HorsesAss.Org

So… former Seattle Times senior political reporter David Postman, perhaps the most respected and influential political journalistic in the state not too long ago, a man who once took umbrage at my relentless (and sometimes mean-spirited) critique of his profession, and who now pays the bills as a spokesman for Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc., has an article up on Crosscut of all places, criticizing the never-for-profit opinion and sorta-news site for running misleading and “demonstrably false” articles about the Mercer Mess, and of course, his employer’s role in it.

Sorry about the run-on sentence, but… that’s just plain weird.

At the time Postman announced his change of careers, I quipped that if many more journalists left the profession to pursue jobs in media relations, pretty soon there wouldn’t be any media left to relate to, so it doesn’t really surprise me to see the PR/journalism ecosystem collapse to the point where PR flacks, once confined to the sphere of influencing journalists, are now directly posting newsish pieces to newsish sites in an effort to get their bosses’ message out. Sure, he and the Crosscut editors repeatedly disclaim Postman’s obvious conflict of interest, so in some ways, it’s not all that much different from a more traditional guest column or a letter to the editor, but promoted out there on the Crosscut home page with the rest of their journalistish headlines, it just doesn’t feel like a guest column or a letter to the editor. It feels, like I said, weird. I mean, this is David Postman, for chrissakes.

Not that I’m all that sure that there is anything ethically wrong with the piece, disclaimed as such, or even all that different from what I do here at HA (which I once jokingly described as a one-man, pro bono PR firm for Washington state’s progressive community). But then, unlike Crosscut, I’ve never pretended HA deserved any more inherent respect than its content merited, and I’ve certainly never enjoyed the credibility of a David Postman. And perhaps more importantly, while I congratulate Postman for wearing his bias on his sleeve and trusting readers to judge his words in that context, as I have always done, my readers have always been able to rest assured that my bias is at least my own, rather than being bought and paid for by, say, Paul Allen, while Postman’s newfound Crosscut audience… not so much. That may strike some as a subtle difference, but one which, nonetheless, gave me the willies.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Postman and Crosscut have done anything wrong, just that by giving him a byline, they’ve done something very, very different… so different journalistically, that it at the very least deserves a collective, reflective pause. Crosscut has long claimed to be an “online newspaper” (an oxymoron considering the intrinsic absence of paper, not to mention the dearth of, well, news), and with all the inherent perceptions and expectations that word implies. But at a traditional newspaper, Postman’s response would have been clearly published as a guest column under the byline of say, Paul Allen or some other Vulcan executive, or perhaps a pro-Mercer-fix public figure willing to serve as a surrogate. It may still have been ghostwritten by Postman — that’s a pretty damn common arrangement (hell, even I’ve ghostwritten a handful of Seattle Times guest columns over the years, and nobody’s been the wiser) — but it sure as hell wouldn’t have had Postman’s byline on it.

Why does that matter? Because by putting his name on the piece, Postman, widely known and rightly respected by the media and political establishment as one of our state’s best reporters, hasn’t just sold his employers his skills as a writer, he’s implicitly imbued his critique of Crosscut’s reporting with his own well-earned journalistic credibility. In this brave new world of media relations, where it is now both possible and preferable to skip the relations part entirely, and pump one’s unfiltered message straight into the media, Vulcan didn’t just buy themselves a capable spokesman or mere PR flack… with Postman, they bought themselves their very own journalist.

And that’s different… at least from the kind of media familiar to American consumers for much of the past century, and ironically, from the kind of media Postman used to vigorously defend. PR flacks have always been hired guns, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But when they start directly writing our news and commentary themselves, and under their own bylines, we’re looking at an entirely different kind of gunfight.

Which may or may not be a bad thing for both the media and its consumers. It’s just that coming from Crosscut and David Postman of all people, this sort of journalistic innovation (in lieu of a less neutral word) simply struck me as awfully damn weird.

AP reporter Gene Johnson has an article on the conflict brewing over Washington’s medical marijuana law:

Unlike some states, Washington requires patients to grow marijuana themselves or designate a caregiver to grow it for them. For many, that’s unrealistic: They’re too sick to grow cannabis themselves and don’t have the thousands of dollars it can cost for a caregiver to set up a proper growing operation.

So they’ve devised their own schemes, claiming to meet the letter of the law in establishing collective grows or storefront dispensaries – methods that are making police and prosecutors increasingly uncomfortable.

