Search Results for: ’

Andrew Sullivan has been dutifully debunking some of the terrible arguments in defense of marijuana prohibition. Conor Friedersdorf has been doing the same. The discussion in those posts centers around a defense of paternalism being made by those in favor of keeping marijuana markets underground. Mark Kleiman here makes a partial defense of those arguments:

Sullivan is horrified by the frank paternalism involved, but horror isn’t a criticism, and he’s wrong to attribute to Frum and Dreher the notion that “all American adults are basically children that we have to protect from their own choices.” What Frum and Dreher are saying is that some Americans – many of them minors – are indeed in need of protection from their own bad choices. (Dreher is especially clear-minded in pointing out that the need for paternalistic protection varies not just from person to person but from choice to choice: lots of people are capable of managing their diets but not their retirement financial planning. I, for example, want paternalistic protection against being sold adulterated drugs or contaminated food.) There’s no logical flaw in the idea that more-liberal policies in a variety of domains might serve the interests of those better-placed to make good choices at the expense of those worse-placed.

There’s an important distinction that’s not being made here. There’s a difference between an uninformed choice, where a buyer is unaware of the true consequences of their decision-making, and a potentially “bad” choice, where people are fully aware of the consequences of their decision-making and are willing to accept the risks. In the former, we should certainly have laws that protect consumers from having to make uninformed decisions where the seller has an advantage that they can exploit. That’s true in our financial markets and in various other places. But it’s not true for adults buying marijuana.

When adults buy marijuana, they’re not being conned into buying a product they don’t understand. For minors, you can more easily make that argument, and that’s why the folks pushing for the end of marijuana prohibition support age limits on its purchase in a regulated market. Like Kleiman, I’d love to see “paternalistic” laws against being sold adulterated marijuana, but those laws are only possible in a legal, regulated marketplace. But identifying any adult purchase of marijuana as a “bad” choice that needs to be prevented is a far different level of paternalism than trying to keep people from being suckered into a bad mortgage or buying contaminated fruit.

The second half of Kleiman’s post tries to make an interesting parallel between prohibition and a lack of prohibition, which was summarized in this tweet:

Legalizing drugs tempts people into drug abuse. Banning them tempts people with drug dealing.

— SameFacts (@SameFacts) January 11, 2013

Both Pete Guither and I found this to be odd, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. I find this to be a very uneven parallel between prohibition and regulated markets. Even under prohibition, the risks of drug abuse still exist, and in some ways they can be exacerbated. Yet under a regulated market, drug dealing is called “commerce”. There aren’t people being tempted into a potentially lucrative (although usually not) life of illegally producing or selling those drugs. The tradeoffs are far from equal in their magnitude.

To expand on that a bit, I certainly know some folks here in Washington who have more interest in trying marijuana now that it’s legal. Taking away that stigma of illegality will certainly expand the amount of folks who are willing to try it. But that subset of the population tends to be older, and far less likely to embark on a lifetime of vaporizer sessions after breakfast. So Kleiman is correct to note that drug use could go up, but on the other side of that, regulated markets that limit sales only to adults will put up a barrier at the other end of the age scale.

Most people accept that lots of young people will still be able to get access to marijuana through friends or with fake ID’s (just as with alcohol), but it’s an additional barrier that didn’t exist before. And it’s being put where it can do the most good, as numerous studies have shown that the earlier in life a marijuana habit begins, the more likely it is to become a more serious problem. Even if that trade-off yields higher overall use rates, it could potentially still be better overall from a drug abuse standpoint.

And thankfully, we already have the experience of Holland over the past several decades to know that an open marketplace for marijuana doesn’t lead to large increases in use. Compared to neighboring countries, the Dutch don’t use marijuana at a higher rate, despite the temptation of coffeeshops where it can be freely purchased.

The main point here is that the first part of Kleiman’s trade-off is largely negligible in its magnitude (and possibly non-existent). Yet the second part is enormous, when you factor in the overall societal costs of funneling tens of billions of dollars into a lucrative black market, tempting those with few options into risking arrest to get some of that money. Kleiman suggests that in poorer neighborhoods, this trade-off might still be close. I find that to be laughable, and more and more people in poor and minority communities are demanding an end to the drug war for the very same reason.

