by Goldy, 09/27/2006, 10:48 PM

It was a night of thoughtful, post-primary analysis, intellectual dialog, and me yelling at people who disagree with me until they back down in fear. That’s okay. I’m told conflict makes for good radio.

Joining me in passionate loud debate were Nick, Darryl, Lee, Carl, and token righty Don. Topics of discussion included the Richard Pope Fiasco, the right-wing corporatist conspiracy to take over our court system, Darcy Burner‘s surging candidacy in WA’s 8th Congressional District, and the lefty netroots conspiracy to take over the Democratic Party.

The show is 54:46, and is available here as a 39.2 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

32 Responses to “Podcasting Liberally, yelling at Don edition”

1. Horace spews:

HL – that’s a new one for me – that there’s a set amount that citizens’ rights are going to be infringed, and if the public sector eases up the corporations’ll fill the vacuum.

What I’d like to discuss is whether progressives think independent contributions from groups that frequently litigate in front of the Supreme Court should be limited to the same $1,400.

2. RightEqualsStupid spews:

Come on guys JCH can’t help it. After his mom and dad (also brother and sister) got divorced, he was adopted by the guy who played banjo in Deliverance. The only sex he’s ever known was with a pig named Ernie. And with an IQ of11, he can’t be expected to really understand anything he writes with his one remaining good hand.

3. For the Clueless spews:

6 – Wrongone, ok you’re not voting for Burner. Go back to wingnut sleep.

4. RightEqualsStupid spews:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/286764_house28.html

Too bad for Jimmy Queen and the rest of the right wing cowards that the news been published of Darcy’s elimination of RubberStampReichert’s 13 point lead in the polls!!!

5. LauraBushKilledAGuy spews:

Nobody needs to lie about Sheriff Davie’s record. It’s plenty bad on its own.

And most of his money comes from Karl Rove’s trunk – the same place all of Saddam’s WMD’s are hidden.

6. headless lucy spews:

Lawyers that sue corporations are the only fulcrum that is left for society as a whole to control the overweening power that corporate money exerts on the body politic. Corporate (OLD) money that funds those who would protect us from our own court system under the guise of “property rights” “tax reform” “tort reform” etc., are only out to destroy another venue by which the public attempts to protect itself from the corporate feudalistas.

7. For the Clueless spews:

I’m getting a real rise out of Don!

Like Goldy said in the tape, if there’s something wrong with the environmental or land use laws FIX THEM!

But NO.. just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why don’t you ask Tom McCabe next time you see him what he would eliminate change?

And I am so offended by that Ravenna/Roxbury talk which illustrates so perfectly the bigoted nature of the (un)SP crowd. You do it all the time Don. It is not appreciated because it is not even close to being true.

Hey today I was at Camano Island and Kayak point. Subdivisions sprouting everywhere you turn your head. What, isn’t that paradise enough for you?

8. Horace spews:

“Essentially, the court confirmed that the Washington State Constitution provides stronger protections for property owners than the US Constitution, and that municipalities cannot condemn private property to turn it over to developers.”

But this principle you are describing is exactly what the HTK Properties case (sinking ship garage case) just overturned. In that case, part of the property condemned only would be used as a staging area for a couple of years. The court sanctioned temporary use, followed by sale to a private developer for the developer’s private use.

The same thing has been happening in other cases relating to condemnations and local taxes over the past couple of years. The way the independent expenditures play out, the entities like SEIU and WEA can keep the justices they choose on the bench. In turn, the justices are allowing governments to encroach on what had been protected rights. I’m sure you would agree, the SEIU and WEA would have contributed whatever they needed to this election cycle to keep the incumbents on the bench irrespective of who was bankrolling the campaigns of the challengers. All SEIU and WEA care about from justices is getting rulings where the government wins over citizens’ rights to keep their property/money. Those unions are never opposing the BIAW in lawsuits – builders want zoning code enforcement loosened – that sort of thing.

Let me ask you, are you pleased with the status quo, or would you cap independent expenditures in judicial campaigns (recognizing that such a move might begin to level the playing field that now tilts against citizens’ rights).

9. Anonymous spews:

medicinally,toothbrush:Essenize anechoic travels Lahore agog:remembered

10. Reporterward spews:

For the Clueless,

How many acres of land do you own? How much of that is covered by 60-100 year old second growth timber?
Bet you it’s a little less than what I can claim. So dry up and leave real conservationists like myself alone.
Oh, and keep your grubby paws off my family’s land too.

11. mortgage leads spews:

copper duly counterparts Lisbon:incomes,homemade marshals!

12. headless lucy spews:

re 14: Are the citizens you are so concerned about large corporations by any chance?

