HorsesAss.Org

The proud citizens of Brazil weren’t the only ones celebrating Rio’s selection as the host of the 2016 Summer Olympics; American conservatives apparently held an impromptu Carnival of their own:

When the International Olympic Committee voted against Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics this morning — after the President and First Lady flew to Copenhagen to push for it in person — the Weekly Standard newsroom burst into applause.

“Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters,” wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled “Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!” … McCormack’s fellow conservatives joined in the celebration…

“Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. No Obamalypics,” Michelle Malkin tweeted, following up with, “Game over on Obamalympics. Next up, Obamacare.”

“Please, please let me break this news to you. It’s so sweet,” said Glenn Beck on his radio show.

“Hahahahaha,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson. … The Drudge Report announced the news like so: “WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED.”

“For those of you … who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don’t deny it. I’m happy,” Limbaugh said. “Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me.”

“ChicagP\/\/n3D!” tweeted Newsmax, of recent fame for running, then pulling, a column about an impending military coup against Obama.

Yup, conservative Republicans really do hate America. Or perhaps, as TPM’s Josh Marshall astutely quipped, right-wingers just don’t consider Chicago to be part of America?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCesaJ479Vw[/youtube]

(And there are forty+ other media clips from the past week in politics featured at Hominid Views.)

You might want to go see “Capitalism: A Love Story” because it’s timely and Michael Moore is funny, but as an added benefit you will be supporting a non-svelte hypocrite who has used the existing film distribution channels to place his subversive movie in front of millions of eyeballs.

In other words, think of just how mad this film is going to make the corporate greed heads and conservative loons. It’s only just come out and they’re already doing the character assassination thing, so it must be pretty good.

I sincerely hope there are no rabbits, however. Popcorn will do, Mr. Moore.

For the life of me I can’t find an obvious way on Comcast’s website to report a downed wire, so if anybody from Comcast reads my blog:  hey… you’ve got a wire down in the street on S. Morgan, just East of the intersection with 51st AVE S!

Just thought you’d want to know.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4I2f0ZO6g[/youtube]

If there’s anything worse than being a crybaby, it’s being a fake crybaby.

Back in June, when I wrote that mayoral candidate Mike McGinn was having trouble securing endorsements from fellow environmentalists due to his reputation for not working and playing well with others, my post drew passionate rebuttals from McGinn and his supporters. And a few weeks back, when I reported that his fellow environmental leaders were, um, less than enthusiastic about McGinn’s surprising primary victory, I once again heard from McGinn faithful, accusing me of pulling this meme out of my ass.

“[T]he sentiment I heard from many of his fellow environmental leaders was more along the line of ‘oh well, I guess we kinda have to endorse him,’ rather than the outright enthusiasm one might have expected,” I wrote at the time. But, well, I’m man enough to admit my mistakes, for it looks like they didn’t really hafta endorse McGinn after all:

In an affront to environmental poster boy, Sierra Club leader and mayoral candidate Mike McGinn, the King County Conservation Voters have decided not to endorse either candidate in the mayor’s race.

Now, McGinn and his supporters can get all huffy if they want about the works and plays well with others meme, but when the region’s broadest coalition of environmental leaders just can’t bring itself to endorse one of their own — a man with unchallenged environmental credentials — it’s gotta say something about the many toes he’s stepped on (biked over?), if not his political style, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying I want a Mr. Nice Guy in the mayor’s office. It’s just always struck me as ironic that one of the big knocks against Mayor Nickels was his alleged unilateralism, and now we may be on the verge of electing a new mayor with the same bull in a china shop reputation.

Robert Reich on jobs:

Unemployment will almost certainly (be) in double-digits next year — and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household survey, you can bet there’s another either too discouraged to look for work or working part time who’d rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I’m in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there’s yet another person who’s more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.

Reich goes on to point out the basics of underemployment and the accompanying lack of consumer spending, and lays out in plain English the case for greater stimulative spending. While the debt is worrying, Reich argues that now is no time to worry about the debt and uses the example of Depression-era spending under FDR followed by post-war growth to argue that spending is the correct course to take.