I was intending to do another zzzzzzz post for McGinn. I’ll probably vote for him, but I’m still giving Ed Murray and Peter Steinbrueck a look. I mean mostly, he’s been good but his standing in the way of police reform has been problematic. Part of the original consist was that it was the holidays when the other people announced. But still, mayor runs for mayor would have worked. Anyway, in stead of that, I’m going to make fun of this article in Crosscut (h/t to my friend Brice):

Luck of the Irish: McGinn makes his campaign move

Awesome title. The fact that he’s Irish is relevant to his campaign, somehow. And I think we can all agree that the colon was appropriate: after all a campaign move flows naturally from luck/and or his ancestry. He quotes his mom as saying “it’s better to be lucky than smart” without any context from the piece. And there’s no mention of his Irishness after the title, so really great job all around. I don’t know if Crosscut writers write their own headlines, but this is certainly not a great start.

Location, location, location, and the location where Mayor Mike McGinn chose to announce his bid for reelection spoke volumes: far from the madding club crowds of Capitol Hill and Belltown that helped drive his first election, at the Filipino Community Center on MLK Way in the heart of the Rainier Valley.

I didn’t know where to break this up, but that’s one sentence. “Location, location, location, and” what the fuck is that? I know it’s supposed to be what people look for in real estate, but Mike McGinn isn’t buying it. You can say the location, location, location thing, I guess, but just throwing it out there doesn’t help anything. Then he seems to think there are club crowds in Capitol Hill and Belltown on a Wednesday afternoon. FACT: Some people go to clubs and live in the South End.

It was a perfect stage for a perfectly casual event, in a suitably undersized, overstuffed room that reinforced the impression of clamoring urgency for, as supporters chanted twice, four more years.

Anywhere is fine for a casual event, especially on Wednesday afternoon. I don’t think holding it in South Seattle is bad. I’ve been to several South Seattle McGinn events, and I’m glad McGinn makes an effort to include that area.

A representative selection of minority community leaders sang his praises. El Centro director (and campaign co-chair) Estela Ortega, who, “in the spirit of Roberto Maestas,” capped her passionate panegyric with a few fist-pumping rounds of “Viva Mike McGinn!” Rep. Kip Tokuda, fellow co-chair Tony Lee, and Mohammed Yussuf variously echoed the themes she sounded: The mayor listens.

This isn’t a particularly good place to break it up, but it’s as good as it gets from here (and we’re still in the lede!). The support of this community is great for him. Still, I suspect they’d get on the light rail if the event were Downtown. Or on a car if it was further North. Or maybe take a car. Some McGinn supporters drive sometimes.

He didn’t cut social programs during the bust, and now that the money’s rolling back in he’ll expand them (including ours). He gets “tangible results”: rebuilding the seawall, a new basketball stadium, clearing the snow from the streets (a dig at McGinn’s predecessor, Greg Nickels). He got the libraries open on Sundays and a jumbo Families and Education levy passed.

Yay. We’re finally done with the first paragraph. I’ve been nursing a cold today, so I don’t think this will get the metacommentary it deserves. But I’d be missing the reason to write it if I didn’t skip to:

When he enumerated his transportation accomplishments and goals, Mayor post-McSchwinn [?] knew not to mention bikeways to this crowd. Many here still smart at seeing steep Othello Street/Myrtle Place squeezed down to one crowded lane each way for bike lanes that no pedalers [sic] use — while no one thought to include bike lanes when Sound Transit ran rail down wide, level MLK Way.

There were probably political reasons for not mentioning bikes. But honestly, my fat ass has no problem riding those hills, so at least don’t pretend nobody does it. Hell, McGinn probably rode there, so he might have taken those same routes that nobody takes.

Honestly, it’s not a bad rough draft. But it’s not a story yet, Crosscut.

I’m writing today to ask you to oppose John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA. This country should not put into office someone who helped bring about the torture regime. It’s bad enough that it happened at all. It’s bad enough that it happened in our name. It’s bad enough that that there were no prosecutions above the lowest levels. But for God’s sake, the least the Senate can do is oppose a high level torturer for a job at the CIA.

And look, I know that other than the torture, Brennan is highly qualified. But what a qualifier to have to add! It seems that some things should be off limits.

