HorsesAss.Org

Yesterday morning, our good friend Stefan was apparently honored by the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle for his work as a volunteer tutor in the Urban League After-School Program. I applaud Stefan for his volunteerism; I myself do the good parent thing as a volunteer in my daughter’s school… and I can’t tell you how desperate the need is for more parents and community members to get involved. So, thanks Stefan.

But…

I’m having a little cognitive dissonance problem here. I don’t mean to diminish Stefan’s admirable volunteer work, but surely an organization like the Urban League — dedicated to empowering African Americans — could have found some equally admirable volunteer to honor… who has not repeatedly gone on the record making racist comments about King County Executive Ron Sims, our state’s most prominent African American elected official. Take a look at the League’s mission statement:

The Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle strives to empower, enable and assist African Americans, other people of color, and disadvantaged individuals in becoming self-sufficient through public advocacy, providing services and developing strong business and community partnerships.

And yet, the man they honored yesterday has repeatedly and shamelessly compared Sims to the brutal African dictator Robert Mugabe.

I was taken aback the first time I saw the Mugabe line on Stefan’s blog, but maybe it’s just my liberal, white man’s guilt. So I thought I’d inquire about Sims’ own personal feelings on the matter, and through a spokesman I was assured that Sims is deeply offended by the Mugabe reference, and clearly understands it to be racist. Furthermore, he was shocked and disappointed to learn that the League would honor a man who publicly makes such racist remarks, and Sims has since made his feelings clear to Urban League president James Kelly.

Now, Stefan clearly believes he is not racist — he told me so himself, at which time he also made clear how offended he was at my insinuations to the contrary. But his repeated use of the Mugabe line not only shows a stunning lack of empathy for the sensitivities of others, but a complete and total disregard.

It is possible for a person of good will, through their own cultural isolation, to inadvertently make remarks that others might perceive as racially offensive. The appropriate response is to apologize, move on, and ask for others to judge you on the whole of your character, rather than a single incident. But Stefan has repeatedly been told by me, by the MSM, and by his own readers, that the Mugabe reference crosses the line… and yet he continues to cross it. Stefan, who was quick to take offense at an anti-semitic sleight in one of my comment threads, could apparently care less that the target of his Mugabe slur clearly perceives it to be racially motivated.

So, how are we to judge Stefan’s character? I’m not one to criticize a blogger based on the contents of his comment threads (mine are often hateful), but given the level of invective spewed over on (u)SP, I wonder how many of his readers share the same sentiment voiced in this comment, which actually criticizes Stefan for his volunteer work:

If it was the horse’s ass receiving an award from a hateful “civil rights” group’s dinner, you be all over him as you should be. I guess it’s ok for Republicans to support hate-mongering racial causes if they are from Seattle. No wonder Seattle is such an Island of goofies–even the “conservatives” seem to be sniffing glue. Sing koombaya for me, Shark. this is a disappointment. These people want to defeat us.

Surely, some of Stefan’s defenders will attempt to use his Urban League award as an inoculation against charges of racism, but his words speak clearly. Ron Sims has now gone on the record stating that he personally finds the Mugabe reference to be racially offensive; if Stefan continues to use it, he will prove to his readers that he has no compunction about throwing a racial slur at the highest elected African American official in the state. And that will speak for itself.

I’m busy. So here’s an early open thread.

Campus Progress has put together a slick, fun new website lampooning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s record on a number of crucial issues. Go to Alito’s America, and watch their minute-and-a-half video.

Also be sure to check out the “Future Headlines”, in which disastrous court decisions are predicted based on Alito’s prior rulings and writings. Legalize machine guns? Alito has previously ruled that Congress lacks the power under the commerce clause to regulate possession of a firearm. Scary guy.

Oy… is this really all the Republicans have going for them these days?

A state legislator is unhappy that some seasonal greenery in Olympia has been designated the “Capitol Holiday Kids’ Tree.”

Gov. Christine Gregoire should declare the 30-foot noble fir in the Legislative Building a Christmas tree and post “Merry Christmas” signs nearby, Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, said Wednesday on talk radio, urging listeners to call the Governor’s Office.

