Search Results for: ’

There are some high profile diplomatic meetings coming up regarding Afghanistan, but in Vienna over the past two weeks, a conference took place that could have far more of an effect on success or failure there. The United Nations’ Commission on Narcotic Drugs has convened for the last two weeks. Reuters reported on the first week of the conference:

U.N. members are expected to sign a declaration this week extending for another 10 years a “war on drugs” policy critics say is flawed and only feeds organised crime, helps spread HIV and undermines governments.

The U.N. drug strategy declaration, due to be signed in Vienna on Wednesday or Thursday, marks the culmination of a year of divisive talks among member states to try to agree a unified counter-narcotics policy for the next decade.

At the last convention in 1998, the slogan “A drug free world — we can do it” launched a campaign to eradicate all narcotics, from cannabis to heroin, by using law enforcement to tackle producers, traffickers and end users globally.

Needless to say, this effort fell far short of its goals. Hundreds of millions of people across the globe still use and sell illegal narcotics. As the Reuters article points out, the real consequences of this international circus act have been disastrous:

Drug policy campaigners, social scientists and health experts argue that strategy has failed, with statistics showing that drug production, trafficking and use have all soared during the decade, while the cost of law enforcement, both financially and socially, has rocketed, with vast numbers imprisoned.

In the United States, where illegal drug use is highest, the government spends around $70 billion a year to combat drugs. But illegal drug use has risen steadily over the past decade and a fifth of the prison population is there for drug offences.

Of course, that’s only a small part of the disaster. It has turned Mexico and our inner cities into war zones. It has created an atmosphere of fear and hostility between law abiding citizens and the police. And on the world stage, it threatens to undermine NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan.

One of the promises of the Obama Administration was to restore a commitment to science-based policy over ideological posturing. When it comes to drug policy, they’re moving in the right direction, but still have a way to go before truly fulfilling that promise.

Within international drug policy, the sticky point is the term “harm reduction.” Ideas like needle exchanges, safe sites, decriminalization for users and addicts, and the legal markets for cannabis are the main examples of harm reduction. In areas where these harm reduction methods have been tried, the negative overall effects of drug abuse – from overdoses to petty crime to street violence – have been reduced. It’s virtually impossible to find public health experts who’ve studied this subject who will say that these tactics don’t work. While the Obama Administration has been willing to endorse needle exchanges, they’ve been balking at endorsing other proven strategies:

In a statement explaining the White House opposition to harm reduction, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to the U.N. in Vienna, emphasized the administration’s support for needle exchange programs and “other evidence-based approaches to reduce the negative health and social consequences of drug abuse, including access to medication-assisted treatment for narcotic addiction.”

“However,” Pyatt continued, “the United States continues to believe that the term ‘harm reduction’ is ambiguous. It is interpreted by some to include practices that the United States does not wish to endorse.”

Such practices, according to State Department spokeswoman Laura Tischler, include drug legalization, drug consumption rooms, heroin prescription initiatives and programs to provide drug paraphernalia that has no tangible health benefit to the user.

By claiming that heroin prescription initiatives, drug consumption rooms, and legalization have no benefits, Tischler is very blatantly putting ideology ahead of science. Vancouver’s IN-SITE program, which allows for drug addicts to have a safe medical setting to feed their addictions, has been such a success in helping people get clean (and to reduce the collateral damage that generally comes with addiction) that an official from the Harper Government last year publicly rebuked the government’s attempts to close it. Everyone from Vancouver city officials to the police to health experts have been fighting to keep the program running. In Switzerland, their heroin prescription program has been so successful that voters there overwhelmingly voted to continue it. In Zurich, the number of new heroin addicts has plummeted by nearly 90% since they launched their program in the mid-90s.