And yes, I realize this could be a political blow to Obama. I recognize the problems with that, and as someone who supported him, that will be too bad. But he shouldn’t have nominated someone who supported a program that “included slamming detainees’ heads against walls; prolonged standing in stress positions; beating and kicking; prolonged shackling of hands and feet; and much more.”

Thank you,
Carl Ballard

If you want to write Cantwell or Murray an email, the forms are at their names.

West Seattle Blog passes this along this Department of Ecology request to help document the high tides in the coming month.

The dates for January’s king tides vary slightly depending on location:

· In the Strait of Juan de Fuca, king tides will occur Jan. 8-13.

· Along Washington’s outer coast, they occur Jan. 10-12.

· The Puget Sound dates for king tides are Jan. 14-17.

Follow these steps to participate:

· Use Ecology’s king tide map and schedule to find when and where the highest tides will occur. Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_hightide_map.htm.

· Locate a public beach by checking out Ecology’s Coastal Atlas at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/.

· Take photos during a king tide, preferably where the high water levels can be gauged against familiar landmarks such as sea walls, jetties, bridge supports or buildings.

· Note the date, time and location of your photo – then upload your images on the Washington King Tide Photo Initiative Flickr Group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/1611274@N22/.

· Play it safe! While the winter king tides occur during daylight hours, don’t venture out during severe weather and keep a close eye on rising water levels.

I love the citizen participation aspect of this. Hopefully they get a lot of good data.

Mark Kleiman accuses Eugene Jarecki, director of the anti-drug war movie “The House I Live In”, of engaging in some truthiness:

I saw a screening of the anti-incarceration documentary The House I Live In some months ago. The film is right that prisons are horrible places and that we have vastly too many people in them. And it’s right that the “war on drugs” causes untold needless suffering. But the film strongly implies that the mass-incarceration problem consists mostly of non-violent drug dealers serving ludicrously long terms. False.

In fact, only about 20% of U.S. incarceration is on drug charges, and by no means are all of those folks non-violent. That’s still way too many drug prisoners; have drugs-only incarceration rate higher than the total incarceration rate of anyplace we’d like to compare ourselves with. But if we let them tomorrow, we’d still have four times our historical incarceration rate and four times the incarceration rate of any other OECD country, instead of five times.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I can’t say for sure that Kleiman is misrepresenting Jarecki’s viewpoint, but his use of “strongly implies” rather than “says” makes me very suspicious that he is. If Jarecki is merely saying that the drug war is primarily responsible for our mass incarceration problems, he’s correct. And Kleiman’s response that only 20% of those incarcerated are there for drug charges misses the bigger picture by a mile.

The most widespread damage done by the drug war isn’t necessarily that low-level drug offenders go to jail for a long time. The damage is done by the downstream effects of having that in your criminal record for the rest of your life. Even if someone arrested for simple drug possession never goes to jail, they often take plea deals that leave them with a criminal record. And that follows them everywhere, making it extremely difficult for many of them to get money for school, get into public housing, or find employment. People caught in this situation often become destined to a life of more serious and more violent crime.

So to imply that 80% of America’s prisoners would still be there regardless of the war on drugs is incredibly off-base. A significant number of those prisoners had their first contact with the criminal justice system as a result of the drug war and – as a result of that contact – were set on a path of likelier criminality. This phenomenon is explained very well by Michelle Alexander in “The New Jim Crow”. And with over 1 million drug arrests occurring annually, we’re putting enormous amounts of Americans down this path, particularly minorities and the poor.

In addition, this analysis doesn’t even take into account the fact that many of the violent offenders in the criminal justice system are there because of the prohibitionist policies that lead to violent confrontations within black markets in the first place. As one of the commenters to the post pointed out, the Global Commission on Drug Policy points out quite simply that “Drug Policy and the incarceration of low-level drug offenders is the primary cause of mass incarceration in the United States.” I have trouble believing that Kleiman would dispute that, but his post “strongly implies” that he does.

Young Turks: Republican Santa?!?

Rappin’ up 2012

Young Turks: Dick Armey’s armed teabagging coup:

Sam Seder on Social Security hater Alan Simpson.