13. Doctor JCH Kennedy spews:

Well, it appears our Democrat African-American friends have found yet something else to be pissed about. A Democrat black congresswoman reportedly complained that the names of hurricanes are all Caucasian
sounding names. She would prefer some names that reflect African-American culture such as Chamiqua, Tanisha, Woeisha, Shaqueal, and Jamal. She would also like the weather reports to be broadcast in language that street people can understand.

So……………………..,

“Wazzup, Mutha-fukkas! Hehr-i-cane Chamiqua be headin’ fo’ yo ass like Leroy on a crotch rocket! Bitch be a category fo’! So grab yo’ eight chirren, yo’ Ho, leave yo crib, and head fo’ de nearest guv’ment
office fo yo FRE E shit and guvment check!”

14. Doctor JCH Kennedy spews:

John, when “guvment” takes 40-50% of my income in various taxes, is that not “limiting my rights”? How about 60-70%? When do my “rights become limited”?

15. Harry Tuttle spews:

As with most of Jughead’s blather, the hurrican name story is old and a distortion out of Rushland. I guess that aspect of sailor boys MO is pretty funny, the first hundred times, or so. It doesn’t age well, however.

“In July 2003, Texas representative Sheila Jackson Lee (a member of the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, and an ardent supporter of the current civil-rights leadership) criticized the weather establishment for its selection of names with which to christen hurricanes, stating that “All racial groups should be represented.” Her comment was prompted by the 2003 list of hurricane names, which for the first time included French and Spanish appellations (derived from languages spoken in areas that border the Atlantic Ocean, where such storms occur), and she expressed the hope that in the future such lists “would try to be inclusive of African American names” as well.”

http://tinyurl.com/ory6a

16. Horace spews:

“This deserves consideration, although you have to be careful to avoid Constitutional conflicts.”

Well yes, but the whole money equals speech doctrine does not really apply in a judicial campaign. Judicial candidates are in fact prohibited from being “spoken to” – they can’t “know” who their contributors are (you and I know that is bs).

So assuming the legislature could cap independent expenditures for or against judicial candidates, would progressives favor that? The J. Barelli posting looks a lot like it came from a lawyer, and some of them are mouthpieces for UNprogresssives. Personally, I’d like to be able to influence a judicial campaign with my money just as much as one or two of the PAC’s out there now that spend tens of thousands trying to get judges to give them what they want from me and my neighbors.

17. For the Clueless spews:

Can’t stand that Don Ward. Elimination of all environmental laws is just A-ok with him. He’s the BIAW’s man for sure just like everyone else at (un)SP.

18. John Barelli spews:

Commentby Horace— 9/28/06@ 12:58 pm

“But this principle you are describing is exactly what the HTK Properties case (sinking ship garage case) just overturned. In that case, part of the property condemned only would be used as a staging area for a couple of years. The court sanctioned temporary use, followed by sale to a private developer for the developer’s private use.”

The problem here is when you start looking at “temporary” uses that last for years. The use that the property was condemned for was a public use. Alterations to the property would have been made in furtherance of that public use.

It isn’t as simple as a vacant lot being used for temporary vehicle parking. In that case, the obvious answer is to rent the lot for a fair price and return it in the same condition that they found it.

HTK wanted the court to find that part of the parcel should be condemned for the station and the other part granted an easement. Essentially, they got into splitting hairs, and the court said that they weren’t going to go there.

Courts often try to find the most reasonable way of solving a problem. While I’m certainly willing to agree that the monorail project is an unmitigated disaster as public works projects go, I have a difficult time finding fault with the ruling.

Now, one thing I do not know that might change my thoughts on this. Did HTK originally offer to sell the needed property along with an easement at fair market value? My understanding is that they simply fought the project until the courts made them sell, but I’d be interested in any information you have to the contrary.

As to your other question: “Let me ask you, are you pleased with the status quo, or would you cap independent expenditures in judicial campaigns (recognizing that such a move might begin to level the playing field that now tilts against citizens’ rights).”

This deserves consideration, although you have to be careful to avoid Constitutional conflicts. Still, I’ve got no problem with the idea of keeping judicial elections a bit more low-key than we’ve seen recently. If neither the BIAW nor the WEA can spend piles of money in a judical race, we might just get a fair judicial election (and a lot less of those signs littering the roadside).

19. The Socialist spews:

well I don’t listen to rash so I hadn’t herd the hurican story :-)

20. The Socialist spews:

is George Allen a JEEEWWW?

rtflmfao

21. Horace spews:

No HL, I’m not talking about corporate citizens. I’m talking about human citizens (who are not union members or BIAW members). I’m talking about citizens who don’t have PAC’s representing their interests in NOT being taxed excessively, and NOT having governments condemn their land, and NOT being presented with deceptive ballot measures. For example, I’d call Sound Transit’s 1996 ballot measure “deceptive:” it said there was going to be a ten-year program of taking in taxes at a high rate, and then after the construction there would be a reduction to just pay for ongoing costs and debt service. But the supreme court upheld that ballot measure. And the taxes are going on far beyond what the voters were told. There are of course other examples, the point being that the court goes along with governments at the expense of _human_ citizens who don’t have PAC’s representing their interests.

