HorsesAss.Org

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.

Two of my favorite bloggers, Carla of Preemptive Karma and TJ of Also Also, have joined forces on a new Oregon-focused political blog: Loaded Orygun.

Despite being out-of-staters, Carla and TJ became lynchpins of the progressive blogosphere’s response to Dino Rossi’s ill-fated, ill-intentioned election contest, joining me in refuting the many lies, errors, and deceitful “analyses” coming from the conspiracy theorists over at (un)Sound Politics. Carla made an impact early, dismantling the GOP/BIAW claim that overseas military personnel were disenfranchised. (In fact, they voted at higher rates in King County than regular absentee voters.) And both played a crucial role in picking apart our friend Stefan’s faulty thesis on reconciliation discrepancies.

While HA may have garnered much of the attention, Carla and TJ did much of the hard work.

But more than just being smart, passionate, hardworking, advocacy journalists (yes, that’s right… what they do really deserves to be called journalism,) they are also kindred spirits. Um… to me. In fact Carla and I got along so well at the recent NW progressive blogger conference, that they had to separate us to keep us from disrupting the rest of the class.

I’m usually pretty damn slow adding new blogs to my blogroll, but Loaded Orygun deserves instant recognition. If you want smart, entertaining, informative coverage of Oregon politics, that’s a good place to start.

UPDATE:
As noted on Loaded Orygun, the Portland Chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight, 7pm, at The Lucky Lab brew pub, SE Hawthorne in Portland.

On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 6417, “Prohibiting sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal.”

Yeah, I know… it’s not really all that much of a news story, but hell, why should the Seattle Times get all the traffic from people lasciviously Googling “bestiality,” “perforated colon,” and “sex with horses”…?

Anyway… nobody ever accused the GOP of being soft on mule-shtupping (so to speak,) and so it comes as no surprise that this bill was introduced by longtime animal welfare champion, Sen. Pam Roach, who told the AP:

“If these animals don’t have the cognitive ability to consent, and that’s the case, then we have to be protecting them,” Roach said.

“That’s one of the reasons we protect children; and while this is lower, it will still protect innocence from sex predators.”

Yeah. Sure. Though one could argue that if they don’t have the cognitive ability to consent (and it should be noted that it was the man, not the stallion who ended up with a perforated colon,) then animals really don’t have the cognitive ability to have a sense of innocence either. I do find it somewhat curious that it would violate the innocence of an animal to have sex with it, but apparently not to murder and eat it.

Whatever. Like most people, I’m all for protecting animals from cruelty, be it hunting bears and cougars with bait and dogs, or forced anal intercourse with perverted morons. I suppose that’s why Roach’s bill received such broad bipartisan support.

The quest for animal protection has made for curious partnerships — it’s bringing together Roach, a rural conservative, and animal rights groups around the state.

The Washington Farm Bureau, Washington State Grange and state veterinarians also have backed the bill. Nobody testified against it Tuesday.

Though man… I would have loved to hear the con testimony.

The bill is likely to sail through both houses with no opposition. But if it doesn’t, we can only imagine what kind of postcards the GOP might mail out this time.

My fellow panelists and I sat down to record our inaugural podcast from Drinking Liberally with the understanding that I wouldn’t release it if it sucked. Truth is, I’ve never been adverse to risking public failure, so it would’ve had to really, really suck for me to dump it in the trash.

Sure, it’s a little choppy and disorganized, but there’s some fun and interesting conversation, so just in time for your morning commute, here’s the first installment of Podcasting Liberally… or whatever the hell we decide to call it.

Our main panel includes Carl from Washington State Political Report, Will from Pike Place Politics, Darryl from Hominid Views, and, um… me. Tune in as we discuss a wide array of topical issues, ranging from Tim Eyman’s sexual orientation, to the State of the Union address, to GOP dirty tricks, to Tim Eyman’s sexual orientation.

