HorsesAss.Org

In case you didn’t catch this item, it seems that the situation involving indicted financier Allen Stanford and his wooing of Congress-creatures from both parties is about to get a whole lot more interesting. From The Miami Herald:

The Justice Department is investigating millions of dollars Stanford and his staff contributed to lawmakers over the past decade to determine if the banker received special favors from politicians while building his spectacular offshore bank in Antigua, The Miami Herald has learned.

Agents are examining campaign dollars, as well as lavish Caribbean trips funded by Stanford for politicians and their spouses, feting them with lobster dinners and caviar.

The money Stanford gave Sessions and other lawmakers was stolen from his clients while he carried out what prosecutors now say was one of the nation’s largest Ponzi schemes.

There is an obvious and basic problem with money itself being equated with free speech, although until the Supremes might be persuaded to change their minds on that score, I guess nothing much is going to change.

In the Stanford case it appears a criminal was able to thwart legislation that might have uncovered his crimes, by using his ill-gotten gains. Sweet!

Al Capone was an idiot, of course, because he was basically a street thug. The modern thug uses offshore banks and impresses Congress creatures with his wealth and taste. Er, pleased to meet you…

A lot of normal people are scraping the grape jelly jar clean to get one more PBJ sandwich, and these suited thugs were slobbering all over themselves for caviar at tropical resorts. Nice image heading into 2010, I must say. “But…but…but…but…that’s how the world works!”

Yeah, I know. That’s the problem. If the only action average people feel they can take is to vote in a blind rage, they will do it. Whether that hurts Democrats or Republicans more is starting to become irrelevant. The country is being harmed terribly by the current system of campaign finance and lobbying, not just on health care but on every issue.

Frankly I’m surprised and not a little alarmed that this major story by the Miami Herald isn’t getting more traction, although hopefully that will change with a new work week, albeit a shortened holiday one.

In summarizing The Year’s Most Underreported Stories over at Publicola, Erica writes:

4) The political demise of Tim Eyman and those that brung him.

Obviously, Tim Eyman isn’t going away–the former watch salesman’s entire livelihood depends on bringing in new contributions, and new contributions require new campaigns. But this year’s stunning defeat of his latest tax-slashing measure, Initiative 1033 (his first tax measure, importantly, to be defeated) spells doom for future Eyman initiatives. Voters don’t have to be told that taxes pay for things they need anymore–they can see it all around them, in the state’s crumbling infrastructure, the closure of county parks, and the ongoing budget crisis at the city, state, and county levels.

Moreover–to paraphrase Josh–Eyman’s defeat this year is good news for Democrats in general, suggesting that last summer’s anti-government, anti-Obama backlash was overblown.

Yeah, well—to paraphrase Mark Twain—the reports of Tim Eyman’s death have been greatly exaggerated.

It’s not that I-1033 didn’t go down to a crushing defeat, even in much of traditionally pro-Eyman/anti-tax Eastern Washington. But it’s not like Eyman initiatives haven’t been defeated before… and besides, it kinda misses the point of what Eyman does.

Eyman doesn’t run initiative campaigns; he gets initiatives on the ballot. In recent years, those of his initiatives that have generated a sufficiently well-financed No campaign have been defeated, while those that have gone unopposed have not.

From a business perspective, it really doesn’t matter all that much to Eyman whether he wins or loses. Sure, he needs an occasional win or near-win to maintain the shred of relevance necessary to garner media attention, but Eyman has long been a kept man of a single sugar daddy, and as long as Woodinville investment banker Michael Dunmire continues to finance his signature drives, Eyman will continue to qualify initiatives for the ballot, and continue to make a nice living in the process.

And from a political perspective, as long as Eyman continues to qualify initiatives for the ballot, he’ll continue to put Democrats on the defensive.

Just take a look at I-1033. Sure, it lost by a whopping 18-point margin, and in 24 of 39 counties… but only after the No campaign spent over $3.5 million to defeat it. $3.5 million. That’s money, largely from progressive donors, that could have been spent on a more proactive agenda, such as enacting tax restructuring or education finance reform or something productive like that. That’s $3.5 million that won’t be available, for example, to help elect progressive Democrats in 2010.

If you believe Eyman’s primary objective is to pass stuff, well then, yeah, I guess I-1033’s defeat must look pretty bad for him. But if you understand Eyman for what he really is—our state’s biggest political monkey, wielding our state’s biggest political monkey wrench (the initiative process)—well then, 2009 wasn’t such a bad year for him after all.

And a pretty damn profitable one at that.

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa for his second in a row. It was Juarez, Mexico.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

2 Kings 2:23-24

²³ Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
²⁴ So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Discuss.

The most disturbing tidbit from yesterday’s airplane terror attempt:

Although transportation officials had not announced new security measures yet, Air Canada said the Transportation Security Agency would make significant changes to the way passengers are able to move about on aircraft. During the final hour of flight, customers will have to remain seated, will not be allowed access to carry-on baggage and cannot have personal belongings or other items on their laps, according to a notice on Air Canada’s Web site.