“We’re a Judeo-Christian nation. Of course we should have ‘Merry Christmas’ on signs there,” he said. “Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

Um… hey “John” with an “h”… speaking as one of those “Judeos” you claim to be defending, I’d just like to point out that we don’t celebrate Christmas. So if you want to fill our government buildings with goyish tchotchkes, please cut the disingenuous “Judeo” crap, and say what you mean. You think this is a Christian nation, don’t you? So stop co-opting my identity by hyphenating my religion to yours… it’s beginning to really piss me off.

Oh… and as for the so-called liberal “War on Christmas”…

The tree is named by the Association of Washington Business, which organizes an annual tree-lighting and gift drive for needy youngsters.

If the AWB’s liberal, I guess that makes the BIAW a bunch of Trotskyites? (Hmm… I know somebody who’s getting an ice-pick for Christmas.)

I’ve always been opposed to gambling expansion, but I never fully understood the prevalence or devastating impact of problem gambling until I jumped headlong into the fight against Tim Eyman’s incredibly stupid slot machine initiative, I-892. My personal tutor on this issue was our state’s leading advocate on behalf of problem gamblers, Jennifer McCausland of Second Chance Washington, whose passion and perseverance played a major role in securing passage of last session ‘s landmark (and long overdue) legislation to provide permanent funding for problem gambling treatment and prevention programs.

McCausland has a guest column in today’s Seattle P-I (“Teens are gambling with their lives“), spelling out the desperate need to educate parents and teens about the dangers of gambling addiction, at a time when poker and other forms of wagering are being aggressively marketed to our nation’s youth.

The gambling industry’s deliberate effort to hook the young is eerily reminiscent of tobacco industry campaigns decades earlier. From the glamour of Bravo’s celebrity poker tournaments to the daily poker-as-sport programming on ESPN, Fox Sports and elsewhere, the industry is attempting to both normalize and entice, much like Big Tobacco once used Hollywood to sell a long drag and the seductive trail of cigarette smoke as the epitome of cool.

While access to gambling has exploded, and youths are being exposed at an earlier and earlier age, there is virtually no effort to inform parents and children about the very real dangers involved. Proceeds of the national tobacco settlement enable Washington state to spend $28 million a year on its highly successful campaign to curb teen smoking; unfortunately only pennies are spent to warn parents and teens about gambling addiction.

A Harvard Medical School study found teen gamblers are three times more likely to become addicted than their adult counterparts and the younger the age of initial exposure the higher the incidence. Other studies estimate that between 2.5 percent and 6 percent of teens are already addicted. The 1999 National Gambling Impact Study made two crucial recommendations: raise the legal gambling age to 21 and launch “targeted prevention efforts … to curtail youth gambling.”

Six years later, it’s time to start acting on these recommendations.

Last year a WA State Gambling Commission sting operation found that five casinos of the seven surveyed permitted a 16-year-old agent to gamble and buy alcohol. Drinking and gambling are inextricably mixed; WA needs to follow the national trend and raise the legal age to 21 on all forms of gambling. And following the example of our state’s highly successful $28 million a year campaign to curb teen smoking, WA should set an example by devoting a few million dollars a year to educate parents and teens about the dangers of gambling addiction as well.

We’re not talking about banning gambling, or shutting down casinos… we’re talking about educating the public about the very real risks involved. Parents and teens need to understand that gambling can be just as addictive as alcohol… and just as destructive.

When I was a teen, my parents sometimes purchased beer for my high school parties; understanding that we would likely drink with or without their permission, they preferred that we do it under their careful supervision. Today, that “responsible” attitude would get them shunned from the community, if not arrested and jailed.

We need a similar paradigm shift in parents’ understanding of gambling… that it is not a harmless activity that should be promoted to children and teens — who are three times more likely to become addicted than adults — and that parents and educators should always be vigilant for the warning signs of addiction. With the poker craze in full swing and access to gambling expanding at a steady clip, teen gambling is becoming a growing public health crisis whose young victims will struggle with their addiction for the rest of their lives.