Special thanks to Gavin Shearer and Richard Huff for producing, editing and serving the podcast, plus bringing all their fancy equipment. To say we couldn’t have done it without them would be, um, entirely accurate. In fact, they don’t really need us, considering they have their own long running podcast, the Confab Show, but shhhhh, don’t tell them.

I’m sure we’ll get a helluva a lot better over time, and a year from now I’ll probably look back on this first podcast with embarrassment… but then, I’m no stranger to embarrassment. I look forward to hearing your comments and critiques, and invite everyone to stop by next Tuesday and participate.

See, the thing about all that controversy over sex offender legislation, is that the legislation itself wasn’t really all that controversial. That’s why the entire package passed the House today by a unanimous bipartisan vote. (Even the part about the new stricter sentences not applying to family members.)

Interestingly, the package included a late addition, HB 3238, “Prohibiting the distribution of false sex offender notifications,” and as Carl at the Washington State Political Report ironically points out, one of its unanimous votes came from House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt… the man responsible for authorizing the GOP’s false sex offender notifications. Carl deduces:

That means that DeBolt thinks what he did was so bad that it should be a class C felony.

Yup, DeBolt won’t actually apologize for the House GOP’s vicious little fear-mongering stunt, but he will vote for legislation making it illegal.

Huh.

The only drama in last night’s State of the Union address, was what happened minutes before it started: anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan — the mother of US soldier slain in Iraq — was summarily arrested, manhandled and jailed for the crime against the state of… wearing a t-shirt emblazoned “2245 Dead. How many more?”

In a diary on Daily Kos, Sheehan gives a first hand account of her arrest, and the circumstances that led up to it. She had no plans to go to the SOTU last night, but reluctantly attended after being given a ticket by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey at a press conference earlier in the day.

I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn’t feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn’s office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; “Protester.” He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like “I’m going, do you have to be so rough?”

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. […] I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things…I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for “unlawful conduct.”

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, “2245, huh? I just got back from there.”

I told him that my son died there. That’s when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm’s way for still? For this? I can’t even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

When I titled this post “Exit Strategy” I wasn’t referring to the war in Iraq to which Sheehan’s son Casey gave his life, and to which Sheehan herself must now apparently give up her freedom in order to peacefully protest. I was referring to the war on dissent that is now being fought in this country on multiple fronts, both by the jackbooted ground troops of President Bush’s lying, spying proto-police state, and by his party’s right-wing, extremist base, whose escalating eliminationist rhetoric promises to physically intimidate the political opposition into submission.

The “Exit Strategy” I am referring to is the strategy that all those who openly criticize this government must now consider should our nation continue its slide towards fascism. One should at least start to imagine the possibility that there could someday be very real consequences, legal or otherwise, for those or us who continue to speak out; it would not be the first time in our nation’s history that dissidents faced a choice between martyrdom or expatriation, or worse… shutting up.

Right now, despite our vaunted Bill of Rights, we can be spied on without warrant, arrested without cause, and imprisoned indefinitely without trial. We have a president who claims extra-constitutional wartime powers in the name of a “war on terror” that has no conceivable end, and a Congress that has all but ceded its role as a co-equal branch of government. And we have a political climate in which prominent media figures can publicly call for the assassination of Supreme Court Justices, without fear of legal consequences or public rebuke… as long as they target the right justices… or more specifically, those perceived to be on the left.

This is the current state of affairs, but what should happen should our economy implode under its own arrogance, or the rule of law collapse in an avalanche of fear after another major terrorist attack? Will our government protect dissenters from the pent up anger of political vigilantes? Will our voices be silenced, or punished as seditious under some wartime power inferred by a unitary executive? Will we be blacklisted? Imprisoned? Interred?

Dismiss this as a paranoid fantasy, but it’s happened before, and there’s certainly nothing more noble or high-minded about this president than there was about Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt. When even in these relatively peaceful times, the mother of a fallen soldier can be arrested and manhandled in the capitol building itself, for doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt — with little or no outrage expressed by the MSM — what chance would dissidents have during a true national crisis?