Glenn Greenwald traveled to Portugal last year for the Cato Institute to study the effects of drug decriminalization in that nation. The Portuguese didn’t just decriminalize marijuana either, they decriminalized all personal drug use, including cocaine and heroin. Here’s what he found:

Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

Yet in Vienna this past week, the United States sided with Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran in preventing the declaration from containing anything about harm reduction. In the eyes of the world’s most authoritarian regimes, “harm reduction” is seen as an encouragement to do drugs, even though the reality has long been that harm reduction methods have not led to greater amounts of drug use. This decision was made under the direction of the outgoing interim Drug Czar, Ed Jurith, and not the recently appointed Gil Kerlikowske.

The proper analogy here, as this Students for Sensible Drug Policy post on the conference points out, is that harm reduction is to drug use as birth control is to sex. The pursuit of both sex and drugs is a part of human nature. The idea that institutions can establish effective barriers against these human impulses has repeatedly been shown to be folly. The role that institutions should play is to ensure that these impulses have the least negative impact on others. That’s the point of harm reduction, and by every measure, it works far better than trying to use law enforcement to stamp out the behavior altogether.

This failure in American policy isn’t just resulting in more crime and more wasted taxpayer dollars. It’s also undermining our efforts in Afghanistan. As we continue to strong-arm our European allies to take a more hard-line (and ineffective) approach to reducing drug use, the Taliban increasingly profit from the inflated prices. They profit both by protecting traffickers (and farmers) from the law and by participating in the trade directly. Afghanistan still produces around 90% of the world’s heroin, which accounts for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the entire nation’s GDP. Much of this profit goes towards weapons used to kill coalition troops.

Much of the exported heroin from Afghanistan heads west through Iran or northwest through Russia on its way west. As a result, Russia and Iran now have two of the largest heroin addiction problems in the world. Those two notoriously authoritarian regimes both make attempts to downplay the problem while also demanding the most authoritarian response. In fact, Iran’s drug war solutions tend to look a lot like ours:

According to the figures released by Iran’s Drug Control Headquarters, Tehran spent over 600 million dollars in the two years leading to October 2008, to dig canals, build barriers and install barbed wire to seal off the country’s borders.

The result is that while the troops who fight alongside us in Afghanistan are Canadian, Dutch, French, and British, our approach to dealing with the illegal opium trade is more in line with what Russia and Iran advocate. As a result, the number of coalition troops who’ve lost their lives there has steadily risen over the past five years, and our relationship with NATO allies has been strained. When it comes to how to deal with the opium, we’re agreeing with nations we tend to consider enemies, while our strongest allies are seeing their brave young men and women being killed every day as a result.

The Taliban of today is not the Taliban of 2001, which used both religious sentiments against drugs and western aid to massively reduce the amount of opium produced there. The Taliban today is much more driven by nationalism and much more willing to profit from this trade. As a result, they’re once again threatening to overtake the regime in Kabul. They also have strong ties to anti-western radicals within Pakistan, which has the potential to turn the problem in Afghanistan into something worse altogether.

It’s been encouraging to see more and more media outlets correctly illustrate the dynamics of what’s currently happening in Mexico. There seems to be a growing understanding that the alarming amount of violence there is driven by American demand for illegal drugs and cannot be defeated with a military response. What we can’t afford to have right now is the same dynamic playing out in the lawless areas of Pakistan, where a populace largely sympathetic to radicalism has been put in a position to profit handsomely from the opium trafficking that we’re trying to push out of Afghanistan.

Up until now, the residents of the border area of Pakistan have been able to keep themselves isolated from Islamabad’s reach, but they don’t currently threaten the government itself. That could change if control of the opium trade ends up in their hands. And that’s exactly what our strategy in Afghanistan appears likely to do.

Just as the drug crackdown in the United States – the one that has filled our prisons to record numbers – has done nothing more than create a war south of the border, our ongoing belief that victory in Afghanistan comes from defeating the opium traffickers rather than building up stable Afghan institutions will only result in the same thing over there – a war south of that border as well.