Fiscalcliff-n-Debtceiling:

• Sam Seder: Fiscal Cliff? US Deficit shrinking at fastest pace since WW II.
• Young Turks: CNBC anchor completely flips out over fiscal cliff
• Obama makes statement on avoiding a middle class tax hike.
• Sam Seder: When Republicans say, “broaden the base,” they mean “screw the middle class.”
• Young Turks: Debt ceiling fear mongering.
• Sam Seder: Why the U.S. doesn’t have a debt crisis.

Thom: The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Young Turks: DUI for a dry politician?

Guns, God, Kids, and Schools:

• Ann Telnaes: NRA’s Body Language.
• David Gregory shows high-capacity ammunition magazine on ‘Meet The Press’ (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Young Turks: Military grade weapons show up at gun buy-back
• Nutjob Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants ‘armed posse’ to protect Arizona schools (via Crooks and Liars).
• Liberal Viewer: Gun control or God control?
• Red State Update: Gun Control.
• Mark Fiore: Bumper Sticker Action.
• Young Turks: Celebrities call for gun control.

White House: West Wing Week.

How Republicans will raise your milk prices (via Crooks and Liars).
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

I hadn’t read this New York Times piece on the GOP takeover of the Washington State Senate until today. It’s pretty much a standard recap, but I hadn’t heard Tim Sheldon’s view that Jay Inslee doesn’t represent the state.

“Seattle-centric,” said Senator Tim Sheldon, a two-decade veteran lawmaker and Democrat from a district west of Olympia, summing up the combination of forces that alienated him: safe seats in Seattle, campaign money raised in safe seats but spread around, and a caucus that rewards and reinforces the safe-seat equation with powerful leadership posts. “They’re not representative of the state,” he said.

The fact that Gov.-elect Jay Inslee, a former Democratic congressman, will take office in January having won majorities in only eight liberal counties* while losing in the other 31 only bolstered the case for change, said Mr. Sheldon, who said he voted for Mr. Inslee’s opponent, Rob McKenna, the state’s attorney general and a Republican.

He lost the counties 8 to 31, but we don’t vote by county. We have human beings vote. And the human beings pretty easily supported Inslee. To imply that Jay Inslee is less representative of Washington because he didn’t do as well in Adams or Mason counties is the height arrogance.

Those of us who live in Seattle, in addition to funding the schools in Tim Sheldon’s district, in addition to funding social services in his district, have the right to vote. If Tim Sheldon is out of step with the state as a whole when we vote for governor, well, maybe that’s because the state is more Seattle centric than he is.

[Read more…]

As I said in today’s Open Thread, McGinn announced the next step on the Missing Link. So it’s that Seattle will conduct an Environmental Impact Statement.

“We are eager to complete the Missing Link, and conducting a full EIS is the best way to break the legal log jam on this project,” said McGinn. “We are also moving ahead on safety improvements on the street that can be implemented quickly to help everyone share the road.”

“For over a decade the City has been working to complete the Burke-Gilman Trail. I am confident that with careful planning both bicyclists and freight and industrial traffic will be able to co-exist successfully in Ballard,” said Rasmussen, chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee.

“The Burke-Gilman Trail is a busy, multi-use trail that provides an important connection to residents and businesses in Ballard. I’m glad to see that the City is moving ahead with its plans to close the Missing Link and with these other safety improvements,” said Davidya Kasperzyk, Founding Board Member of Friends of the Burke-Gilman Trail.

For the past decade and a half or so, I’ve been skeptical and excited about the next step on the missing link pretty much whatever the next step is. So hopefully the EIS will get done and we can finally go ahead on completing it. But who knows?

I’ve been thinking about what the state can do as far as gun control in the next session. Most sensible regulations will get caught up in Rodney Tom’s GOP Senate. And I’m not sure I’d want to test our state constitution or the current US Supreme Court, even now. But it seems to me that we could probably fine the gun manufacturers for every death by a gun in Washington.

I’m thinking something large enough that it would impact their bottom line, but not enough that it would put them out of business. So every murder, every suicide, every hunting accident, every police officer shooting that ends with a death gets, say, a $2000 fine for the manufacturer of that gun assessed at the end of each year. Doesn’t matter if it was legally purchased, stolen, or whatever — you made the gun, you pay a price.