My understanding is that there are legislators who recognize the need to act now, and I hope you will all join me in supporting legislation to raise the gambling age to 21, and to provide sufficient funds for a substantive teen gambling addiction awareness, education and prevention campaign.

Funny, funny clip from The Daily Show (via Brad’s Blog) of Jon Stewart sticking it to Bill O’Reilly.

UPDATE:
Hey, check Dan Savage’s rant on Slog:

This “War on Christmas” bullshit would be amusing if it weren’t so fucking scary. This aggrieved/oppressed majority stuff doesn’t just smack of fascism, it is fascism.

Savage directly compares the Christian right’s assertion that American Christians are an oppressed minority to Hitler justifying his invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland by claiming that German-speaking people were being persecuted. Over the top? No more over the top than this whole “War on Christmas” crap. Savage continues…

The “War on the “War on Christmas'” is about a majority seeking to eradicate public tolerance for, or evidence of, the existence or rights of the minority groups with which it shares this country. It’s cute and funny now, and O’Reilly’s a blowhard and a gasbag, but it’s one small step down a road that’s lead to gas chambers in the past.

But, hey, let’s all salute Christmas��Merry Christmas, Bill!

Stiff-armed salutes, of course, are preferred. Next year they may be mandatory.

Man… I just wish Dan would loosen up and speak his mind for a change.

Damn… you think if I ran for U.S. Senate, the insurance industry would pay me $4.5 million too?

According to a filing today with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Safeco CEO Mike McGavick will get a sweet $4.5 million package for leaving Safeco and challenging incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell. I guess cutting over 1,200 jobs, pulling out of the hurricane prone Florida market, and dramatically hiking rates really does pay… if you’re the CEO.

Of course, this does raise a bit of hypothetical question… if Safeco pays McGavick $4.5 million to leave the company and run for the Senate, and then McGavick puts, say, $4.5 million of his own money into his campaign… how is this not a clever bit of money laundering designed to get around the campaign finance laws? Hypothetically.

Meanwhile, it looks like McGavick’s going to need all the money the insurance industry can launder give him. A new poll by the GOP pollster Strategic Vision has Cantwell leading McGavick 50% to 39%, and that doesn’t bode so well for the Republicans according to David Johnson, president of Strategic Vision:

“Senator Cantwell has reached the magic 50% mark in match-ups against possible challengers; that shows that Republicans will have a hard job in defeating her if these numbers remain.

That’s okay… McGavick has a lucrative future ahead of (and behind) him as an insurance industry lobbyist.

UPDATE:
Here’s the link to the SEC filing. In addition to the accelerated vesting of $4.5 million in unvested stock, he’s also eligible for a bonus for 2005. Sweet.

Voters brought Jim West to his knees yesterday… and not in the good way.

I don’t really have much to say about yesterday’s recall of the secretly-gay, gay-bashing, Spokane mayor, except that I hope voters kicked him out for lies, hypocrisy, and abuse of office… not because he was gay. My guess is there wouldn’t have been much of a scandal if West had been openly gay from the start. If West had been true to himself and true to voters, many of his former supporters probably would have remained true to him.

The dirty commies on the Seattle Times editorial board want to break up media conglomerate Time Warner:

The government is not going to do it

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Tonight is “Smoke ’em if you got ’em” Night, in honor of Initiative 901, which goes into effect on Thursday. (The Ale House is smoke free until 9PM.)

I don’t believe I’ll be smoking, but I’ll definitely be there enjoying some fine ale.

My righty trolls like to point to individual incidents and use them as a means of branding the entire political opposition as violent, un-American, immoral degenerates. So turnabout is fair play. Take for example this piece from the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World:

Douglas County sheriff’s deputies are investigating the reported beating of a Kansas University professor who gained recent notoriety for his Internet tirades against Christian fundamentalists.

Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.

“I didn’t know them, but I’m sure they knew me,” he said.
…
He said the men beat him about the upper body with their fists, and he said he thinks they struck him with a metal object. He was treated and released at Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
…
Mirecki recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists.

Of course, Mirecki intended to slap the fundamentalists metaphorically. At least two fundamentalists decided that was cause enough strike him back with fists and a metal object.