If one wants to take a conspiratorial stance about what happened in 2008, he or she could easily conclude that the police (through a willing legislature) intentionally fought for an overly restrictive law that was too difficult for patients to comply with in order to keep arresting authorized patients and those trying to establish ways to provide them with marijuana. In fact, I’ve heard a number of activists and patients claim this both during and after the process.

I’m not sure what the real motivations were, but the outcome is clearly a failure. When I got a chance to ask Governor Gregoire a question at Drinking Liberally last fall, I asked what she’d do if authorized patients and caregivers continued to get arrested. She said that if it happened, she’d work with the local police chiefs to address it. It doesn’t appear that she had any interest in keeping that promise, and I’d be surprised if she even remembers saying it. Police and prosecutors across the state continue to haul authorized patients and providers into court, and outside of the very progressive King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg and a few other county prosecutors, the emphasis remains on finding ways to prosecute people rather than finding ways to respect the spirit of the 1998 voter initiative that initially legalized medical marijuana use in this state.

One problem right now with the law remains the fact that patients either have to grow for themselves (which for most people who have cancer or multiple sclerosis – or are confined to a wheelchair – is a challenge) or find a provider. An even bigger problem is that, according to the law, the provider cannot be someone who already provides for other patients. Because it’s much easier for someone who is already a provider to take on another patient than for a completely new person to learn how, the law is often violated. This is what happened in Spokane, as Johnson explains:

Washington’s law says that a caregiver can only provide marijuana to one patient at any one time. In Spokane this year, medical marijuana activists focused on that language in setting up a for-profit dispensary called Change.

Lawyer Frank Cikutovich said the business met legal requirements: A lone patient would enter the store, sign a document designating the shop as his or her caregiver, and buy marijuana. The agreement expired when the patient left and the next customer came in.

The business, raided on Sept. 10, rendered the “one patient, one caregiver” rule meaningless, Spokane police spokeswoman Jennifer DeRuwe said. She said there was peripheral crime associated with the dispensary, including robberies at grow sites and street sales from people who had purchased pot there.

“They’re dispensing to hundreds and thousands of people,” DeRuwe said. “The police department’s stand is, we want to get some guidance on this. We know it’s going to be up to the court system to provide us with that.”

Sadly, it should have been the legislature that provided that guidance. In last year’s attempts at revising the law, it could have been clarified to allow for patient co-ops or even dispensaries. DeRuwe’s concern about “peripheral crime” is nothing short of an absurdity, but it was one that appears to have influenced the debate in the legislature and led to the shortfalls we have today. Robberies at grow sites don’t happen because dispensaries exist. They happen because marijuana is illegal for recreational use. If DeRuwe was really concerned about the problem of grow site robberies – instead of just using it as a red herring for political cover – she’d be demanding that we establish regulations for the production and sale of marijuana for all adults who want to use it, not just the ones for whom a doctor has certified a medical need.

The failure of this state’s supposedly progressive majority to address what should have been a rather easy problem is a good warning to progressives about what could happen at the national level. Instead of using these majorities to enact real progressive legislation, the leaders in Olympia, from Frank Chopp to Governor Gregoire, have continuously pandered to special interests (in this case, the police unions) and dared the voters to kick them out for it. And they’ve generally been successful because outside of a few outliers like Toby Nixon and Dan Satterberg, most of the Republicans in this state are still too batshit to be taken seriously.

Vice President Joe Biden is starting to rattle some cages over the 2010 midterms. The Obama Administration and our Democratic Congress have a number of difficult tasks where the interests of the general public are pitted against more powerful interests – from health care to the environment to the regulation of our financial sector. I’m finding myself conflicted between the belief that many of the Republicans we still have in Congress are simply not in the fight for the general public at all and need to be defeated, and the worry that a growing Democratic majority will start acting like the complacent, useless one we have here in the other Washington and simply shy away from those difficult tasks.

Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmE7tuR0364[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 337 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. From HuffPo:

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to “any organization” that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

And HuffPo goes on to report that Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida, is soliciting suggestions from the public about helping him find fraud. Feel free to offer your suggestions.

If the righties want to talk about fraud, let’s talk about fraud, and not any puny $3.1 million a year, folks. We’re talking billions.

It would be delicious irony if this legislation either has to be vetoed or is found unconstitutional for singling out a specific corporation, which after all is actually a person.

Reading Slog’s account of Sen. Maria Cantwell’s supposed conversion on healthcare reform, it’s like deja vu all over again regarding perhaps the most enigmatic member of Washington state’s congressional delegation. First Cantwell was under attack for not taking a forceful position on the public option and other reforms, and now she’s being praised for her sudden burst of leadership.