We can use the money to go to gun safety programs if you like. Or victim compensation. I’d be fine with just putting it in the general fund, but I wouldn’t want the legislature to become dependent on it, since the goal is to have it not produce any money. In any event where the money goes isn’t as important as getting it in the first place.

A fee like that would encourage gun manufacturers to make their guns in a way that won’t be involved in killings any more. A problem with regulation is that the manufacturers will just do the minimum. Putting a direct cost on dead people will encourage them to make guns that won’t cause problems, and will let the market decide what’s the most effective way.

If the best way to prevent gun deaths is safety training, the manufacturers will invest in that. If it’s locks or fingerprint technology, the manufacturers will invest in that. If it’s designing guns that are fine for hunting, but bad for school shootings or street crime, they’ll do that. If it’s just not having super, super irresponsible ads,* they’ll do that. In any event, let’s put a price on dead people and make the people who manufactured the tool of death pay.

All that said, I know that the legislature probably won’t do that with a GOP senate that has a pretty gun loving chair of the Law and Justice Committee. And depending on what the courts say it might need a 2/3 majority since it’s a fee; if that does happen, put it on the ballot.

[Read more…]

A week before Christmas seems like a not great time to announce you’re running for mayor. But fine whatever. Another ostensible liberal who zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. No I’m awake. Another candidate for mayor:

A former president of the Greenwood Community Council, who’s carved out a niche as an advocate for neighborhood organizing and education reform, Martin tells The Stranger that she’ll file paperwork this week to run for mayor. A Seattle resident since 1979, Martin runs her own design firm after getting a BA in landscape architecture at the State University of New York.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh what? No I’m awake. I’m awake. zzzzzzz

“I think I have a pretty nice menu of supporters… I take time to analyze issues and understand both side of the argument,” says Martin, eschewing the policy briefings she says her competitors rely on. “I think that people know that. I have a conscience. And I also have a spine.”

Oh great. Awesome eschewing of cliche. Neat. I’m zzzzzzzzzzz.

1 Corinthians 7:2-9
Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband because of sexual immorality. The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband. The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Don’t refuse to meet each other’s needs unless you both agree for a short period of time to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come back together again so that Satan might not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I’m saying this to give you permission; it’s not a command. I wish all people were like me, but each has a particular gift from God: one has this gift, and another has that one.

I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.

Discuss.

Joel Connelly has the details on the public comment period for the coal train hearing next Thursday.

Previous “scoping sessions” in Whatcom, Skagit and Spokane Counties — held by the Washington Dept. of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Whatcom County — have drawn overflow crowds.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, and other Northwest Washington mayors, have warned about the disruption of having a succession of mile-long coal trains, bound for Cherry Point, move along the waterfronts of their cities each day. McGinn worries that after waiting for one long train to go by, waterfront traffic lineups won’t be able to clear in time for the next train.

“Transportation impacts evolve into economic impacts,” McGinn said this week.

I’m opposed to the coal trains, but if they run them, I hope the city and the state have a plan to mitigate the traffic and coal dust. So come on out and make your voice heard.

The Dec. 13 meeting in Seattle will be held at the Washington State Convention Center, Ballroom 6f. The ballroom has a capacity of 3,500 people. Doors will open at 3:30 for people to find seats, and to put down their names for the upcoming drawings.

I hate to make promises about these things, especially because I haven’t done the proper inquiries about media, but I think I’m going to live blog it.

Rob McKenna’s wife is right about marriage equality (h/t).

In an email to The Seattle Times, Marilyn McKenna added that while she and her husband disagree on the subject, they respect each other’s opinions. “I believe that being pro-gay marriage is completely consistent with being a Republican too. It’s a matter of personal choice that the government has no right to interfere in,” she wrote.

She added in a second email: “Both the government and the Republican Party need to get the hell out of people’s bedrooms and get a life!”

Great. I mean sure. I’m glad to have Republicans on board the human decency train. Of course that’s easy enough to say after marriage equality passed, and when it’s a done deal. I hope this is part of a genuine reassessment on the part of the GOP, but I fear they’ll be just as backwards on whatever is the next issue of basic dignity in the state as they mostly were on this one.

Dear Senators,

Congratulation, assholes, for blocking the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities yesterday. You done “real good!”