In effect, that means passengers on flights of about 90 minutes or less will not be able to get out of their seats, since they are not allowed to move about while an airplane is climbing to its cruising altitude.

Air Canada also told its United States bound customers that they would be limited to a single carry-on item and that they would be subjected to personal and baggage searches at security check points and in the gate area. It said this would result in significant delays, canceled flights and missed connections.

As if passengers aren’t already terrorized enough by the airlines as it is.

Of course, the most effective air travel security measure is to discourage people from traveling by air, so I guess at least in that sense, such an over-reaction would be effective.

That’s gotta hurt.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Disappointing as the details might be to most progressives, it’s still historic.

Okay, so here’s how it works.

The Senate version of health care reform absolutely sucks, and progressives need to oppose it as loudly and effectively as they can, even threatening to torpedo health care reform entirely if there aren’t some pretty big changes. And then we all have to bite our tongues and support the final bill that comes out of conference, even if it largely resembles that sucky Senate bill.

Why? Because as sucky as it is compared to what we all wanted, it’s a helluva lot better than what the American people have now. And, if you think the Democrats are going to have a larger majority in either House after 2010, especially after failing to pass health reform, then you’re smoking crack.

The Democrats are going to lose seats in 2010, because that’s the natural order of things for the party in control of the White House during off year elections, and because many of the seats we picked up in 2006 and 2008 are seats the Republicans never should have lost. (ID-01 a Democratic stronghold? Enjoy your crack.) And as President Clinton learned in 1994, promising to deliver on health care only to fall flat on your face, doesn’t much help at the polls.

You want Obama to fail? Reject health care reform. You want the Democrats to lose a ton of seats in 2010? Reject health care reform.  You want to stop insurance companies from denying you coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or dropping your coverage once you get sick? Well, even the sucky Senate bill does that.

Yeah, I know that conservative Dems and insurance industry shills like Lieberman have us over a barrel, and that totally sucks, but that’s the way it is. We lost this debate when Ned Lamont lost in the general, and there’s just not much we can do about it at the moment.

So I’ve got no problem with progressive Dems yelling and screaming and complaining, and doing everything they can to blow the damn thing up. Call your congressman and your senators and tell them they can kiss your vote goodbye if this is what comes out of conference. That’s what I’m planning to do.

But once the deal is done, I’m not embarrassed to admit that I’ll be flip-flopping faster than a flapjack on a hot griddle.

Cynical? Yeah, sorta. But that’s politics.

Yesterday I wrote about how headline writers can influence the perception of news.

At first, the front page of the Seattle Times website reported on new crime statistics with the alarmist headline, “Seattle sees sharp increase in crime.” Later, they walked the headline back to the less provocative and more accurate, “Seattle sees increase in crime after two record-low years.”

Meanwhile, both headlines linked to the same article with the same confusingly written headline: “Sharp increase in Seattle robberies, assaults; murders, rapes down.” (I’m betting I’m not the only one who initially missed the semicolon.)

But after stumbling across a print edition of the Times (it was being used as a coaster in a bar), I’m not sure what all the online indecision and confusion was about:

I dunno… looks to me that the headline in the print edition got it just about right. Why couldn’t the online edition just go with that?

It never occurred to me before, but are different editors writing the headlines for the online edition than the print edition, and if so, what could possibly account for translating “up slightly” into “sharp increase” other than a desire to use hyperbole to trick readers into clicking through?

If online really is the future of news, it doesn’t bode well that the Times apparently holds its online edition to a lower standard than its print.

The Seattle Times once again argues that President Obama should abandon health care reform, because, you know, failing to deliver on the issue worked out so well for President Clinton and the Democrats in 1994.

But what really struck me from this morning’s editorial was the odd construction of the following sentence:

Whether senators fully understand it we doubt.

Who wrote this editorial? Yoda?

Here’s hoping he can persuade the rest of the editorial board from continuing down the path to the dark side.

The Cannabis Defense Coalition just received the second document dump from the State Department of Corrections. The documents are now posted at their website. I’m looking through them now and hope to provide an update on my previous post on their (and the AG’s) attempts to undermine the medical marijuana law here in Washington.

Join us tonight for a little dose of Christmas spirit and some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning about 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier and enjoy dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 340 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

(From Crooks and Liars, via BlatherWatch)

Jesus… could Chris Matthews let Darcy Burner finish a single sentence? Um, no, but I think Darcy stood up to it pretty well. She never lost her patience, and kept a smile on her face, making Matthews come off as a bit of an asshole.

All that aside, isn’t it interesting that when the cable news folks are looking for someone credible to talk to about health care reform, they come to Darcy Burner, and not Do Nuthin’ Dave Reichert?  Hmm.