Limiting the amount of money being made through the opium trade can only be done one way – by limiting the demand. A number of nations, including some of our closest allies, are figuring out how to do this effectively. Unfortunately, America’s anti-drug officials are still fighting them on purely ideological grounds. They’re ignoring evidence and avoiding debate. It’s time that we have an administration that allows for a fully open discussion on these issues that values empirical evidence over fear mongering. If not, Afghanistan will most certainly be to Obama what Iraq was to Bush.

Speaking of denial, I’ve always found this familiar journalistic defense to be particularly stupid…

“Criticism of CNBC is way out of line,” NBC head Jeff Zucker said at the BusinessWeek media summit at McGraw-Hill’s headquarters just now. … The press didn’t cause us to go to war in Iraq, he said; a general did. The press missing the financial crisis didn’t cause it. “Both are absurd,” he said.

What’s absurd is the notion that the press merely observes current events without influencing them, especially when it comes to politics, and especially especially when it comes to economics, both areas where public perception is at least as important as the “facts” on the ground.

With a head up his ass response like that, I’d argue that Zucker shouldn’t have any influence.  But unfortunately, he does.  And yes, his networks do hold some responsibility for helping President Bush cheerlead us into a war in Iraq and an economic bubble at home.  I mean, if his argument is that missing the financial crisis had absolutely no impact on the severity of the crisis itself, does that mean uncovering and predicting the crisis early on would have had no impact too?  And if so, what exactly is the point of journalism?

From the Albany (Ga.) Herald, in regards to the “Proud Peanut Expo” being held in Blakely, Ga., home of the Peanut Corporation of America. Here’s a nice quote from a local Chamber spokesperson.

“Our purpose is to show peanut butter is trustworthy,” Halford said. “There is a lot of misleading information. The Peanut Corporation of America (in Blakely) was a very small drop in the bucket that seems to be spoiling a whole bunch. We don’t want to focus on the bad; we want to focus on the good.”

Well, at least “spoiling” is the correct word to use. I haven’t touched one bite of peanut butter or peanuts since this case broke, even though I have a nearly full jar of name brand peanut butter I had already made sandwiches from. Clearly it’s not contaminated. However, sitting down to lunch and thinking about salmonella is rather off-putting, to say the least.

The outrageous case of PCA should be a lesson to all industries. Consumers will steer clear of products in a certain category in the wake of mass injury, even products from reputable companies. Ask tomato growers. Or the beef industry. You’d think people would finally figure out that it’s in everyone’s interest to sanely and properly regulate consumer items. Until corporate America gets this message, it’s not only consumers who lose, it’s also businesses whose sales plummet in the wake of these incidents. The cost of sensible regulation is surely less than than the hundreds of millions in lost sales every time this happens.

Props to Marler Blog.

Get this– it seems the PDC wants no part of the flimsy faux-controversy “email-gate” involving the state labor council and um, well, the governor, house and senate leadership killing a labor bill.

Josh Feit at Publicola, again weighs in with some of that reporting stuff:

Well, check this out. According to a statement clearing the labor council today, the Washington State Patrol simultaneously said it was forwarding its investigation on to the Public Disclosure Commission. The State Patrol said the Commission had asked to review the emails. But the PDC just issued this statement, denying the State Patrol’s account:

The Public Disclosure Commission today said it did not request materials from the Washington State Patrol concerning e-mail correspondence sent to legislative leaders last week from an employee of the Washington State Labor Council.

And therein lies the problem with criminalizing politics. Nobody in their right mind at the PDC would touch this thing, because there’s nothing there.

Governor Chris Gregoire, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp and Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown have some ‘splaining to do.

No surprise really. Josh at Publicola reported this earlier this afternoon. From a statement Josh quotes from the Washington State Patrol:

Washington State Patrol detectives, after consulting with the Thurston County Prosecutor’s office, have determined that the e-mail sent to legislative leaders last week from an employee of the Washington State Labor Council did not constitute criminal conduct.

