HorsesAss.Org

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

So… what could possibly connect the dire plight of Puget Sound orcas with the right-wing extremist militia movement? Well, as Dave Neiwert reveals in a fascinating and disturbing post at Orcinus: the BIAW.

Last week the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) filed a 60-day notice declaring their intent to sue the government over the endangered species listing for Puget Sound orcas, claiming local pods don’t warrant special protection:

“You can almost say any individual school of fish can be listed,” Harris said.

Calling this “malignant misinformation,” Neiwert methodically refutes the BIAW with something he likes to call “facts.” But…

Facts matter little to organizations like the BIAW. Their ability to ensure that developers have as few restrictions as possible in bringing pavement to every corner of the state is all that counts.

Even if, in the end, every last orca simply vanishes from these waters. If the BIAW has its way, that outcome is not just predictable, it’s guaranteed.

It may be a death by a thousand cuts, slow and incremental. But groups like the BIAW are killing orcas just as certainly as someone out hunting them with guns.

Yeah, Neiwert knows a thing or two about orcas — hence the name of his blog — but he’s also an expert on the right-wing militia movement, and by association, the BIAW.

The Building Industry Association of Washington is an organization that not only is ruthless to the point of consciencelessness, it also has become an extraordinarily significant player in Washington state politics. They are, in fact, one of the most powerful funders of the conservative movement’s agenda here.

And, perhaps unsurprisingly, they also boast a history of dalliances with (and underwriting of) right-wing extremism, particularly the Patriot/militia movement of the 1990s.

Neiwert goes on to detail the “even darker side to the BIAW,” chronicling its key role in funding, supporting and organizing right-wing property rights, secessionist, and militia groups. One of the key players was Jim Klauser…

…until recently he remained associated with the BIAW by sitting on its Legal Trust Committee. Klauser ran one of the BIAW’s major subgroups, the Master Builders Association of King County, and the Snohomish County office of the BIAW just north of Seattle.

He also founded an organization called the Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance, which became a front for militia organizing and other far-right activity…

[…]

One of SNOCO PRA’s leaders was a fellow named Ben Sams, who organized an “anti-New World Order” militia meeting in Maltby, Wash. The keynote speaker at the meeting was a fellow from the Militia of Montana named Bob Fletcher, who displayed maps describing a planned United Nations takeover of the northern Cascades region.

[…]

Klauser’s chief partner in organizing the Snohomish County secessionists was a local rabble-rouser named John Stokes, who ran an organization called the Freedom County Committee. Stokes later claimed he had gathered enough signatures to force a secession vote, but he vamoosed to Montana at about this time and the signatures were not submitted for several more months; when they finally were, the numbers validated didn’t come close to meeting the requirement.

Of course, Stokes has continued to foment right-wing extremist politics in Montana, where he bought a radio station and began broadcasting the home addresses of local environmentalists, a la Radio Rwanda. His attacks on liberals are especially disturbing as potential precursors to similar attacks elsewhere.

One of Klauser’s chief allies, a former Whatcom County BIAW official named Art Castle, went on to cofound a local Bellingham group that engaged in similar far-right recruitment. Castle now operates the Kitsap Home Builders Association listed as a local resource by the BIAW.

Neiwert goes into great detail. Really… read the whole thing.

And these are the folk who are trying to pack our state Supreme Court? If the day comes when liberals like me need to start arming ourselves, we’ll know who to blame.

Organizations like the Building Industry Association of Washington represent, in many ways, the essential face of modern conservatism: their bottom line is money and power, by any means necessary.

And we need to stop them… by any means necessary.

Join us tonight for a special State of the Union edition of Drinking Liberally! The Seattle chapter meets every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.; we normally start at 8 pm, but tonight some of us will be gathering a little before 6 pm, to entertain ourselves with real-time commentary, MST3K-style. Perhaps we’ll also play a little drinking game.

As an extra bonus, our host Nick has offered a free beer to anyone showing up wearing Seahawks gear. (I’ll be there wearing Eagles green.) And later tonight, in the 9 pm hour, we plan to record our first weekly podcast… unless we’re all to shit-faced by then.

Not in Seattle? Jimmy tells us that the newly recognized Tri-Cities chapter will gather to watch the SOTU at 5:30 pm, at the Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way. And if you’re watching from home, be sure to link on over to WashBlog, where our very own Rep. Jim McDermott will be posting an official response.

[And on an unrelated note, Andrew just posted a diary to Daily Kos, celebrating the one-year anniversary of the NW Portal. Kossaks, please recommend.]

The US Senate has confirmed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Now I don’t know if Justice Alito actually likes creme brulee, but if he does, we need somebody to put rat poisoning in it.

Of course… I’m only joking.

As the father of an 8-year-old, I have to say that I hate the WASL. I have nothing against using standards to measure performance, but this stupid, rigid, top-down testing regime has turned our classrooms into the public school equivilent of a Stanley Kaplan test prep class.

Here’s hoping we develop a thriving local industry in taking WASL tests, because that’s about the only job for which some of our kids are going to be prepared.

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!