HorsesAss.Org

Spokane Diocese bankruptcy backfires

by — ,

Last December the Catholic Diocese of Spokane, WA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in an effort to shield itself from $80 million in sexual abuse liabilities, claiming it had only $10 million in assets under its direct control. Now it looks like parishioners are going to pay for Spokane Bishop William Skylstad’s shameful legal maneuvers.

A federal bankruptcy judge ruled today that all the parish churches, parochial schools and other property of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane can be liquidated to pay victims of sexual abuse by priests.

The decision, expected to have ramifications for dioceses across the nation, is a major defeat for Spokane Bishop William Skylstad, who had argued that he did not control individual parishes and thus they were not available to cover settlement costs.

“It is not a violation of the First Amendment to apply federal bankruptcy law to identify and define property of the bankruptcy estate even though the Chapter 11 debtor is a religious organization,” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Patricia Williams wrote in a 50-page decision.

“The disputed real property constitutes property of the estate,” she wrote.

Skylstad is the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Had his bankruptcy ploy succeeded, other dioceses facing similar sexual abuse claims surely would have followed suit in an effort to deny victims their financial settlements. But with this court decision, Skylstad has only succeeded in putting the liquidation decisions into the hands of a federal judge — any and all of the 82 parish churches and 16 parochial schools in 13 Eastern WA counties may now be sold off to settle victims’ claims.

Once again it is Spokane’s parishioners who will pay the price for the Diocese’s arrogance and neglect, but this court decision sends an important message to bishops elsewhere that they must face their legal obligations squarely, rather than relying on clever lawyers to shield them from the consequences of past mistakes.

If wishes were horses, Republicans would ride

by — ,

Via Daily Kos, I was drawn to a brief commentary by Rich Lowry on the Corner on National Review Online.

The president’s job approval ratings aren’t looking so great lately: 36%, ARG; 40% Harris; 45% Rasmussen. I’m prepared to believe that all these polls are flawed for some reason or other, but it’s clear that he’s sagging.

Yeah… and I’m prepared to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.

Man… I hope all Republicans are in such a stunning state of denial, that they can’t see the forest for the colon polyps inches away from their eyeballs. If R’s are blaming their “sagging” poll numbers on the pollsters (all the pollsters) rather than their own disastrous policies, their dismal performance in office is destined to be duplicated at next year’s mid-term elections.

Lowry suggests much of Bush’s problems stem from the deteriorating war in Iraq (duh-uh), and on that front the polls are only getting worse. A new AP-Ipsos poll released today shows approval of Bush’s handling of the war at 37% (down from 41% in June,) while 58% disapprove. And these are no wishy-washy, blowing-in-the-wind type numbers. Only 20% of respondents “strongly approve” (plummeting from 26% in June), while a steady 45% “strongly disapprove.” Perhaps even more telling… 87% approve of public dissent against the war. (You know… like what that traitor Cindy Sheehan is doing down in Crawford, TX.)

Bush’s approval ratings are “sagging” lower than his mamma’s eighty-year-old tits, and Lowry’s solution? Come out in favor of something popular… like cracking down on immigration. Yup… what better way to drum up support for our war against brown people overseas, than to rile up fear and distrust of brown people back at home?

To Lowry, “this seems an obvious play”, but he doesn’t think Bush will do it, because Bush is a leader, and “leadership is about ignoring polls, doing hard things, etc.”

You have to give Bush credit–he’s the absolute opposite of Clinton. Clinton was in favor of small, popular things. Bush apparently likes to be in favor of big, unpopular things.

Um… and that’s a good thing?

As Armando astutely observes on Daily Kos:

“For the life of me, why these Republicans would want to compare Bush to Clinton escapes me. But they do.”

They certainly do.

UPDATE:
Whoops… looks like the Gallup Poll is flawed too: 40% job approval. This is Bush’s lowest rating ever, and the worst of any of the last seven presidents at this point in the second term, with the exception of Nixon during Watergate. Most troubling for Republicans, only one-third of independents approve of Bush’s performance. There goes the swing vote.

“Dear Palestinian Bomber”

by — ,

From the AP:

Sami Habbas was sifting through his stack of mail when he noticed a credit-card offer addressed to “Palestinian Bomber.”

The stunned Palestinian-American opened the letter that began with the salutation, “Dear Palestinian Bomber.”

“I thought it was a joke or something,” he said. “I’m very sad

Discovering the Discovery Institute

by — ,

It’s been a busy week. Yesterday, when I should have been pointing you towards Danny Westneat’s excellent column in the Seattle Times on so-called “intelligent design,” I spent a few hours cramming for my confrontation with Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman on the John Carlson Show… and then the rest of the afternoon on an inspired rant about what we progressives really need to do to confront these partisan, fake-think-tanks. (Um… fight fake-fire with fake-fire.)

