HorsesAss.Org

What is it about Northwest-tangential murders this holiday season? We’ve got the UW student whose boyfriend now says she’s not the murdering type, although that’s the most flattering thing he can come up with. We’ve got the basketball player in Brazil, whose family and friends think he was murdered despite what the cops say. And now we’ve also got the twin murder suspect connected to Graham, Pierce County, through a prison pen-pal wife he married after being released by a judge appointed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney whom Romney now says must go. Heckuva job, Mittney!

And you thought nothing could dampen the seasonal joy of $22 DVD players and $59 digital cameras. Actually, the august and usually boosterish New York Times had a real downer of a Page 1 story yesterday on just that point: “Bargains draw crowds, but the thrill is gone,” containing such heresies as “the mood was more desperation than celebration,” “the merchandise is blah-humbug,” “exasperated consumers left the store in anger” and “sparse crowds” in upscale shops “were scary.” Contrast that with the still-boosterish Seattle Times’ local banner A1 head: “Splurge Surge,” and a story that gives mall–by-mall rundowns on shopper frenzy (“this truly is the shopping Olympics”) with nary a discouraging word. So the question is, are we living in a shopping bubble here in the Northwest, where sweetness ‘n light still rule the day? Maybe it’s all those Canadian shoppers cashing in on the dollar’s woes (do they still call their own version loonies, or are they taking themselves more seriously these days?)…or maybe we’re just lagging behind the national temperament. Or could it be that shoppers who are tightening budgets and downscaling and feeling frustrated at bait-and-switch are simply unseen by local media?

Anyway, back to Murders on Parade. For a little holiday cheer my wife and I went to see “No Country for Old Men” in hopes that the Coen Brothers of “Fargo” and “Big Lebowski” had somehow rediscovered their touch. Unfortunately, and despite the aura of universal raves (96 on Rotten Tomatoes), 2 1/2 hours of uninterrupted senseless homicide somehow failed to lift our spirits. Only one visual hearkens back to the comic relief that the CBs of old used so adeptly. And as for proclamations that this film is a cinematic metaphor for the post-9/11 world, um, er, pointless killing is a metaphor? Maybe Javier Bardem is a Dick Cheney with hair. I do have one question: Can people actually walk around in public carrying cattle stun guns? Which brings us to my wife Cecile’s assessment of the film as her own definition of a “dick flick.”

But even man-god Jesus would have a hard time recommending “No Country for Old Men” as a movie for the season putatively celebrating his birth. As for metaphors, perhaps it will do for our current Northwest siege of dead and dying…escapism be damned.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger has a science writer?
A promising HIV vaccine trial based out of Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center goes awry, actually increasing some subjects’ chances of developing AIDS. Stranger science writer Jonathan Golob (yes, The Stranger actually has a science writer) takes a break from explaining hangovers and female orgasms to join me by phone to discuss the ramifications of this failed trial.

8PM: Saturday night comedy with Justin Rupple
We continue our experiment with live comedy as local comedian Justin Rupple joins us for the hour to give us his unique take on current events and the world around us.

9PM: TBA
The usual liberal propaganda.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Against possibly my better judgement here, I’m going to post my thoughts about Ron Paul. Recently, two of my favorite bloggers, Glenn Greenwald and Dave Neiwert, butted heats over what’s happening with Paul, who he really is, and what his surprisingly successful candidacy means in this election cycle. The fact that neither one of them was being dishonest about Paul, but both found that the other person’s perspective was odd – almost offensive – really demonstrates the minefield that Paul’s candidacy has become.

From Neiwert’s perspective as an expert on white supremacist groups and related far-right extremism, he’s seen Paul as a fellow traveller with these groups for years. His post here details some of the history of those connections. Where I find some agreement with Greenwald is that Neiwert seems to be attributing the popularity of Paul’s far-right libertarian message with an ascendance of far-right racism. There’s obviously an element of that in his support, but the reason that Paul is becoming so popular today has very little to do with racism. When you think of left vs. right as being a struggle between more government and less government, Paul is certainly the most far-right candidate in the Republican field. But in that context, far-right is far from being analogous to racist. And when Paul says, “Well, they’ll be disappointed if that’s why they’re supporting me,” I tend to agree with him in some respects. But his history of ties to the groups that Neiwert has been following also amounts to a legitimate reason to doubt him, especially when he starts sounding like Lou Dobbs on immigration.

