in this week’s paper, revealing to a larger world the sublime pleasures of our weekly gathering of the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

My only question for Cienna is: how much did Darryl suck up to you to be the only blogger to finagle a link? (Damn! He just got another one. Clever bastard.)

When I first stumbled into politics with my “Tim Eyman is a horse’s ass” initiative, one of my slogans which really seemed to resonate with supporters was my promise to “put the party back into politics.” I can’t tell you have many contributions and petitions came in with a request for an invitation to the election night party.

The truth is, politics can be godawful boring, and progressive politics doubly so… we’re all just so fucking earnest.

And as important as it is, the tedium of the actual process of party politics can bring on horrifying flashbacks of grinding your way through the worst high school teacher you ever had. It’s heard enough to get the average joe to show up at his legislative district meeting… but it’s nearly impossible to get him to come back.

I’ve always been a big believer in making progressive politics more fun and more social, and to be honest, what first attracted me to Drinking Liberally was simply… the name. The first DL I attended was pretty much me, The Him, Nick, and a couple of Nick’s friends. And the crowd didn’t consistently get much bigger than that for the first couple months.

But with word of mouth and some steady promotion on the blogs, DL has grown into a large crowd of regulars (and a few irregulars) that this week took over half the Montlake Ale House. And for those who can’t attend, next week will mark the release of my first weekly podcast from DL… that is, assuming it doesn’t suck.

No doubt Cienna’s piece will help boost attendance, but DL has already reached the kind of critical mass that ensures its continued growth through word of mouth alone. Chapters are already established in Bellingham and Spokane (which I hear kicks ass), and new chapters recently opened in Olympia and Walla Walla. New chapters are scheduled to open next month in Tacoma and Burien… proudly making Washington one of the most liberally drinking states in the union, third only to New York and Pennsylvania.

Cienna warns that “without some new blood, DL could be dismissed as a good-old-boys club stuffed with bloggers and politicos,” and certainly we need to balance out the gender ratio if DL is to achieve its full potential. But this is one “good-old-boys club” that’s open to all comers, and it is that informal, social aspect that makes DL different from all other political organizations.

We meet every Tuesday, 8:00 pm, at the Montlake Alehouse, 2307 24th Avenue E. Hope to see you there soon.

UPDATE:
Ooops. Jim at McCranium reminds me that I forgot the recently founded Tri-Cities chapter of DL that meets Wednesday nights, 5:30 pm, at the Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland.

Portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge’s record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president’s intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the “war on terror” and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
…
A filibuster is a radical tool. It’s easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Read the whole thing.

Kevin Carns, the man claiming credit for the Republican’s disgusting fake metaphorical Sex Offender Notification postcards, remains unapologetic, calling the Democrats’ complaints “sniveling” and “asinine.”

“What they are doing is a political smoke screen.”

Uh-huh.

For those who aren’t familiar with the state GOP operatives rogues gallery, Carns holds the dual titles of Political Director for the House Republican Organizing Committee and Executive Director of its associated PAC, The Speaker’s Roundtable, which paid for the mailing.

Carns is also one of HorsesAss.org’s longtime professional trolls.

This information came to me today quite by accident, but when I looked into it further I discovered that Carns has been a prolific fixture on HA comment threads for well over a year, posting hundreds of comments under several different pseudonyms, at all hours of the day and night… but mostly during normal business working hours. That he trolls the threads from his HROC/Speakers Roundtable office at BIAW headquarters seems indisputable. That he considers trolling to be part of his official duties, seems clear.

Carns’ comments range from pedantic regurgitation of GOP talking points, to deceitful, vitriolic, and extremist rhetoric, to down-in-the-gutter name-calling. He has attacked me personally. He has launched veiled threats against other thread participants.

His primary reason for remaining anonymous seems obvious: attaching his name to his commentary would embarrass his employers and potentially undermine his party’s agenda. It would also impair his ability to masquerade as just another irate voter in this and other public forums.

One would think that if Carns was as proud of the bile he spews here, as he claims to be of his schemes to politically exploit abused children, he might hang his name on his comments. But he isn’t. No, what Carns is, is a gutless coward… a sneaky, chicken-livered, spineless pussy… a dick-less wonder, who despite all his tough talk, macho bravado, and BIAW funding, just got his tiny little political balls snipped off by some balding, middle-aged, amateur with a DSL connection and a four-year-old iBook.

Does the hateful, lying rhetoric emanating from my right-wing trolls represent the values and views of the majority of rank and file Republicans? Of course not. But apparently, it does represent the values and views of the Republican leadership and the staff they hire. So the next time you read the bullshit spewed in my comment threads, be sure to remember the self-descriptive words of one of the walking talking-points who spew them:

“What they are doing is a political smoke screen.”

UPDATE:
Kevin… it has privately been suggested to me that perhaps it was inappropriate of me to question your manhood in such strong and provocative words… especially considering the fact that you own firearms. So… I would like to make it absolutely clear that when I call you a pussy… or, for example, describe you as a limp-dick, epicene, girly-man with testicles the size of David Irons’ political prospects… I am, of course, speaking metaphorically.