HorsesAss.Org

A right wing blogger named Pamela Geller, who is known for her extreme anti-Muslim views, has claimed that “Yelling Marine” David Hedrick is a frequent reader of her blog, Atlas Shrugs. Hedrick has drawn national attention, including appearances on Fox Noise, for his condemnation of Baird.

Geller also claimed that Hedrick recently sent her a box of assorted military-type swag. From Atlas Shrugs on Aug. 22, the same day that a YouTube video surfaced of Hedrick berating Baird at a town hall earlier that week:

That great American is a regular Atlas reader, David Hedrick, who recently sent me such a great box with CFSOCC-A (Combined Forces, Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan) stuff: tee shirt, baseball cap, patches and Don’t Tread on Me stuff.

There’s some interesting comments in the thread, including some that appear to come from Hedrick’s father, which would tend to support Geller’s claim that the younger Hedrick is a reader/swag sender. If, of course, it’s true, which on the Internets you can never know for sure.

The entire breadth and scope of Geller’s um, anti-jihadism or whatever it is cannot be detailed here. But just before last year’s presidential election she did publish an incredibly lengthy screed, apparently written by another author, that bears the rather unwieldy all-caps title “HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?.”

And today, in a column at NewsMax objecting to Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to investigate abuse of detainees, Geller makes the wild claim that the Obama administration is creating a “stateside army” disguised as a community service corps. What’s interesting to me about that is that a similar accusation was made by an audience member at Baird’s town hall, although not by Hedrick.

If it is true that Hedrick is actually a devotee of Geller, it could throw some immediate cold water on the rash of enthusiasm that has been generated by his outburst against Baird. Today The Columbian profiled Hedrick in an above-the-fold front page story. It’s only natural that flattering attention might cause someone to think about running for office, so I think this bit is understandable.

What will Hedrick do with his newfound notoriety?

“If I can spread this message, I’ll do it as long as I can,” he said.

After thinking over that question, he called back to say, “If Brian Baird votes for this bill, and if we don’t have a true constitutional conservative libertarian candidate that runs against Baird in the next election, I am considering running against him myself.”

It would be interesting for The Columbian, and other outlets, to ask this potential candidate and sudden national spokesman for the anti-health-care-reform movement about his views on a variety of subjects, perhaps starting with the basic question of what he thinks of Atlas Shrugs and Pamela Geller.

If Geller isn’t telling the truth about Hedrick being a fan who sent her military swag, or if she is fabricating comments from Hedrick’s parents, she needs to be stopped.

– I just finished reading David Neiwert’s new book The Eliminationists. It’s a very timely book, especially with all of the ridiculous comparisons people are making to Nazi Germany these days. Very few people seem to know the reality of what fascism was and how it came to power. At its core, it was a movement about cultural purity and national renewal. It was fed largely by a militant opposition to modern democratic ideals, civil liberties, and multiculturalism. The idea that it’s comparable to modern American liberalism is a notion so absurd that it really doesn’t even warrant serious discussion, yet it remains a constant theme on talk radio and even cable news. David is careful not to use the term fascist too broadly to describe the elements in our society that tend to exhibit traits similar to what bubbled to the surface in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century, but his book is a must-read for Americans who really want to understand that time in history and to be mindful of what could happen here.

– The idea of boycotting Whole Foods over CEO John Mackey’s somewhat clueless op-ed is probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard from progressives since they confused Don Imus with David Duke. For a good rebuttal to Mackey, Ezra Klein has a nice analogy here comparing markets for food with how we should approach health care by integrating public assistance with free market competition. But even though I don’t agree with Mackey’s ideas, he really wasn’t being an ass. If I boycotted every company with a CEO who bought into goofy libertarian groupthink, I’d quickly die of either starvation or boredom.

– On Sunday, The Seattle Times’ Ryan Blethen wrote the following:

Journalists have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. This is never done lightly and must be backed up with fact. What we do can alter somebody’s life for better or worse. Almost every professional journalist is careful not to abuse this right of free speech.

There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.

I’m surprised that Goldy hasn’t responded to this yet (and maybe he still will), but I wanted to point out one thing. Everyone – not just journalists – have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. For some reason, though, I always thought that journalists had an obligation to do it. I’d always thought that journalists exist to expose the corrupt, to explain the elusive, and to tell the truth in a world where many powerful people find comfort in lies. Journalists are supposed to be unpopular to the powerful, not their spokespersons. Maybe if the Times actually understood how profoundly they’re failing in their role as journalists, it would be easier to understand why so many bloggers are trying to fill the gap.

– Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s against their Constitution to arrest people for the personal use of cannabis. This is following the long-awaited decriminalization of drugs in Mexico, something that Bush Administration officials had actively prevented them from doing in the past.

– I haven’t written about it much, but I’m very concerned about the overuse of Tasers in what should be normal law enforcement activities. That said, I have no problem with repeatedly Tasering the people at TLC who brought us Police Women of Broward County.

A great American statesman has passed away. (Please be respectful; we will delete all inappropriate comments.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOi8eDkTTE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I wasn’t able to post these results yesterday, but today’s batch of R-71 data has been released. The number of signatures examined is now 110,288, (about 80.1% of the total signatures). There have been 12,983 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.77%.

The invalid signatures include 10,580 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,314 duplicates, and 1,089 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 44 signatures “pending” that I am simply ignoring.

Great big caveat: A new third-stage check is now being conducted using the most current voter database on signatures not found in the older database. They have made it through volume 220 of the 510 completed volumes. This means that some of the 10,580 “not found” signatures will be found in the next few days.

The 1,314 duplicate signatures suggest a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the total petition.

Using the V₂ estimator, and ignoring the third-stage check, the number of valid signatures is projected to be 121,070, giving 493 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate should end up at 12.07%. Of course that third stage check will likely add another 500 valid signatures to the total, making qualification highly likely and the rejection rate lower.

Here is a crude history of the projected totals since August 11th. The vertical bars give 95% confidence intervals for the projected number of signatures. The red line shows the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.

For some unexplained reason, the rejection rates were increasing through the 20th (leading to a decreased projected number of signatures). The third-stage checking started on the 20th, and I would have expected to see a decreasing rejection rate from that, leading to in increase in the number of valid signatures projected for the petition. Instead we see a flat line for the past three analyses. Perhaps an increasing rejection rate is being canceled by the third-phase check. Who knows.

Whatever the reason, if there are no last minute surprises left to perturb the pattern, R-71 will qualify for the fall ballot.

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.

Perhaps tonight we can all bring our bound and gold-foil bordered copies of “Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions” and group-plan our grizzly Jonestown-style mass suicides for the next time one of us gets depressed or an ingrown toenail.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dz1e-Wo88[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.

Over on Publicola there’s been some speculation about State Sen. Ed Murray launching a write-in campaign for Seattle Mayor, an idea which at first glance sounds a little stupid. Write-in campaigns are exceedingly difficult things to run, and in a citywide, top-of-the-ticket race, nigh impossible. And Murray is nothing if not a savvy politician who wouldn’t dare risk his reputation on a farce or a folly.

But on second thought…

I’ve got no polling data to back this up, but there’s a strong argument to be made that, considering their lack of name ID and zero experience in public office, a goodly sum of the votes for both Mike McGinn and Joe Malahan were really votes against Mayor Greg Nickels. I’m less impressed with Mallahan buying his way into public consciousness than I am with McGinn’s grassroots success, but I’m still not all that impressed with either campaign; Mallahan has proven himself uninformed on many city issues, while McGinn has yet to make a strong case that he is qualified in both experience and temperament to serve as chief executive. The well-known and well-respected Murray, on the other hand, would have instant credibility.

But the real wildcard that makes the goofy notion of a mayoral write-in campaign just a little less goofy is our new, all vote-by-mail format. Voting at our leisure at the kitchen or dining room table, it really doesn’t take that much more effort to write in “MURRAY” than it does to completely fill in that little circle. And, as Josh points out, with R-71 likely to be on the ballot, Seattle’s strong and politically activated gay community will have extra incentive to send a message by electing our city’s first openly gay mayor. And, the sheer novelty and drama of such a challenge would draw oodles of valuable earned media, and if properly played, national coverage as well.

Could a Murray write-in campaign be perceived to be credible enough to, say, earn an endorsement from the self-proclaimed arbiters of credibility at the Seattle Times? My spider-sense says yes.

So… should Murray run? Only if he’s willing and able to raise the money and commit the time and energy to make it a real campaign, and only if he’s got some reliable polling data telling him that he’s got better than a snowball’s chance in Hell. What he shouldn’t do is kinda-sorta run, just to make a statement, or to drive turnout for R-71. I know from running joke campaigns, and somebody with Murray’s ambition and potential shouldn’t make the mistake of lowering himself to my level.