In recent decades, “states’ rights” has often been synonymous with the movement to keep the federal government from eliminating policies of segregation that existed in the American south. Many people today believe that ending these policies was a valid and proper use of the federal government, but Congressman Paul has doctrinaire views of the Constitution and what limits it places on the federal government. There’s no reason to conclude that he arrived at these views out of racism, but adopting that ideology certainly aligned him with those whose animosity toward federal power is rooted in the belief that the federal government is foisting “multi-culturalism” on the individual states. And as a Congressman from Texas, it’s very likely that this was some element of his voter base. Whether he needs to disavow this support now in order to appeal to more voters is really the big question, although so far, his candidacy doesn’t seem to be slowed by it at all. And this has nothing to do with racism.

The Bush Administration has made it abundantly clear that the idea that Republicans are more federalist, or support the typical conservative notions of small government, has long been an illusion. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported the strong use of federal power whenever it suits their needs. And while most Americans (myself certainly included) don’t have a well-developed legal understanding of the ins and outs of federal power vs. state power, we all recognize circumstances where the federal government oversteps its bounds and needs to be restrained.

Following drug policy and related topics for years, two circumstances quickly come to mind, and help shed some light on why the idea of “states’ rights” means something very different to someone who’s not old enough to remember the civil rights era (the same people who are also driving Paul’s amazing fundraising success online). The first is the federal drinking age. Under pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 forced states to stop selling alcohol to those under 21. Before this, some states had already moved their drinking age to 21, while others had not. Ideally, this could have set up a situation where the states could compare experiences and determine whether raising the age to 21 was a good idea. Instead, you now have to rely on anyone who’s gone to college in the past 20 years to tell you how much of a disaster this policy is.

As any sane person would expect, raising the drinking age did nothing to stop underage people from drinking. All it did was force the drinking underground, hidden from authorities and other potential supervision, where the likelihood for people to be irresponsible or end up in dangerous situations went up substantially. Why was all of this was done? Because both the Reagan Administration and activist groups like MADD elevated the philosophy (launched by Nixon) that drug use and related moral failings were a federal concern, one for which states needed to have their own judgements overruled if they weren’t sufficiently in line with the moral majority in Washington DC.

The second circumstance involves what’s been happening over the past decade with various state medical marijuana laws. Despite the fact that some states decided to legalize the use of medical marijuana, the federal government just ignored these actions and kept enforcing the antiquated federal law that treats marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical value. A cancer patient from California eventually took her case against the federal government to the Supreme Court, and the Court’s liberal majority ruled that the federal government had the right to take medicine away from cancer patients because they believed that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. And still today, the DEA and the Justice Department still very actively try to prosecute people involved in providing medical marijuana to patients who need it, and Congress continues to give them the A-OK.

Of course, these instances are only part of why Ron Paul’s campaign is resonating so powerfully, especially among younger voters. Many people see him more generally as the candidate who believes most fervently in the power of free markets, which has a big appeal to young voters (especially techies) and isn’t necessarily seen as an extension of the “states’ rights” philosophy. But his opposition to federal power is the message that has carried his success, thanks primarily to a Bush Administration that’s given us a disastrous foreign military occupation, warrantless wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, massive increases in federal spending, and federal agencies whose corruption and politicization are only outdone by their incompetence. And it certainly helps that many of the leading Democrats have, at best, been wishy-washy in their oppostion to these things. Ron Paul is not. He speaks with the kind of certainly that appeals to voters who see the political situation in Washington, DC as the perfect storm of special-interest pandering, a thoroughly inept media, and poll-driven fecklessness leading to perpetual incumbency.

While his message is resonating, and I find myself truly admiring the run he’s having, I definitely have my doubts about both him and his overarching philosophies. For one, his very firm constitutional basis for determining “states’ rights” isn’t so cut and dry in my mind. While I can easily run through a number of instances where the federal government needs to back off and let states deal with their own affairs, I don’t think that the federal actions that went into ending segregation in the 1960s, or the decision to legalize abortion, were a mistake. I tend to draw the line over whether the the federal government is protecting individuals from a particular state law or protecting the state from its own decision-making. This is its own separate post, and one for which constitutional scholars would probably have a field day (especially if I related it to my support for Roe v. Wade). Either way, I find myself somewhat stuck between Paul’s more extreme view of a very limited role for the federal government and the Democrats’ slow evolution away from their own more extreme beliefs in federal power (every Democratic candidate now wants to reverse the Bush Administration’s policy towards medical marijuana patients in states where it’s legal). As a pragmatist, I admire the intellectual foundation of the Constitution and the results its achieved but I also wonder whether the realities of our 21st century existence means that we can’t always apply 18th century thinking to 21st century problems.