So much for “teach the controversy.”

Not that polls are all that meaningful a year out from the election, but the latest Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell leading insurance industry flak Mike McGavick, 52% to 37%… for the second month in a row. While the head to head numbers haven’t changed, Cantwell’s favorable rating has climbed to a respectable 60%.

Cantwell has long been considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic senate incumbents in 2006, but these numbers suggest she’s nowhere near as weak as Republicans had hoped. It’s interesting to note that Sen. Patty Murray had also been considered vulnerable heading into the 2004 campaign season, but led George Nethercutt by a similar 52% to 37% margin as early as June of 2003. Murray went on to win by over 12 points.

The GOP had counted on an unpopular Cantwell being an easy target, but now it seems clear that McGavick is not only going to have to sell himself to WA voters, he’s going to have to make a strong case for tossing out Cantwell as well. And with Bush’s approval ratings in the toilet, and the GOP leadership not far behind, it’s gonna be pretty tough making the argument that we need to give the president one more Republican vote in the Senate.

Perhaps this partially explains why his fellow Republicans aren’t lining up to challenge McGavick for the nomination?

From today’s Washington Post:

The House ethics committee, the panel responsible for upholding the chamber’s ethics code, has been virtually moribund for the past year, handling only routine business despite a wave of federal investigations into close and potentially illegal relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists.
…
The committee’s last formal action of note was its recommendation to admonish former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for the second and third times in 2004. Since then, the committee has been crippled.

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) was ousted as the ethics chairman early this year by House GOP leaders. His successor, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), has been slow to take up the reins because of disputes between Republicans and Democrats over the panel’s rules. Hastings and Mollohan also feuded for months about the makeup of the professional staff.

It has been a year since Hastings took the reigns, and the House Ethics Committee still doesn’t have a chief of staff on the job, nor even begun the process of hiring investigators. During that time at least seven lawmakers have been indicted, pleaded guilty, or are under investigation for conspiracy, fraud, campaign finance violations, and other improper conduct. Last week Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif) resigned from Congress after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion, and the other Washington is abuzz with rumors of lawmakers, spouses, and aides entangled in the growing scandals surrounding lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon.

Government watch dog groups from across the ideological spectrum are decrying the Committee’s failure to act, and the erosion in public trust that has resulted.

“There is no ethics enforcement in Congress today, and it’s inexcusable,” sad Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative monitor of government ethics.

“No matter what level of corruption the members of Congress engage in, the ethics committees do nothing,” agreed Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It’s a national embarrassment.”

This is Hastings’ committee, and by failing to act he is complicit in the corruption he is responsible for investigating and punishing. The citizens of WA’s 4th Congressional District deserve to know the crucial role their congressman is playing in preserving our Capitol’s crooked money machine. The citizens of the 4th District deserve a better congressman.

Wow. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a guest column in The Seattle Times (originally published in the LA Times.) And… well… wow.

Sometimes people in law enforcement will hear it whispered that I’m a former cop who favors decriminalization of marijuana laws, and they’ll approach me the way they might a traitor or snitch. So let me set the record straight.

Yes, I was a cop for 34 years, the last six of which I spent as chief of Seattle’s police department.

But no, I don’t favor decriminalization. I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD.

This is an issue that has troubled me a lot recently… one on which my personal views have nearly travelled a full 360 degrees over the past twenty-five years.

I started from a quasi-libertarian position grounded in my personal experience of the relatively harmless recreational drug use that surrounded me in college (I myself smoked a little pot, but quickly outgrew the vice.) While a strong streak of uptight prudishness kept me clean, I had close friends who did a lot of illicit drugs. I didn’t approve — and I let them know it — but I understood at the time that a drug conviction would cause far more harm than the drugs themselves, resulting in expulsion if not imprisonment, and costing them all the privilege and opportunity that our Ivy League education afforded us.