That said, if Murray does declare as a write-in candidate, and does make a serious effort to win the race, there’s no shame in losing, and probably no long term political cost either, as long as he’s perceived to take the challenge seriously. After all, as any self-respecting pundit will tell you, a mayoral write-in campaign is nigh impossible.

What David Waldman says:

Maybe I’m just not sufficiently wonky on the health care subject, and after all, this isn’t likely to happen to me right away, because I have insurance through my wife that I’m pretty sure we’re keeping as long as we can. But I don’t get how you can possibly hand me a health care bill with an individual mandate and no public option. If I’m uninsured or poorly insured, and the answer coming out of Congress is that I now have to buy crappy insurance from some private company that has no plan to actually help me pay for my health care without raking me over the coals, then I’ve gone into this fight an ardent supporter of strong reform, and come out a teabagger.

You’re going to force me to pay an insurance company for shit insurance that as a free market actor I decided not to even try to buy?

And the insurance companies that paid for organizing the clown shows are just drooling.

From Media Matters:

Fox’s Carlson offers no criticism of guest’s suggestion Pelosi is a Nazi

Fox guest at town hall: “If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm.” Fox & Friends hosted David Hedrick, who at a town hall for Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), stated:

HEDRICK: I also heard you say that you’re going to let us keep our health insurance. Well, thank you. It’s not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan or not. That’s my decision. Now, I’ve heard recently in the media you and some other people on the political stage call us brownshirts because we opposed —

BAIRD: No, I did not. No, I did not. What I said was — and I’ve apologized for it, sir.

HEDRICK: OK, well, thanks for apologizing. But let — I won’t speak to you, then. I’ll speak to others. But I’ll remind you — a little history lesson. The Nazis did not — the Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They were — they took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm.

Now, what I want to know is, you’ve done a lot of things that violate your constitutional oath, as you know. What I want to know is, as a Marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I have kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson aired a clip of Hedrick comparing Pelosi a Nazi, but did not condemn his remarks or criticize Hedrick for them. Indeed, at no point in the interview did Carlson address Hedrick’s comment. Instead, Carlson introduced Hedrick as “the Marine vet who took the congressman to task” and said only that his remarks got “quite the response.” [Fox & Friends, 8/24/09]

And just for the record, only a person completely ignorant of 20th Century history would make the ridiculous claim that because the Nazis had the term “socialist” in their name that they were “leftists.” For example:

The directive ordered that SA and SS men were to be employed in the planned .’ occupation of trade union properties and for the taking into protective custody of personalities who come into question.” At the conclusion of the action the official NSDAP press service reported that the National Socialist Factory Cells Organisation had “eliminated the old leadership of Free Trade Unions” and taken over the leadership them selves. Similarly, on the 3rd May, 1933, the NSDAP press service announced that the Christian trade unions ” have unconditionally subordinated themselves to the leadership of Adolf Hitler.” In place of the trade unions the Nazi Government set up a German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the NSDAP, and which, in practice, all workers in Germany were compelled to join. The chairmen of the unions were taken into custody and were subjected to ill-treatment, ranging from assault and battery to murder.

So the Nazis were such “leftists” that they took over the trade unions and murdered their leaders. Yeah, um, okay.

But since we’re living in a post-fact, post-reality era, I guess history doesn’t really matter much either. It’s just a collection of invective to be hurled as the situation arises; one day it’s socialism, another day it’s Naziism, another day it’s Scientology, whatever. If they feel it, it’s true, because others in the tribe say it’s true. Feelings are true, facts are not true.

Pretty soon they’ll call us Vikings and accuse us of invading England. Well, they won’t do that, because that would involve actual knowledge of history, but you know what I mean.

There is no meaning, Winston thought, as he drained the last of the Victory Gin.*

*May not be an actual literary quote, it’s more of a feeling

It’s pretty much a distortion per day with these people.

Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online, went on Fox News today to fan the flames of the latest fabricated “death panel” controversy.

Goldberg equated a Veterans Affairs pamphlet — one that’s reportedly no longer being used — with Nazi eugenics, saying “death panels may not be too far off the horizon.”

The pamphlet in question is one that, Fox reported this weekend, encourages disabled veterans to decide whether their lives are worth living. Tammy Duckworth, an assistant secretary of the VA, told Fox on Sunday that the department instructed VA doctors to stop using the pamphlet in 2007.