At certain times, I’ve tried to play devil’s advocate with those who try to claim that Paul is a racist. I like to point out that Paul’s desire to end the federal drug war would likely do more to help minority communities than anything any of leading Democratic candidates have stated they’ll do. In the past, I’ve tended to think of this when I think of Paul’s claims that his racist supporters would be disappointed with him as President. The drug war is the single most damaging force in America’s black communities today. Our drug laws, combined with our enormous prison system, has been the driving force behind the devastation of many of our inner cities. It fuels the gang culture, drives the market for illegal guns, and still manages to put millions of non-violent people in prison, many of whom would be good husbands and fathers if it were not for laws that serve no other function than to put more of them in jail. Listen to the loud ovation Paul received at a recent Republican debate in front of a largely black audience when addressing these issues. It’s impossible to watch that clip and then make the argument that Ron Paul is the candidate who speaks for white supremacists.

But where I have major doubts about Paul center around his views on immigration. Earlier, I referenced this article he wrote in 2006, and I have trouble squaring that with some of his other views. As much as he talks about and gets support from people who champion free markets and the free flow of goods and labor, his views on immigration sound like he’s been hanging out with Lou Dobbs. Even worse, in order to make his argument, he touches upon an argument that has often been used as justification for maintaining the federal drug war:

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

This kind of bad logic has often been applied to the drug war in order to justify the federal prohibitions. Repealing the drug war is basically “rewarding lawbreakers”. And by Paul’s logic here, the fact that these lawbreakers would be rewarded will serve as an enticement for millions more to break the law. All of this relies upon the false belief that our laws have any effect at all in these circumstances. They never have and they never will. As we learned during alcohol prohibition, and we’re re-learning now with other substances, prohibitions don’t work when you’re dealing with basic human desires. And the immigration issue deals with primary human desires for survival. What’s most disappointing about Paul’s stance on immigration is that he fails to even mention the affect that drug prohibition has been having in Mexico and fueling the current migrations north. It indicates to me that while his overarching philosophies have often pointed Paul in the right direction on these issues, he still sounds like he’s sometimes flying blind and not getting the big picture for issues that should be clearer to him.

Paul’s candidacy and the rabidness of his supporters is having an interesting effect on this election season. He’s clearly the best candidate on the Republican side, but whether or not he appeals to Democrats probably depends on whether people think his refreshing certainty on views that strike the anti-Bush anti-war chord (ending the Iraq War, repealing the Patriot Act, etc) outweigh his anti-progressive views on whether the federal government should be counted on for addressing some of the major problems we face (global warming, health care, etc). It’s easy to mock him for believing that the free market will protect endangered species, but is that really any more ridiculous than believing that we can defeat drug traffickers in Mexico? As a nation, we’ve drifted towards a point where certain absurdities have been mainstreamed, while others are marginalized. In times of great fear and insecurity, we tend to find comfort in believing that government can accomplish things it can’t. And when those fears and insecurities manifest itself in mythmaking about the power of government, someone like Ron Paul needs to come along to right the ship.

Flying back from Philadelphia last night I sat next to a man suffering through the second leg of a grueling transatlantic journey from Germany to Seattle, shoehorned into a seat that seemed designed to taunt his 6-foot, 4-inch frame. I suppose I should have shown him more mercy considering his sleep deprived state, but I couldn’t help myself, and so we ended up talking politics. He was on a rare trip back to the states after spending most of the past three decades as a civilian military employee in Germany, and I just had to ask about the German attitude towards the US these days.