And the conclusion?

And the bottom line for those, like Moon, who were raising a ruckus over Cantwell’s apparent wavering on the public option: the pressure worked.

Yeah, well, maybe. But this sort of scenario has played out so many times over the past few years, you’ve gotta wonder if what frequent critics consider to be her “apparent wavering,” really isn’t just an artifact of Cantwell’s methodical, deliberate and relatively effective legislative style? I mean, keeping up the political pressure doesn’t hurt, but the raft of amendments Cantwell has offered to the Baucus bill suggest that she’s been neck deep in the details for quite some time, and an active participant in the thorny, behind-closed-doors negotiations within the Senate Finance Committee.

So could it be that the type of public podium-rattling many of us progressives demand, just isn’t a good fit to Cantwell’s wonkish personality, or to the brand of quiet, insider leadership she seems to prefer? And do we make a mistake by assuming she’s less progressive than she really is?

In fact, Cantwell’s reputation as a bit of a pro-business centrist seems to be distorted by a genuine streak of pro-business centrism that fails to extend itself to nearly any other issue. Indeed when examining her voting record, you may be surprised to learn that Cantwell proves just as progressive as her more high-profile colleague, Sen. Patty Murray, and the presumably progressive stalwart Rep. Jay Inslee.  And on healthcare issues? Cantwell ranks the most progressive of the three, scoring an impressive 98.54% over her lifetime in office.

So did Cantwell cave to constituent pressure by coming out strong for the public option in the end, or did she hold steady in the face of mounting criticism from the left, by refusing to publicly say anything that might jeopardize her private negotiations?

I don’t know. But knowing how stubborn Cantwell can be, and her lack of passion for retail politics, I don’t think it’s safe to assume the former.

Just to be clear, there are some things on which the Seattle Times editorial board and I agree, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. (Okay, maybe a little ashamed, but I’ve learned to cope.)

For those who reflexively argue that government regulation is always a bad thing, the FCC’s decision to codify the principle of net neutrality must be a bit disturbing. But those who primarily rely on the Internet to make these arguments should be quietly relieved.

First that new-fangled blogging thing, and now Twitter? Apparently, Crosscut contributor Ted Van Dyk is a lot more hip than he seems… check out his new Twitter feed in the sidebar.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n7PKBvLmr8[/youtube]

If you’ve ever wondered why paranoid-delusional righties like the Orb get so angry and/or pants-wetting-frightened at the words of people like me, it might be because they actually believe the hateful demagoguery spewing from the likes of Ann Coulter, who may or may not have been joking when she recently absurdly claimed that “all political violence is committed by the left in this country.”

That’s right, the abortion doctor killer? A lefty. The Holocaust Museum shooter? A lefty. Timothy McVeigh? A lefty. The assassins of President Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King Jr., apparently, lefties all, at least, according to Coulter, who astutely points out that Harvey Milk’s killer was a Democrat. Case closed.

That’s why the same righties who passionately celebrate gun-toting teabaggers as patriotic defenders of the 2nd Amendment, soil their undies at the mere thought of self-avowed liberals publicly displaying firearms. They actually believe we’re dangerous. That’s why they’re arming themselves. To protect themselves against us.

Cowards.

Perhaps, instead of incessantly railing against building light rail here in Seattle, Crosscut contributor Ted Van Dyk might want to take some time to explore the extraordinary success of light rail in his native Phoenix. I’m just sayin’.

Let’s make some connections:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmDqA0sbKaE[/youtube]

Update This video is relevant to the discussion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P8u4fZTPUQ[/youtube]

Who’s to blame for the news industry’s crappy report card?  The Internet:

My quick take is the Internet and cable news have become places where people can easily seek out journalism that reinforces their political and world views.

Yup, because without the Internet and cable news, public trust in newspapers would be at an all time high.

Last week’s contest was won by Dave in Seattle. It was the Warner Brothers Studio in Burbank, California.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

In an article in New York magazine, a man operating a small business in New York City made this startlingly honest confession:

I hate to say it, but there’s no way I’m hiring a black guy to work for me.

Is this a good indication of how racism still significantly affects our society and continues to create artificial barriers to success for minorities? Absolutely, but not in the way you think. The business owner who made that statement isn’t a racist at all. He runs one of New York’s marijuana delivery services, and he knows that if he hires a black man to be a delivery person, that person is significantly more likely to get arrested on his route. He then tells reporter Mark Jacobson:

Fact is, pot is legal for white people but not for black people, which is total bullshit.