Anyway, Danny writes about Bob Davidson — a scientist, a doctor, and a nephrology professor at the UW medical school — and a devout Christian. He is also a former fellow at Seattle’s Discovery Institute, the driving force behind I.D.

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people “believe in a Creator and also believe in science.

“I thought it was refreshing,” he says.

Not anymore. He’s concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

“When I joined I didn’t think they were about bashing evolution. It’s pseudo-science, at best … What they’re doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion.”

No doubt I was on the defensive for much of yesterday’s show; John made a point of that… he’s an good host who knows how to control the flow when it suits his purpose. And much of the push back against my critique focused on “the science”, which is funny really, because when it comes to I.D., there really isn’t any. Discovery wants schools to “teach the controversy”, but as I pointed out on the air, none exists. Evolution has pretty much been accepted science since the 1870’s, and natural selection since at least the 1940’s… and nothing has changed in the half-decade since Discovery first put forth their infamous “Wedge Document.”

Of course, I’m not a scientist, and Chapman (um… also not a scientist) made a point of emphasizing this in trying to discredit my critique, as did a couple of the callers. (Speaking of the callers… the failure of scientists to create life in the laboratory perhaps proves that scientists are not gods, not that one exists.)

But Davidson is a scientist.

“I’m kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this,” Davidson says.

He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a “theory in crisis.”

“It’s laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution,” he says. “There’s always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there’s no real scientific controversy about it.”

Davidson began to believe the institute is an “elaborate, clever marketing program” to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design

Rossi still at a lossi on I-912

by — ,

On Monday, my vigil to get David Irons to publicly state his position on I-912 ended when the Seattle P-I managed to coax a tepid statement opposing the anti-roads initiative. So I followed up by demanding that putative state GOP leader Dino Rossi answer the same question. (“Et tu, Dino?“) Well… a letter to the editor in today’s Seattle P-I summarizes the issue so nicely, I thought I’d push the limits of the fair use doctrine, and repeat it here.

Rossi must have opinion about gas tax

The great, unasked question: Where does Dino Rossi stand on Initiative 912 to repeal the gas-tax increase?

Rossi’s whole campaign focused on improving Washington’s business climate. Business interests strongly oppose I-912 because it repeals funding for long-overdue transportation improvements. This suggests Rossi would oppose I-912.

But his failed legal quest for an election do-over was repeatedly invoked by I-912’s talk-radio sponsors to motivate their signature-gathering troops and “send Democrats a message.” This implies Rossi’s support. I suspect Rossi still refuses to declare a position on initiatives, just as he did during his 2004 campaign. With I-912, he risks alienating one of his two bases: business or anti-tax conservatives. So what’s the point?

Your Monday editorial answers that question: “When mobility, traffic congestion and thousands of local jobs are at stake, we’d hope for stronger leadership.”

We know Rossi will run for public office again. In the meantime, he appears to have become the de-facto leader of this state’s Republican Party. Isn’t he the one person with the best chance of saving the 2005 transportation investment should he speak out against the job-killing I-912?

David Groves
Bainbridge Island

Thanks David… well said. I’ll be looking for Dino’s letter to the editor in reply.

In addition to demanding that Rossi publicly state whether he supports I-912, I also posed the same question to Irons’ colleagues on the King County Council. Three have responded thus far: Dwight Pelz and Julia Patterson are opposed to I-912, and Raymond Shaw Reagan Dunn supports it. No surprises there.

Patterson was the only one of the three to provide an explanation, and I think it is worth sharing, as it makes clear to residents of South King County some of what they will lose should the gas tax repeal pass.

I will be voting against I-912 because I support all the South King County transportation projects that the 2005 state transportation package funds. I believe we need the additional lanes on 405 between Renton and Tukwila, the improvements to the 405/167 interchange, and the completion of the HOV lanes on SR 167. All are funded in the 2005 state transportation package, and will not be completed if I-912 passes. These projects are important to the residents of South King County and will help reduce congestion and keep our economy strong.

This, of course, is exactly the type of effort to educate voters that we need from our elected officials and other civic leaders if we are to have a hope of defeating I-912. It’s the type of bold leadership one would hope candidates like Irons and Rossi would display if they really want to prove that they deserve the public’s trust.

And one final note. While Shaw Dunn didn’t provide an explanation, his prompt and terse response to whether he supported I-912 did prove that he is an attentive HA reader… and has a bit of a sense of humor to boot.

Yes.