Let’s see…you further narrowed your alarmingly narrow base:

If you thought the Republican Party only tries to appeal to well-off, married, white suburban and rural Christian men, boy are you wrong. The Republican Party tried to appeal only to well-off, white, suburban and rural able-bodied Christian men.

Nice!

In rejecting the treaty, you spit in the face of both former Sen. Bob Dole and former President George H.W. Bush—you know, the guy who signed the American With Disabilities Act, that serves as model law for signatory states. Oh…and George W. Bush, whose administration negotiated the treaty in the first place, and who first signed the treaty.

Really, nice work!

Instead you cast your lot with the fringe extremists of your party—the American Taliban, if you will. And the American Taliban’s top General is Senator Rick Santorum, who convinced you to reject the treaty because:

…parents and caregivers care most deeply and are best equipped to care for the disabled. Not international bureaucrats.

Except that the treaty does not put “international bureaucrats” in charge of children with disabilities. The very idea completely contradicts the words and spirit of the treaty (try reading it, ya nutjobbers!), which is almost entirely about countries agreeing to pass laws ensuring people with disabilities receive the same opportunities that are enjoyed by persons without disabilities.

Santorum’s overt lie misinformation about the treaty is strikingly similar to, and as absurd as, Sarah Palin’s 2009 lie-of-the-year award winning, repeatedly debunked “Obama’s Death Panels” crazy talk.

Santorum also frets:

Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

But here is what the treaty says:

Article 7 – Children with disabilities

• States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
• In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Wow…I can see how considering the best interests of the child in passing laws to ensure equality of “full human rights and fundamental freedoms” might threaten the fuck out of you. The little rugrats might try to vote!

And it isn’t just General Santorum. Some of you bought the bullshit of General Tony Perkins:

“The global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

Actually, what the treaty says is:

Article 23 – Respect for home and the family

1. States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others, so as to ensure that:

a. The right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses is recognized;

b. The rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided;

c. Persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others.

Literally, the treaty encourages countries to provide the same reproductive options to persons with disabilities as are available to persons without disabilities. But Tony Perkins is a well known lying sack of shit uninformed dissembling nutjob. So…”good job” there.

And that’s not all. You:

…bought the bogus argument that to vote for the U.N. treaty would mean that the U.N. committee overseeing the ban on discrimination against the disabled, including children, could violate the rights of American parents who decide to home school their disabled children.

Nuh-huh. What the treaty does do is ensure that children with disabilities have the same rights to schooling, including home schooling that children without disabilities have.

This “home schooling” concern can only be considered the rantings of lunatics who have not read the fucking treaty. That likely includes YOU and up to 37 of your esteemed, lunatic colleagues!

That’s not the craziest thing of all. The stupefyingly crazy thing comes from a whole other collection of wackjobs: The “U.N. sovereignty over the U.S.” conspiracy theorists. Santorum, of course, hinted at this.

Since the treaty is really designed to get countries to pass laws essentially modeled after the American With Disabilities Act, ratification of the treaty by the U.S. would really only subject the U.S. to a quadrennial reporting requirement. So, thank you, Senators, for saving us from the tyranny of writing the Easiest. Report. Ever. every four years.

Now that you have saved us from the autocracy of U.N. bureaucrats performing abortions and forced sterilization on home-schooled babies with disabilities, it’s time to move on the other important things.

You know…like outing high ranking government officials who are members of the New World Order (or the Muslim Brotherhood). Or revealing the truth about aliens and Area 51. And, for Pete’s sake, finally nailing Bill and Hillary Clinton for the death of Vince Foster!

Get to it!

Verily,
Darryl
Horsesass.org

– ACORN are still scary.

– Back to marrying couples for the first time since 2004.

– We’ve seen remarkable reductions in pedestrian collisions since the start of the Center City Holiday Pedestrian Safety Campaign four years ago – down on average 34 percent – but even one collision is too many.

– As a Hillary Clinton partisan in 2008, and probably one again if she runs, Joan Walsh’s note of skepticism is pretty much correct.

– It will surprise nobody that Patty Murray’s priorities for the debt negotiations are better than many of her colleagues.

– Lynwood missing link.

– Fuck you Boston and San Francisco.