Over time though, my stance hardened, perhaps out of concern over the destructive scourge of crack cocaine, maybe just out of a need for consistency with my strong views on restricting access to tobacco. I was never a huge supporter of the so-called “War on Drugs” and its focus on interdiction — and I’ve never understood our nation’s irrational demonization of marijuana — but I also didn’t favor outright legalization. That, it seemed to me, would be giving up on a very real public health crisis. While my college friends were lucky enough to dodge a life of addiction, many other drug users are not.

But… in recent years I’ve come back around to my original position, not out of any shift in my view on drugs, but out of sheer utilitarianism… as Stamper points out, prohibition simply does not work, and in fact causes more societal harm than it seeks to prevent.

It’s not a stretch to conclude that our Draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle on the construction of new facilities? Open the doors, let the nonviolent drug offenders go. The huge increases in federal and state prison populations during the 1980s and ’90s (from 139 per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 482 per 100,000 in 2003) were mainly for drug convictions. In 1980, 580,900 Americans were arrested on drug charges. By 2003, that figure had ballooned to 1,678,200. We’re making more arrests for drug offenses than for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape and aggravated assault combined. Feel safer?

I’ve witnessed the devastating effects of open-air drug markets in residential neighborhoods: children recruited as runners, mules and lookouts; drug dealers and innocent citizens shot dead in firefights between rival traffickers bent on protecting or expanding their markets; dedicated narcotics officers tortured and killed in the line of duty; prisons filled with nonviolent drug offenders; and drug-related foreign policies that foster political instability, wreak health and environmental disasters, and make life even tougher for indigenous subsistence farmers in places such as Latin America and Afghanistan. All because we like our drugs

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

Jonathan Singer has an interesting piece on MyDD, presenting a model for Democrats taking back the House of Representatives in 2006. And what is that model? The overwhelming Republican sweep in WA state back in 1994.

Going into the 1994 midterm elections, Washington state Democrats appeared poised to continue their dominance. In both 1988 and 1992, the Evergreen state had thrown its electoral votes behind the Democratic candidate, and the state had not elected a Republican Governor since 1980. Looking more closely at the 1992 election, the Democrats won eight of the state’s nine House seats, winning the overall House vote by a 56 percent to 41 percent margin, and House Speaker Tom Foley, a Spokane Democrat, was at the peak of his power.

But come November 6, 1994, the Democrats’ fortunes reversed. Republicans won the statewide House vote by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin, defeating the Democrats in seven of the state’s nine districts for a net pick up of six seats, and GOP Senator Slade Gorton was handily reelected with 56 percent of the vote. What happened on election day, and the months leading up to it, should serve as a stark warning to Republicans who believe they are set maintain control of the House in 2006 and should further provide lessons to Democrat hoping to win back the lower chamber.

Singer notes that the GOP picked up seats in four Democratic-leaning districts in WA in 1994, and 16 Democratic-leaning districts nationally. He concludes that Democrats should not shy away from targeting Republican-leaning districts in 2006, particularly in Ohio, which somewhat mirrors WA in 1994.

Personally, I remain hopeful that Democrats will target the three Republican-leaning districts in WA state. Everybody knows that freshman incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert is vulnerable; the 8th District continues to lean Democratic in statewide and Presidential races, and should be within reach of a strong challenger (and I’m not yet convinced that either of the declared candidates, Darcy Burner and Randy Gordon, are up to the task.) But given the right circumstances, the right challenger — and enough money — Democrats could have a shot in Eastern WA too.

Representatives Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings have voted with the Republican leadership 98% of the time — often against the interests of their Eastern WA constituents — and each has their unique vulnerabilities. While McMorris has done little to distinguish herself during her freshman year, Hastings is finally making a name for himself as the do-nothing chair of the House Ethics Committee at time his own party appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.

Both deserve strong challengers who can make the 2006 election a referendum on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership. If Eastern WA voters are in the mood to throw the bums out next November, Democrats need to be prepared to offer them a viable alternative. There’s a chance McMorris may draw a strong challenger in Peter Goldmark, but Hastings seat has thus far drawn little interest from Democrats.

As Singer points out, the lesson both parties should learn from WA in 1994, is that Republican domination is not safe in any part of the country right now. Democrats have a shot at retaking the House… but only if we mount strong challenges in Republican leaning districts.