“They hate us,” he replied without hesitation. And not just the Germans he said, but throughout Europe, the United States as a nation (as opposed to individual Americans) is feared and loathed. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Since squandering the near global goodwill lavished on us in the tragic aftermath of 9/11, the US has become a nation without political allies. Indeed, being identified as an ally of President Bush has become a recipe for political suicide, with first the UK’s Tony Blair biting the dust, and then Poland’s hateful Kaczynski twins. And yesterday it was Australian voters’ turn to repudiate Bush’s disastrous policies:

Bush’s closest ally, Australian neanderthal John Howard “suffered a humiliating defeat” today. Kevin Rudd, a moderate left candidate will be the new prime minister and he has promised to overturn the ultra-reactionary Bush-like policies of his predecessor, particularly in regard to Global Warming and Iraq. Bush’s only ally left in the entire world on Global Warming is now Oklahoma crazy right-wing senator, James Inhofe. Rudd won a clear parliamentary majority and it looks like Howard may actually lose his own suburban Sydney seat to boot! […] Rudd campaigned on promises that “his first acts as prime minister will include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto climate agreement and to negotiate the withdrawal of Australian combat troops from Iraq,” both seen as repudiations of George Bush’s embarrassing leadership.

And oh yeah, with Rudd’s victory it now seems likely that Midnight Oil singer (and Senator) Peter Garrett will join the new cabinet as Environmental Minister.

Darcy Burner and friends discuss the 8th CD race:

(This and some 60 other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is a tough one.

The last time I enjoyed regular home delivery of a daily newspaper was back in 2003, when I ended a three-month subscription to the Seattle P-I after accumulating stacks of recycling and a six-inch diameter rubber band ball. It’s not that I didn’t read the P-I, it’s just that I mostly read it online, and the satisfying hand-feel of the dead-tree edition simply wasn’t worth the extra clutter or cost. And so it was with some nostalgia this week that I drank my morning tea while shuffling through the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer, a big city paper that despite a noticeable decline over the past couple decades, still puts its smaller Seattle cousins to shame.

Even on this notoriously slow news day, the Inquirer’s front page once again finds room for five stories, four with bylines from staff reporters, while the Seattle Times features two articles from the LA Times, one from USA Today, and a column by Jerry Brewer. I’m just sayin’. The P-I’s front page is a bit more encouraging, with all three articles sporting bylines from staff reporters, including one actual local news story. Wow.

But it’s not the news or the op/eds that caught my attention this week, but rather the ads. Of course today is “Black Friday,” and the Inquirer was so chock full of ads and inserts yesterday that it had to be bagged and delivered in two parts. I’ve written before about the experiential difference between reading a paper online versus reading it in print — they often emphasize entirely different headlines — but online readers almost entirely miss the usual Sunday circulars, let alone the deluge of holiday advertising. And I’m guessing online publishers miss the revenue windfall from the holiday season as well.

This highlights just one of the many challenges facing publishers and the communities they serve as the newspaper industry continues to transition from print to web. Unless newspapers can find a way to maintain or replace such traditional revenue sources, newsrooms will continue to experience cuts, and overall quality will continue to decline. Meanwhile, consumers and retailers alike risk losing what is after all, a valuable service. No, I don’t particularly like having my living room cluttered up with circulars for stuff I’ll never buy, but I don’t mind learning about a 32″ LCD HDTV for $399, or an 8GB USB flash drive for $28.95.

Happy Black Friday Frank Blethen and Roger Olgesby.

There’s little doubt what the top news story of the past, and probably ensuing, 24 hours is: Black Friday shopping. Yesterday’s papers and TV news worked in repeated references to the bold new national initiative to “allow” Christmas shoppers into the malls early, some of them waiting till a full minute after midnight so as not to show disrespect for our most sacred of American holidays, Thanksgiving. KIRO 7 even had an hourly breakdown on early-morning weather conditions (there could be ice on those windshields, folks) for the frenzied hordes. This morning the P-I already has a full report on the rampaging minions (forecast headcount: 20,000) at Alderwood Mall. One promising quote: ‘”I think this is the dumbest idea they have ever had,” said Matt Carter, 28, of Snohomish.’ And why? Because, you know, Christmas is a holy time of worship in the name of our Lord? Because Christmas has been corrupted from a season of reflection, fellowship and glad tidings into a sickening seige of cutthroat consumerism where all that matters is the best markdown and highest retail profits? Because the notion that thousands of people have nothing better to do on the night after Thanksgiving than troll mall aisles is just plain insane, if it weren’t so desperately sad?

Not quite. It’s the dumbest idea because “they need more security.”