—snip—

“We looked carefully at the e-mail and at the law,” said State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste. “We could not find a specific criminal statute that was violated.”

Readers will recall that legislative leadership and the governor used the flimsy controversy to kill the worker privacy bill this session.

Josh has since updated his post with quotes from Rep. Mike Sells.

Rep. Mike Sells (D-38, Everett, Marysville), the sponsor of the doomed bill says: “Why am I not surprised? There was no ‘there’ there.”

Sells says, “Now there should be an investigation into how this decision [the decision by Democratic leadership to turn over the WSLC email to the state patrol] was made. Was it a ploy to get rid of the bill?”

Sells has a point. The state patrol basically dismissed the phoney-baloney accusation out of hand.

It certainly appears Gov. Chris Gregoire, House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown attempted to use the state patrol to further their own political goals, namely killing the bill. Talk about trying to criminalize politics. The righties, after all, have been warning us for years about a one-party state. Throw in the relative lack of news reporting compared to years past and it looks like a certain set of leaders has grown a wee bit too big for their britches. What, did they figure we wouldn’t care, even if we’re not labor folks?

Again, I’ll use italics to attempt to make the point: they called the cops on the state labor council over a strategy email that also went to a few legislators. Unwise? Sure. Unkind? Maybe. Illegal? Nope, and anyone with common sense immediately saw that.

I’ll just let all this digest a bit before I start in with the obscenities again, I’m going out to purchase an obscenity thesaurus.

UPDATE–5:15 PM– I spoke with someone at the WSLC, and it sure sounds like sending the email to a few legislators was an honest mistake. Obviously that’s almost impossible to prove short of some kind of forensic analysis of the computer involved, and even that wouldn’t show intent, but golly gee. (Notice I am still not swearing.)

Sorry to get all technical, but anyone else have what in technology circles is known as “groups of email addresses for different purposes?” Can’t say for sure that’s exactly what happened, but it sounds plausible.

In justifying the state Democratic leadership’s decision to throw the WSLC under a bus as a convenient excuse for killing the controversial Workers Privacy Act, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown issued a statement saying we have to “draw the line” between the offending email and the “normal process.”

Huh.  Which I suppose begs the question:  what exactly is the normal process?

Back in 2004, House Democrats sent a fundraising letter to business groups that had recently given more money to R’s than to D’s, exhorting them to balance their generosity… 

“As a result of our research, we would like to ask that you consider balancing out your contribution history by writing a donation of $10,000 to the Harry Truman Fund,” concludes the letter obtained by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “We would very much appreciate your generosity and support as we gear up for the 2004 legislative session and impending campaign season.

“Our Leadership team wants to maintain our open door policy with you.”

So, is that the normal process, encouraging the inference that money equals access?  House Speaker Frank Chopp seemed to think so, vigorously defending both the ethics and legality of his fundraising efforts.

“Since when is it a crime to talk about having an open door and bringing people together? … The only limit on me meeting with people is my time,” said House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle. “That’s hardly threatening language. … That’s pretty soft language.

“And that’s pretty common language.”

No doubt.  So if that’s the normal process, when did it become a crime for constituency groups to talk about withholding future financial support from politicians who refuse to support their agenda?  I thought that’s the whole point:  we work for and give money to only those candidates who generally vote our way.  

Of course, Frank knows as well as anybody that this is the way the system works, and for all the effort to make labor look like the unethical bad guys here, it is the business lobby that has recently honed influence peddling into one of Olympia’s most profitable professions.  So profitable in fact, that one of the lobbyists who brokered Boeing’s $4 billion 7E7 tax break, conducts workshops teaching other businesses how to “Turn Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow.”