Reich is also pointing out that in bad economic times, we tend to get ugly politics, which is an understatement. If you agree with his points, our country is essentially risking a long period of internal strife because of the overly simplistic views about government spending and debt that dominate our broken discourse.

Even Uncle Alan admitted that the “entire intellectual edifice” that underpinned neo-liberalism was a disaster. One can’t help but conclude that a lot of the recent insanity in politics results from the collapse of an economic belief system that was dominant in the empire for decades, and has yet to be fully discredited in the society at large. (Can you say “Russia?”)

So obviously Reich is arguing for a Keynesian approach.

One of the most entertaining quips by John Maynard Keynes is this bit from The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

To put this in regional terms, we should start building and repairing things like bridges, transit and schools, although I have to admit there would be a certain satisfaction obtained by burying money in crazy places. We could then sit back to watch as the GOP-multi-level marketing machine goes to work. In a short time there would be an entirely new class of bidness guys and gals selling various plans designed to profit from digging for the loot, and many of them would need new cars and furniture.

All of this is to say that I don’t understand why Reich isn’t in the government again. With continued woes in the housing sector, ordinary consumers being hammered by usurious banks and a bleak employment outlook, it’s baffling that the Obama administration hasn’t put Reich into a key post.

I guess it’s because Obama is from Chicago?

Whenever I attempt to highlight the growing danger of the far right’s increasingly violent rhetoric by provocatively pondering the potential impact of liberals openly carrying arms, my friend at the local Newsmax-wannabe site Orbusmax excitedly throws up an above the fold headline, warning about my dangerous, violent rhetoric. Some people just don’t get nuance.

So I wonder if The Orb is equally frightened by the column that appeared yesterday in his beloved Newsmax, which longingly mulled over the “gaining possibility” of a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem”…?

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

[…] Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

A military coup in defense of the Constitution? Uh-huh.

Still waiting to see that alarmist, above-the-fold headline, Orb.

Following up on yesterday’s post in which I explain for reporters why population-plus-inflation does not result in a stable revenue stream necessary to maintain government services at constant levels, I thought I’d quickly raise one more question in the minds of the press before they attempt to cover I-1033 in an objective and even-handed manner: what problem, exactly, is I-1033 intended to solve?

It can’t be because Washington is a high tax state. Even by the measurement of the conservative Tax Foundation, the organization whose stats Tim Eyman has long cherry-picked to support his tax cutting initiatives, Washington now ranks 35th in terms of state and local tax burden, and has climbed to 9th on the list of states with the best business tax climate.

And it certainly can’t be because government spending is out of control. Again, according to the Tax Foundation, Washington’s state and local tax burden (the percentage of one’s income one pays in state and local taxes, on average) has steadily dropped over the past 15 years from 10.4% in 1995 to 8.9% in 2008. And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, per capita state tax revenues, adjusted for inflation, have also sunk to a 15-year low… and that’s before most of the impact of the Great Recession kicked in.

So what exactly is Timmy trying to fix? Certainly not out-of-control government spending. And certainly not potholes.

Perhaps this will teach shady attorneys like Bradley Marshall from screwing with bloggers by threatening us with bogus libel suits:

A unanimous state Supreme Court today disbarred Seattle civil-rights attorney and sports agent Bradley Marshall, concluding that he squeezed clients for fees and bullied others into settlements against their wishes.

The court, in a detailed 51-page opinion, said that Marshall committed numerous ethical and legal violations, any one of which would have justified disbarment. The justices also ordered him to pay $7,500 to each of two clients as restitution.

I’m not saying that Marshall’s libel threat had anything to do with his disbarment, but it certainly did earn him any good karma.

I’ve almost grown numb to the rhetorical depths to which the Republicans have been willing to sink in the healthcare debate (“death panels” and all that), but this latest line of argument from philandering Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) is just plain bizarre.

“Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?” Ensign said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) had been citing the health care systems of France, Germany, Japan and Canada as more effective, but with lower costs.