22. headless lucy spews:

re 16: And most of that tax money goes right back to the corporations. You, of all people, should love to be taxed!

23. John Barelli spews:

Commentby Horace— 9/28/06@ 9:42 am

So many assumptions, so few facts. Let me take a swing at this one.

“I’ve got a question for you progressives. Do you believe that governments should respect limits when it comes to citizens’ private rights?

Absolutely. The Republican Congress has been running roughshod over individual rights for several years. Just a few examples of this are include the Right to privacy.

The Fourth Amendment says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Somehow warrantless wiretapping and secret letters demanding my library turn over my reading list to the government just doesn’t seem to jibe with this.

In other words, right now we have a State Supreme Court that always sides with governments against citizens. This is an assumption without any facts to back it up.

There are very few property rights cases that actually make it to the Washington Supreme Court, but one that immediately comes up is “Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington v. State” which stated:

“The State of Washington has a long history of extending greater protections against governmental takings of private property by literally defining what constitutes “private use.” …While Washington case law concerns “private/public use” the federal cases concern “private/public purposes.”

Essentially, the court confirmed that the Washington State Constitution provides stronger protections for property owners than the US Constitution, and that municipalities cannot condemn private property to turn it over to developers. (BIAW hated this decision.)

“Sure, that means the SEIU will contribute big to their campaigns and the incumbents will be able to stay on the bench, but is that such a good thing? Do you think that governments SHOULD be constrained when they set out to condemn property, or impose taxes, or put propositions on the ballot that contain not-quite-clear language? TIA!”

I answered part of this one above, in my response about the Supreme Court, but let me make it clear.

Yes, government should be, and is constrained on their rights to impose taxes, put unclear propositions on the ballot and to condemn property.

Individuals should also be constrained from putting unclear initiatives on the ballot (are you listening, Mr. Eyeman?).

So essentially, what you are asking for, you have, courtesy of us “progressives”.

You’re welcome.

24. The Socialist spews:

1.

that was actuily kind of funny Buttnutz. :-)

25. Daddy Love spews:

JCH

Unless you can amend our Contitutions to the contrary, the “rights” that you have are those that are protected from State intrusion by the enumeration of the Bill of Rights et. al. (that means, “and others”). The right to property is covered in teh Fifth amendment, which states that you cannot be deprived of your property without due process of law. An elected body representing the citizenry as a whole voting to tax itself is surely due process, and the fact that you can challenge such legislation in court is due process. Good luck with the tax thing.

26. righton spews:

You libs happy having the 8th district candidate doing all her fund raising in Seattle?

I mean, you all used to be small d democrats, interested in voter rights.

Now its anything goes, including all her smear ads. She lies about her record, his record.

Have you no shame?

27. headless lucy spews:

JCH re 1: I can almost hear the swishing sound of your giant, floppy clown shoes as you micturate in excitement over your excuse to make racist remarks. Much like George Makakastein.

I bet PUDDYBUD (Bre’r Rabbit) is none to happy with you over those remarks!

28. headless lucy spews:

I think if unions are forced to get the go-ahead from all their members every year before making ploitical contributions, then corporations should be forced to get similar documentation from stockholders and employees before making political contributions.

Same thing, bucko!

29. headless lucy spews:

re 20: Call me a cynic, but every time there is a movement that proposes to “get government off our backs”, there seems to be a lot of money coming from people who want to get corporations ON our back.

Old money and corporate power are synonymous. If our government is oppressing small property owners you can be sure that there is a collusion there between corrupt business and corrupt government.

Who is funding the anti-taxers?

30. Anonymous spews:

tumors hopelessness glitter Chesterfield shove.inexpensive:generating,- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

31. Reporterward spews:

Oh, and far from defending the BIAW, they’re big enough on their own to do that on their own.
What I was observing is that they are not “EVIL” as my friend Goldy was trying to imply. Massacre a million Armenians, that’s evil.
As I further observed, groups like the BIAW are pushing back against what is perceived (and is in many cases) overstrenuous “environmental” and regulatory statutes. And if you were to ever leave the confines between Roxbury and Ravena you’d know what those were.

32. Horace spews:

I’ve got a question for you progressives. Do you believe that governments should respect limits when it comes to citizens’ private rights? In other words, right now we have a State Supreme Court that always sides with governments against citizens. Sure, that means the SEIU will contribute big to their campaigns and the incumbents will be able to stay on the bench, but is that such a good thing? Do you think that governments SHOULD be constrained when they set out to condemn property, or impose taxes, or put propositions on the ballot that contain not-quite-clear language? TIA!