The seminar, presented during a portion of the annual three-day meeting of the State Government Affairs Council, taught dozens of corporate government-relations executives how to “Turn Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow.” Michael Press, national director of Ernst & Young’s Business Incentives Practice, and Robin Stone, former vice president of state and local government relations for The Boeing Company, delivered the Microsoft PowerPoint-supported presentation March 26 in Savannah, Ga.

The presentation includes a long list of “negotiable incentives” along with such such helpful tips as “control publicity,” “avoid legislation if possible,” and “be mindful of the election cycle,” while encouraging businesses to make a “but for” the incentives threat.  (You know, “but for a multi-billion dollar tax break, we’re moving all our jobs out of state.”)

Turning your state government relations department into a cash cow is perfectly legal, and just plain smart business, and from the lack of moralizing on the part of our politicians and opinion leaders, I can only assume that it is perfectly ethical as well.  So what’s so wrong, by comparison, about labor using the resources at its disposal to influence the legislation it wants? Why shouldn’t unions be able to say what we all understand to be true:  “If you don’t support us, we won’t support you?”  

Ethical or not, isn’t that the “normal process?”

So how much of “conscience driven independent” is Rep. Dave Reichert?

“Twice, Representative Reichert could have voted to support major improvements to E Sammamish Lake Parkway, Route 162 in Orting and upgrades to the transit network in Eatonville – and put Washingtonians to work.  And twice, Reichert just said ‘no’ to what’s best for King and Pierce Counties,” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Fortunately, the economic stimulus bill passed without his support, so Reichert’s home district will get these federal dollars anyway.  But no thanks to him.

As part of an effort by the National Science Foundation to enhance numeracy and improve math education, the U.S. House today passed a resolution designating March 14 (a.k.a. 3-14) Pi Day. The resolution passed on a 391-10 vote:

“I’m kind of geeked up about it,” Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) told POLITICO. “It’s crazy, but I’m a whole lot more excited about that than congratulating the winner of last year’s Rose Bowl.

“I’m not making this up. I have been fascinated by pi since I was a kid. It blows my mind. It’s lovely. The fact that it’s sort of this infinite number. I just think it’s this magical thing. … There’s a real beauty to mathematics.”

That’s the problem with Baird: he’s so…irrational.

It’s a mostly local edition of the podcast, beginning with a discussion of Seattle public schools funding, school budgets, school closures, class sizes, and other educational topics. Talk then turns to the highly contentious Seattle mayoral race where an anticipated field of strong challengers has now faded to hopes for just one. Will a third term be a slam-dunk for Mayor Nichols? After a brief stop at Ron Sims’ office, the panel heads to Olympia. Can new bonds save the state budget? And, anyway, would the voters approve?

Goldy was joined by Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell, Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle,
Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’ Carl Ballard, and Hominid View’s & Horsesass’ …um, me.

The show is 48:00, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_mar_10_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Seattle is a green city, and not just because it rains a lot. Maybe it’s our extraordinary landscape, maybe it’s our history, maybe it’s a combination of these and other factors, but Seattle and its surrounding communities have long been politically green, and profoundly so. Except, it appears, when it comes to the thorny issue of urban density.

Counterintuitive as it may seem, the densest urban communities are also the greenest, making the most efficient use of both landscape and energy, a fact brought home by a recent study that compares the relative CO2 emissions between cities and their surrounding suburbs. Not surprisingly, our nation’s densest city is also by far our most energy efficient, with a CO2 emission differential of nearly 7 tons annually between the average city resident and that of the typical suburbanite.

In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. 

[…] But cars represent only one-third of the gap in carbon emissions between New Yorkers and their suburbanites. The gap in electricity usage between New York City and its suburbs is also about two tons. The gap in emissions from home heating is almost three tons. All told, we estimate a seven-ton difference in carbon emissions between the residents of Manhattan’s urban aeries and the good burghers of Westchester County. Living surrounded by concrete is actually pretty green. Living surrounded by trees is not.