It never stops. Manna could fall to all hungry people, and the righties would all it socialism, unless, of course, they could somehow take credit for it during a Republican administration.

Some days you really wonder if the Democratic leadership understands that they are not facing a traditional opposition political party. We’re facing a senseless, radical authoritarianism that lost power and now wants it back.

This month proves that beyond all doubt, and Democrats and their allies forget that at their own peril. You don’t debate these people, you don’t compromise with these people, you either beat them or you lose. It’s really that simple.

(Props to TPM.)

It’s a beautiful day, and only a week before school starts, so my daughter and dog and I have gone hiking. Talk amongst yourselves.

While Josh muses on the more obvious narrative of Republican Susan Hutchison’s visit to the 43rd LD Dems’ annual picnic, you know, the strategery of her showing up, I think there’s a more interesting story to be drawn from Saturday’s event, and one that comments more broadly on the cultural divide that currently separates our nation’s two major parties:  the relatively cordial manner in which Hutchison was received.

As far as I’ve heard, nobody shouted Hutchison down, accusing her of being a Nazi or a communist (or oddly, both). Nobody vandalized her car, or attempted to intimidate her by showing off their firearms. And nobody angrily yelled at her to stay away from their children.

Hutchison was accompanied by a couple of burly, t-shirted aides, but she certainly didn’t need any bodyguards, if that’s what she was thinking.  No, this gathering of very partisan Dems greeted her politely, quietly milled about as she gave her stump speech, and then chatted her up for about an hour.

And that’s not the exception that proves the rule. Ask any of the number of Republicans and even the few righty trolls who have accepted our open invitation to show up at Drinking Liberally, and they’ll attest to their friendly reception. (I mean, it’s so easy beating your guys’ rhetorical ass, why would we ever feel the need to threaten to beat your physical one?)

What we see in comparing Hutchison’s uneventful visit to a Democratic picnic versus the hostile and intentionally intimidating Republican crowds who have recently taken to storming town hall meetings, is not just a contrast in style, but a contrast in political culture. Democrats in general, and as a whole, really are more democratic, while the anti-government reactionaries who now seem to comprise the base of the Republican Party have long since forgotten the true meaning of the word they use as a party label.

It may have been savvy of Hutchison to show up at a Democratic picnic, though I doubt she earned herself any votes, but it certainly wasn’t gutsy. I can’t help but feel the opposite would be true if Dow Constantine were to make a similar surprise foray onto partisan Republican turf.

One of the big differences between bloggers like me and so-called real journalists like those at the Seattle Times, is that I tend to mix in generous amounts of editorializing with my reporting, whereas the dailies maintain a strict wall between editorial and news. Or so I’ve been told…

Dear Seattle voters: That must have felt good.

You finally took out your long-simmering resentment of Mayor Greg Nickels by shoving him aside in last week’s primary.

Yup, as far as news ledes go, you can’t get much more objective than that.

Here are some drug war items I’ve wanted to write full posts about but haven’t had the time:

– Anthony Citrano writes about the latest wave of medical marijuana raids in Los Angeles. According to Attorney General Holder’s previous statements, federal authorities wouldn’t be targeting any establishments that are complying with state law. Unfortunately, many of these raids are happening without any disclosure of what state law the establishments are being accused of violating. For Obama’s policy to provide any real protection for legal dispensaries, there needs to be that level of transparency to ensure that the DEA isn’t violating it.

– The saddest part of the attempts to raid medical marijuana dispensaries is the fact that California is desperately trying to figure out how to fix the problem of its overcrowded prisons. Even worse, Governor Schwarzenegger is still trying to increase funding to anti-drug units. I just remember back in 2003, when I was in Belgium and I told a group of people I was having drinks with that Arnold Schwarzenegger might be the next governor of California, and they were all shocked. At the time, I wasn’t as alarmed as they were that a brain-dead action movie star would be running the largest state in the country. Maybe I should have been.

– I was never much of a Michael Jackson fan, so I didn’t pay much attention to the news surrounding his death, but the fact that they may charge one of his doctors with manslaughter certainly has my attention now. How doctors treat people with chemical dependencies or how they subscribe potentially addictive opioid medications is a very touchy subject where prosecutors and judges often decide that they have better judgment than a physician. It’s still way too early to know what the doctor in this case was doing, but I have trouble believing that he could have been doing anything that warrants a manslaughter charge.