Recent arrest statistics compiled by Queens College Professor Harry Levine back up this observation:

In this way, the NYPD has arrested tens of thousands of New Yorkers every year for possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests are expensive, costing nearly $90 million a year. And there are other costs: an arrest record can result in severe collateral consequences, like loss of employment, or the chance at a college scholarship. Spending the night in one of the City’s overcrowded holding pens or in Riker’s can itself be traumatic.

The most alarming component of these arrests, however, are the racial disparities. Nearly 90% of all those arrested for possession of marijuana are Black and Latino. Whites comprise 35% of the City population, but make up less than 10% of all those arrested for possession of marijuana. These disparities are not indicators of who uses marijuana–over 1/3 of all adults U.S. have tried marijuana, and anyone on a casual weekend stroll through the Upper West Side or Prospect Park will find a number of white people puffing away.

As Gabriel Sayegh also points out in that same post, the number of arrests for low-level marijuana possession have risen from 900 in 1993 to 40,000 in 2008. With nearly 90% of those arrests being of minorities (and most of them young), those arrests tend to erase the kinds of opportunities that would otherwise be available. This trend hasn’t just been with marijuana either. All forms of drug enforcement – especially the long disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing guidelines – have created a gigantic divide between how the drug war affects white communities and how it affects minority communities.

It’s become fashionable to claim that racism in America is largely over and that the folks who claim it isn’t are attempting to exploit the gullible. The numbers from America’s drug war emphasize how false that belief is. Wherever one goes in America, the racial disparity in drug arrests is only becoming more extreme. In California, blacks are only 7% of the population, but make up 33% of marijuana felony arrests. There are six times as many whites and blacks in the state, but more black men are picked up for marijuana felony offenses than whites, even though whites and blacks use marijuana in equal percentages and there are six times as many whites in the state. From coast to coast this occurs, giving us a massive disparity in our prison population and creating a huge wealth gap between white and minority communities.

What’s interesting to note about this phenomenon is that throughout the criminal justice system, from prosecutors to police officers to judges, the individuals within the system will be adamant that they’re not racists themselves. And I think most of them are telling the truth. The system itself really isn’t the root of the racism. The racism tends to come from what the community expects of this system and pushes politicians to do with it. When it’s understood that way, as the manifestation of lingering American eliminationism, the results we have start to make more sense.

A perfect illustration of this phenomenon occurred a few years back in an exchange I had with a blog commenter from the Bay Area. She first left a comment agreeing with me that marijuana prohibition is stupid and that people shouldn’t be arrested for using it. Then, when I mentioned the racial disparity, her attitude changed. She became defensive of law enforcement and falsely claimed that blacks get arrested because they commit more drug crimes (they don’t). Finally, I posted a video of an old episode of COPS, where several black men where being tackled and arrested after buying small bags of weed from an informant. She quickly went from being against marijuana prohibition to expressing gratitude to the police for getting these dangerous people off the streets. To this day, I guarantee you that she doesn’t think of herself as a racist, and if you ever accused her of it, she’d flip out just as she did in the comments of that post.

This is the difficulty in understanding the real level of racism that infects our political debates today, and more specifically, the extent to which racism drives the “teabagger” movement. I sympathize with genuine small government conservatives who have been consistent in their opposition to both Republicans and Democrats. But I also get the sense that they don’t recognize how miniscule they are within the ranks of those who are waving tea bags and calling Obama a Communist.

On the other hand, I think Jimmy Carter is wrong when he says that the reason for such heated opposition is because Obama is black. It’s not simply because Obama is black (one could easily see the same protests if Hillary Clinton was President), it’s because Obama is a Democrat, and the Democrats are seen as the party that represents the interests of black America. The reason we’re seeing such an intense backlash to government spending all of a sudden is not because government is being more irresponsible with its spending than it was during the Bush era, it’s because the perception is that the money is being spent on the undesirables within our society, the same people who always seem to bear the brunt of our nation’s drug war.

As Glenn Greenwald points out in this post, it makes absolutely no sense to be more concerned about the tiny sums of money that we dish out to ACORN for the relatively minor scandal that they’ve been caught up in after years of being disinterested in the vast sums of money that we’ve given to war profiteers like Blackwater, or various war-crime-committing nations, or to the financial services companies that drove our economy into the ground. The only explanation is that ACORN is representative of black America, and therefore is seen as a threat disproportionate to their actual influence. But don’t dare call that phenomenon racist.