-Raymond

He’s the new kid on the block, and I don’t much care for his politics thus far, but this certainly scores him a couple of points in my book.

Radio redux

by — ,

I was going to add this as an update to the previous post about my appearance on the John Carlson Show opposite the Discovery Institute’s Bruce Chapman, but I think it raises an entirely different subject, so it deserves a thread of its own.

Last week I wrote a short post (“Thinking about ‘think tanks’“) in which I called on WA progressives to create the kind of think tank that can rival those on the right:

No, I don’t mean some lofty institute where pointy-headed intellectuals earnestly work to develop effective public policy…. What we need are some of those fake think tanks… you know, like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, or the Washington Policy Center, or the driving force behind “intelligent design”, Seattle’s very own Discovery Institute, which apparently takes the name “Discovery” from its concerted efforts to squash it.

The other side has these shamelessly partisan propaganda mills, and so should we. They’re very effective.

Well, my appearance today on John’s show — regardless of how well you think I held up my end of the debate — is just another example of why we need this weapon in our arsenal. I mean, really… what the fuck was I doing debating Bruce Chapman? What we should have had was some impressively credentialed fellow from some fake progressive think tank whose full-time job it is to track the Discovery Institute and refute their faith-based-media-campaign-masquerading-as-science bullshit. Instead, we had what…? The “horse’s ass” guy! Sheesh!

Now I don’t mean to be too self-deprecating; I think I did a fine job considering the circumstances. (And on other issues on which I have more expertise, I think I usually kick ass.) But I ask all of you out there in the local progressive blogosphere… all you liberal activists and media junkies… and especially you civic leaders, labor officials, party regulars and elected representatives and staffers for whom HA has become a secret, dirty pleasure… are you really comfortable with leaving it to me to be the liberal voice representing you on any issue John or Kirby or some other talk-jock throws my way? I sure as hell hope not.

And when it’s not me, the alternative is often worse. How many times have we tuned in to some serious discussion on KUOW about some serious issue, only to hear some fake-think-tank talking head like Paul Guppy taking on a respectable journalist like George Howland Jr.? Paul trots out his fake-nonpartisan, fake-academic credentials, and then proceeds to spread the propaganda as thick as shit in feeding lot. Meanwhile, George, whatever his political leanings, attempts to behave like the responsible, objective journalist he is. The result is what might sound like a reasonable discussion, but really is little more than a right-wing media op.

It just isn’t a fair fight, because George and Paul have entirely different objectives. George is trying to be truthful and informative, whereas Paul is simply trying to win.

We need to try to win too, and the only way to do this is to fight fake-think-tank with fake-think-tank. We need our own fake-fellows producing gobs of fake-research on our own syllabus of fake-issues, as well that of our fake-opponents. And we need to train these fake-experts in the ways of the media, so that the next time Bruce Chapman whips out his pseudo-science-based bullshit, we have a partisan pseudo-academic adequately prepared to publicly undress him, fake-talking-point by fake-talking-point.

Oh of course, we’ll never refer to our institute as “fake.” No… we’ll use the other guys’ euphemism: “nonpartisan.” But honestly, when like Discovery, you start with an agenda and then produce the “scholarship” to support it, instead of the other way around, it isn’t much of a real think tank, now is it?

No, but that’s what it takes for progressives to win in the real world, where we can no longer rely on the Democratic Party or organized labor to do our dirty work for us. We need to create and fund new institutions that are just as partisan, just as relentless, and just as calculating and manipulative as those on right, not because we want the rest of the nation to think exactly like us — God no… that would be boring — but because that is the only way we have a snowball’s chance in hell of fighting on an equal footing!

What will it take? Well, I’ll throw out a number… how about $750,000 over the first two years to fund start-up costs, initiate fundraising, and make a couple quick strikes to prove that we can be just as smart, just as manipulative, and just as fake as the other guys? It’s time for a few visionary progressive institutions, businesses and individuals with money to make this culture war a fair fight.

Radio Goldy

by — ,

I will be on the John Carlson Show, 570-KVI this afternoon at 3PM, opposite Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind so-called “intelligent design.”

A couple days ago I criticized the Gates Foundation for funding the institute to the tune of $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman’s $141,000 salary. If Bill Gates doesn’t understand that he is giving money and credibility to an organized effort to undermine our nation’s basic science education, then he needs to be educated. If he does understand this, then it’s his customers, employees and stockholders who need to be educated.

Neither Chapman nor Discovery are drawn from my usual cast of villains, so I can’t claim to be an expert on ID or its proponents. But lack of expertise has never stopped me from expressing my opinions before, so why stop now?