Conrad responded that one can bend statistics in all sorts of ways.

“But that doesn’t have anything to do with health care. Auto accidents don’t have anything to do with h–,” Ensign said, cutting himself off. “I mean we’re just a much more mobile society. … We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system.”

Of course, the basic premise behind Ensign’s argument — that gun and automobile deaths account for the life expectancy gap between the U.S. and other countries — is total bullshit, but he does have a point, if entirely inadvertent. Leaving the thorny gun issue aside, there is no doubt that investing in public transit would reduce associated injuries and deaths from vehicular accidents while improving public health.

Take that, John Niles.

The Seattle Times editorial board argues that keeping King County parks open “require innovative ideas,” and they offer a few innovative ideas of their own:

Park purists must become park pragmatists. The best option is to deed parks to local governments that promise to retain them as open space in perpetuity. Cities have a record managing parks. Cities can assume responsibility as part of annexations, or citizens groups can assume ownership in some cases.

Another Triplett idea with great merit is to deed parks to the library system in exchange for a covenant to retain them as parks, while allowing a library branch to sprout on a small portion of the grounds. The synergy of a library and a park in the same location should be obvious; both spaces would be maintained by the library.

A similar plan to have the housing authority take over some parks offers other benefits. Triplett has gone so far as to suggest partnerships with fire districts.

Huh. Well, as long as the Times is encouraging us to be both pragmatic and innovative, I’ve got a creative idea of my own as to how to keep our parks open:  why don’t we just pay for them?

I mean, honestly, all the proposals above succeed in doing is shifting the costs of park maintenance from county government to city and other local governments. Whether the county or a city or a (really?) fire district owns the deed, it doesn’t much change the cost of maintaining a park, and taxpayers still ultimately pick up the bill. The only difference being, rather than all of us helping to pay for all of the parks countywide, each community will only have to pay for its own.

Does this Balkanization of our park system fulfill any civic objective larger than budgetary chicanery? Not really. But it does highlight the screwed up way we hamstring the funding of local services.

See, unlike things like courts and jails, parks operations are considered a discretionary activity for county government, and thus have no secure hold on any piece of the general fund. And without the statutory authority to create a countywide parks district, this leaves county parks with no regular levy of their own. The county can ask voters to approve special parks levies every few years, but this is never an easy or politically popular task, and it certainly isn’t a sustainable approach to long term budgeting.

That’s where we get all the so-called “innovative” talk of shoving parks off on library and fire districts; they do have their own regular levies, and as they provide popular, quantifiable services, they generally have an easier time than counties passing lid lifts and special levies. It’s not that it makes any particular sense to have a library or fire district maintaining a park, it’s just that some of them have the resources to pay for them, while due to its inflexible revenue structure, the county does not.

So if the Times’ editors really want to get innovative about funding parks, it’s time they look beyond the parks themselves and start focusing on fixing the arcane and inadequate tax system that is forcing these sort of bizarre contortions. As our region has grown in population and wealth, we have naturally demanded more parks and open space, and it’s past time we give the county the means to pay for it.

Via Publicola:

Supporters of Seattle Port Commission candidates Rob Holland and Max Vekich charge that supporters of his opponent, David Doud, have been reporting every link on the Reform the Port organization’s Facebook page as “abusive,” which results in an automatic removal of the links. “It’s just seventh-grade stuff—it’s not like that’s going to win an election,” Reform the Port supporter Heather Weiner says. Reform the Port is not formally affiliated with either the Vekich or the Holland campaign.

That kinda shit is just plain petty, but unfortunately it’s happening more and more all the time. For example, it’s become a common practice to issue bogus takedown requests to YouTube, sometimes prompting YouTube to pull one’s entire library of videos, with little recourse. (It’s happened to me, which is why I now post to multiple accounts.)

Politics is a contact sport, and that’s okay, but dirty tricks like this threaten to ruin these online services for the rest of us. Shame on Doud and his supporters.

Nothing particularly political about the video; my daughter and I just found it damn funny.