So verily, do not say unto me, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Hey buddy, the line’s back there.

In other so-called news:

Prop 1’s failure raises the timeline of when to institute tolls: ‘ “There’s no question about it,” Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said. “The issue is whether you toll early”…’ Or as the Prop 1 vote should’ve been framed: Pay us now, or pay us later. We can look to the toll–riddled Bay Area for guidance. Most bridges are $4 and headed for $5, the Golden Gate is $5 and headed for $8 or $10. They put out feelers to gauge public opinion on rate hikes, and most of the time it’s a shrug. Voters there understand you have to get the money from somewhere. Here I doubt reaction will be so blithe. A lot of motorists apparently think bridges should be free. Little do they know, $3 is a bargain!

East of the mountains may be clear and cold, but the air is ugly. As are, surprise, the politics. Now we all know that anonymous bloggers, especially on this site, have nothing but the highest regard for truth, honesty, justice and the American way. But in Yakima, apparently they don’t cotton to the idea. The mayor thinks a newly elected council member should resign simply because his wife dished dirt on his opponent in an anonymous blog. And get this: some of it wasn’t even true! Anonymity is a cancer on Web dialog, of course — one reason identity-authenticating Facebook is so hot right now…which is why top Google (fully vested, it should be noted) execs, according to TechCrunch, are actually leaving the search giant for riper opportunities with the younger, smarter set. Somewhere Steve Ballmer is smiling…

And thanks to Erica C. Barnett for answering the question I posed Thanksgiving eve on whatever happened to the Amazon play for SoLa? Um, nothing. Although I have to say, it looks like the neighbors are getting suckered. Hey, maybe they’ve just been overwhelmed by the spirit of giving this holiday season.

Shop on, ye Christian soliders! Or as Dan might put it in his ongoing series, “O they will know we are Christians by the Black Friday discount tags on our shrinkwrapped baubles…”

Mom’s oven was broken, so no turkey for me. To take the edge off, I prescribed myself a quart of whiskey mixed with milk, and this video. Enjoy!

Share your favorite lines from the video in the comments!

Please note: When riding an escalator, there are rules to be followed. While folks from actual “big cities” understand escalators and their proper use, folks in Seattle have managed to avoid learning escalator basics. Here we go…

If you want to stand still on the escalator, stand on the right side.

If you want to walk on the escalator, please do so on the left side.

Now that the Seattle Transit Tunnel has reopened, I’m finding the exact degree of “cluelessness” that exists. On some of the longest escalators in Seattle, I’ve been hung up behind balloonheads who don’t seem to understand that yes, I’d like to get where I’m going faster than this steel horse, all by itself, will take us.

The folks who will reply with “why are you in such a hurry? blah blah blah”… Look, the rules exist to make things run smoothly. I’m asking for basic courtesy. I don’t like getting the stink-eye when I politely ask, “can you please step aside?”

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has Santa’s back:

SEATTLE – Mayor Greg Nickels today launched “Operation Save Santa” to help protect the North Pole from the ravages of global warming. The mayor will enlist helpers in Santa hats to hand out 2,000 free energy efficient light bulbs prior to the tree lighting celebration at Westlake Center at 4 p.m.

The mayor kicked off the campaign today with an open letter to Santa. Concerned by the record ice melt in the Arctic Ocean this summer, Nickels reassured Santa that Seattle and 728 other U.S. cities are making progress protecting their communities, the planet and the North Pole from global warming. As he pointed out when he launched the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, Nickels is convinced that in the absence of federal leadership, cities must take action together.

“Some say that if we don’t do something to cut greenhouse gas emissions soon, the North Pole might be ice-free in summer as early as 2030. That’s why we’re launching ‘Operation Save Santa,’” Nickels wrote in his letter.

Nickels asked Santa to recognize that Seattleites should be on his “nice” list for all of their efforts to conserve energy. They helped make Seattle the first city in the nation to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels. And they continue to make a difference through Seattle Climate Action Now, a grassroots campaign to help people reduce climate pollution at home, at work and when making transportation choices.

“I’m really proud that Seattle is making progress on protecting our climate. I know a few light bulbs won’t fix the ice maker at the North Pole, but it’s a start. And when we all work together, we can make a difference,” Nickels wrote.

It might be too late:

Sign the petition.