Just makes me wonder if it’s time to start considering an exit strategy.

Congratulations to The Olympian for publishing the kind of blunt, unwaveringly critical editorial I’ve been looking for since the state house GOP caucus first mailed out it’s fake “Sex Offender Notification” postcards:

Rep. Richard DeBolt owes his legislative colleagues and his South Sound constituents an apology. His feeble attempt at rough-and-tumble politics has backfired, making him look foolish and disingenuous.

[…] His actions are bad for public discourse, and his reliance on falsehoods does not speak well of DeBolt’s character.

He knows better, and he should apologize for his missteps.

At issue are postcards labeled “sex offender notification” that were mailed into a handful of legislative districts represented by Democrats.

The postcards include a photo of a man convicted of sexually assaulting children, a physical description and a headline that reads, “This violent predator lives in your community.”

It’s a lie.

The Olympian goes on to excoriate DeBolt, explaining the truth behind the procedural move the GOP exploited to cynically claim that Democrats are soft on sex offenders, and ridiculing DeBolt’s continued denials that as House Minority Leader, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his caucus’s own PAC.

As for worrying people that a particular sex offender had moved into their neighborhoods, he said the man in the postcard is a “generic figure,” and people should be scared of sex offenders.

DeBolt is right in one regard. He says the Republicans’ campaign has raised public awareness.

Yes, the public is now aware how low Rep. Richard DeBolt and his political action committee will stoop to stretch the truth and sling a little mud at the opposing party.

He owes his legislative colleagues and his constituents an apology.

Yes. And after this session is over, he should resign.

The only thing I find disappointing about The Olympian’s editorial is that we’re only reading it in the pages of The Olympian. Columnists Thomas Shapley and Nicole Brodeur have weighed in on the issue, but where is the official, righteous outrage from the editorial boards of the P-I and the Times, the two most influential papers in the state? If bloggers like me hadn’t slammed this issue for days, would the traditional media even have picked it up?

The truth is, in Washington state, our journalists and editorial boards simply don’t hold Republicans to the same high standards they hold Democrats. They expect Dems to be more cautious and civil, and when the Dems disappoint, we hear about it. In fact, it never would have occurred to House Majority Leader Frank Chopp, that scaring the bejeebus out of thousands of families by mailing out a fake sex offender notice could in any way be defensible. But Republicans… well, you know… kids will be kids. I’m not saying that Dems never get themselves dirty… but never this dirty.

That DeBolt could not see that the postcard represented a new low for his party, reflects poorly on both his character and his judgement. That our state’s opinion makers did not instantly condemn the postcard for what it is, reflects poorly on our media’s ability to referee our ever disintegrating political discourse.

The MSM can lament all it wants about the coarseness injected into the debate by partisan, foul-mouthed bloggers like me, but until “traditional journalists” start worrying more about speaking the truth, and less about attaining their mythical goal of balance, the blogosphere’s influence will continue to rise… and our political parties will continue sink to new lows.

You want to comment on the State of the Union speech? Do it here.

Last week I listened intently to the TVW stream of the testimony for and against HB 2872, which would raise the state gambling age from 18 to 21, and was surprised to find some of the most vociferous arguments against the bill coming from state lottery officials.

Well, now I understand why. Apparently, the dispassioned bureaucrats at the Washington Lottery have decided that hooking teen gamblers is the hot new market they’ve just gotta get into. The tediously titled “Washington Lottery Business Plan, 2005-2007 Biennium” clearly charts the Lottery’s approach towards “younger players.”

This age group represents the players of the future. It is important that future Lottery games be able to respond to and satisfy the demands of these and upcoming generations of players.

And how does the Lottery intend to create a new generation of players?

The young adult market (18-24 year-olds) is a key market the Lottery intends to pursue

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print