– This week’s drug war outrage comes from Florida, where a man named Donald May spent three months in jail for being in possession of breath mints. The arresting officer claimed the breath mints were crack-cocaine. The officer involved also lied in his report, claiming that the man admitted to buying crack. In the three months he was in jail, they auctioned off his car. He’s now suing. [h/t to the Crackpiper]

– Toby Nixon and Jeanne Kohl-Welles write in the Seattle Times in support the State Senate bill to decriminalize marijuana.

– In Bolivia, where President Evo Morales kicked out the DEA but still claims to oppose cocaine trafficking, there’s a new bar gaining some worldwide notoriety.

Last week’s contest was won by mlc1us in an impressive 19 minutes. The view was of Tokyo, and the link is here.

Here’s this week’s contest, good luck!

What Danny said, and more…

A rap on Mayor Greg Nickels was that he was a strongman. He supposedly made decisions without taking the full advice of the public or City Council. Many citizens felt, therefore, that he was arrogant.

We say we want leadership… we like to whine about not getting it from our elected officials… but the truth is, we hate leadership, for as soon as a politician attempts to actually use political power and exert it, we attack him or her for being arrogant.

Take the Viaduct for example, perhaps the classic textbook illustration of the political cluster fuck we quaintly refer to as “the Seattle Way.” It’s been eight years since the Viaduct was nearly dismantled by the relatively mild Nisqually quake… eight years of watching it topple over, slow motion, onto the waterfront as its western supports gradually sink into the muck at a steady rate of a fraction of an inch a year. Eight years of knowing that we are one inevitable shake away from, depending on the time of day, perhaps the greatest man-made disaster in our region’s history.

And we could be on the verge of electing a mayor with workable plan to stop the plan to replace the Viaduct, but with no real plan to build political consensus for an acceptable alternative. I oppose the Big Bore too, and hell, I might even vote for Mike McGinn myself. But you gotta admit, on this issue at least, our city/region/state is more than a little fucked up. The Viaduct is a triple-digit fatality waiting to happen (or worse), and no elected official with an ounce of common sense or humanity could choose to allow it to stand any longer than absolutely necessary.

And the truth is, given our current financial, environmental, geographic and political constraints, there is no good alternative to the current structure—at least not one that could likely satisfy a majority of voters. The proposed tunnel is hugely expensive and technically uncertain, the current deal placing untenable risks on Seattle taxpayers, all in the service of an outmoded transportation philosophy that ignores the energy and environmental reality of the twenty-first century. Despite the claims of its proponents, the surface/transit option would likely exacerbate congestion, at least in the short term, and by dumping tens of thousands of vehicles a day onto surface streets, could prove the least pedestrian and bike friendly of the three major alternatives. And while a rebuild might seem like the perfect compromise in both price and function, no city planner in his or her right mind would propose building a double-decker freeway today across such a vital and beautiful waterfront, if one already didn’t exist, and it would be crime to burden future generations with such a stunning lack of civic pride and vision.

In their favor, by diverting traffic underground, the tunnel would do the most to open up, revitalize and beautify our waterfront into a civic treasure future generations would come to cherish. The surface/transit option is by far the least expensive and most forward thinking of any of the plans. And the rebuild… well… current generations of Seattleites grew up with the Viaduct, and if it was good enough for us, it’s good enough for future generations as well. (You know, stop trying to change Seattle into New York or San Francisco and all that.) But even if you believe there is a best alternative, good luck convincing a majority of elected officials, let alone a majority of the voting public.

Though, of course, that’s half of what Mayor Nickels somehow managed to do. He always favored a tunnel, and voters be damned, he ultimately got the governor and the legislature, who originally pushed for the less expensive rebuild, to agree to a tunnel deal, albeit an awfully bad deal for Seattle taxpayers. Call that arrogance if you want. But it’s also leadership.

And as we saw in Tuesday’s election results, we hate leadership.

In helping to end Mayor Nickels career, Mike McGinn has made blocking the tunnel one of the centerpieces of his campaign, and like him, I favor the surface/transit option, if not always for the same reasons. And if elected, I’ve little doubt that McGinn will succeed in fulfilling this campaign promise. For in Seattle, saying “no” is what we do best.

But whether a Mayor McGinn could succeed in building political consensus for his own favored alternative to the Viaduct before nature succeeds in knocking the current one down, well, that’s another question. And if he does show the leadership necessary to force his own plan into implementation, how could he possibly survive the dire political consequences of his success?