UPDATE:
John controls the debate, but I’m guessing more than a little of my focus today will touch upon the Discovery Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Here’s the New Yorker article I’m about to mention.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, I thought that went fairly well considering how unprepared I was on the subject and the fact that Chapman is not just some walking talking point like Stefan or Tim. And John had some kind words to say to me afterwards, off the air, so I thank him for that as well as the opportunity to speak on issues other than the election contest.

Nickels’ tunnel vision peers far and wide

by — ,

I’m not a huge Greg Nickels fan, and to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if a ghost writer penned the guest column that bears his name in today’s Seattle Times, “Seattle shouldn’t repeat its viaduct mistake.” But whoever wrote the words, Nickels deserves a load of credit for putting his name on the vision, and getting out in front on an issue that the MSM currently finds faddish to rail against: replacing the decaying Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel.

When considering Seattle’s future, it’s helpful to look back at our past.

Take the Alaskan Way Viaduct. When it opened in 1952, the “modern” double-decker highway replaced a tangle of railroad tracks along the shores of Seattle’s working waterfront.

It might have made sense to some at the time to wall off the still-gritty waterfront from the city with a noisy concrete curtain. But it didn’t take very long for people to realize that we’d made a very big mistake.

Which is why it is all the more baffling that 50 years later, when we finally have the chance to do it right by replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, some people are arguing we should make the same mistake all over again.

Another noisy, messy blight

Bitching about glitching

by — ,

When is a “glitch” not a glitch? How about when the system that produced it is proactive and self-correcting enough to catch the glitch and fix it in a timely manner… without any outside intervention? Such was the case with an incident at King County Elections that a Seattle Times headline calls a “glitch“, but which in my opinion demonstrates a voter registration system that seems to be working pretty damn well considering the obstacles.

After an hourlong presentation by elections director Dean Logan on the improvements that have been made since the last election, King County Councilman Raymond Shaw Reagan Dunn attempted to ambush Logan with the tale of Crystal McNey, who says she received three voter registration cards, all on the same day. That sounds like a pretty bad glitch. But….

When his staff members looked into it after the meeting, they found that the mix-up occurred when McNey married a member of Dunn’s campaign staff and changed her name last year. Elections-office spokeswoman Brooke Bascom said the office mistakenly mailed her two cards

Hood(winked) Canal Bridge: WSDOT wrong again!

by — ,

From the Seattle Times:

The Hood Canal Bridge is expected to reopen tonight, more than a day earlier than highway engineers had predicted.

The bridge was to have been closed until 4 a.m. Thursday. It’s the second time in the past month that the bridge has reopened early.

I mean really… how can we ever restore faith in WSDOT if they can’t get their act together and accurately predict how long it will take to fix a stupid little bridge? Talk about a waste of tax dollars….

(u)SP’s HA OCD

by — ,

Is it just me, or does anybody else here find Stefan’s obsession with HA a little bit creepy? Writing on David Irons’ official website (soundpolitics.org), Stefan broods about the Seattle P-I finally pinning down Irons’ on I-912, an issue of great public import:

The P-I is merely in a struggle to follow in the horseproduct-caked shoes of Seattle’s favorite left-wing fiction blog, hitting hard on a fabricated non-issue that is of interest only to the lunatic fringe.

At first I found his political man-crush oddly flattering (if unrequited)… a backhanded tip-of-the-hat to my ongoing success at helping to shape the public debate. But his OCD-like focus on all things HA is beginning to weird me out. Next thing you know, he’ll be hiring somebody to follow me.

Ah well. I guess I’ll just continue to take the high road, by focusing on hard hitting reporting and analysis, while leaving the petty sniping and personal attacks to others.

“Stay the course is not a policy”

by — ,

“Stay the course is not a policy. Part of the problem … is we have no measurement for progress, for success.

And so I think by any standard when you analyze two and a half years in Iraq where we have put in over a third of a trillion dollars, where we have lost over 1,900 Americans, over 14,000 wounded. Electricity production down, oil production down. Any measurement, any standard you apply to this, we’re not winning.
…
The reason that I don’t think more troops is the answer now is we’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged down problem, not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam.

The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have, the more occupying force dynamics flow into this, the more influence of the outside people, as well as the inside people are going to hurt this country.”

So… which hate-America-first, lefty, lunatic-fringe wacko gave this devastating critique of the war in Iraq? Um… Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, and who sits on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. He continues:

“We should start figuring out how we get out of there … I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

Hmmm. So why are influential Republicans suddenly finding their cojones, and speaking their minds about President Bush’s failed war in Iraq? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Bush’s approval rating is now below that of Richard Nixon during the depths of Watergate? I dunno. Maybe.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.