The policy prescription that follows from this is that environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

Of course, New York is the extreme, and due to our lower densities, temperate climate, and anemic, bus-centric transit system, the CO2 emission differential between Seattleites and our suburban counterparts is substantially less, amounting to about 2.5 tons annually per capita.  But that’s a significant savings nonetheless, and one that will only increase as we let go of our single family home ideal, and eventually build up a denser, more energy efficient Seattle.

The shift to electric light rail will also make a huge difference, both by moving trips from cars to transit, and by shifting transit to cleaner electric power.  In fact, one of the more interesting details in the study is that Seattle, while generally in the middle of the pack on other metrics, ranks amongst the top five cities in terms of the current CO2 differential from public transit, with city dwellers annually emitting 2,600 pounds more CO2 per capita than their suburban counterparts.  Of course this is more than offset by the CO2 savings from reduced driving, but our relatively meager overall differential on combined transportation related emissions demonstrates how much room there is for improvement both within and without the city center.

While public transportation certainly uses much less energy, per rider, than driving, large carbon reductions are possible without any switch to buses or rails. Higher-density suburban areas, which are still entirely car-dependent, still involve a lot less travel than the really sprawling places. This fact offers some hope for greens eager to reduce carbon emissions, since it is a lot easier to imagine Americans driving shorter distances than giving up their cars.

Of course, apartment life is not for everybody, and I certainly empathize with residents concerned that rezoning to higher densities will change the character of their neighborhoods, but Seattleites should stop kidding themselves that this resistance to change comes without an environmental cost.  The Denny Party originally dubbed their new settlement New York Alki, “alki” being the Chinook word for “eventually” or “by and by.”  If supposedly green Seattle really cares about maintaining the landscape and natural splendor that is so important to our quality of life, it is time we let go of our 1950’s mentality, and embraced a little more of the Denny’s 1850 vision.

And now a follow up on this post from yesterday, which had its genesis in a Joe Turner article about the Senate killing an asbestos lawsuit bill in retaliation for newspaper ads runs by the firm employing former state senator Brian Weinstein.

Readers may recall that not only did Senators kill the asbestos bill, it looks like they also killed off the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, something that Weinstein worked on very hard when he was in office. Here’s a nugget from Turner’s article yesterday, because scrolling down is so difficult:

In four years, he (Weinstein) never really learned a thing about how this place works,” Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, said Saturday. Hatfield was supporting a couple changes that Kastama and Haugen wanted to make to the original bill, changes that Weinstein’s firm did not want.

How “this place” works is this: Not only did the senators kill SB 5964, they also killed the so-called Homeowners Bill of Rights, a measure that Weinstein had championed for most of term in the Legislature and which he nearly got passed. It passed the Senate, but died in the House.

I talked to Weinstein this morning, and he sounded pretty incredulous at the turn of events, especially when it comes to the current Homeowner’s Bill of Rights.

“I’ve never lobbied for the current bill, I didn’t go testify, I haven’t even read the bill,” said Weinstein.

Over at Publicola, Josh reports that an “insider” offered the “conjecture” that a vote on the HBR is being put on hold because they “Just gotta wash the Weinstein off.” To which one can only offer a shake of the head, and the all too frequent observation that a lot of politicians have their heads where the sun don’t shine if this is how they view things that impact regular citizens. Talk about losing sight of why they were elected in the first place.

Weinstein pointed out this moring how nuts this all has become. “It’s totally absurd for the Senate to be punishing homebuyers by trying to punish me when I had nothing to do with this (current) bill.”

Indeed. We all know what needs washing, and it’s ain’t Brian Weinstein. The insider, frat-boy-sorority girl behavior may be acceptable and common in OIympia, but frankly given the economic calamity facing this state it’s pretty offensive.

Now tell me why I need to support a tax increase, Legislators. Or are you going to kill that bill to teach me a lesson?

Still trying to wrap my head around this one. Joe Turner of the News-Tribune has an article posted about the death of SB 5964, which had something or other to do with asbestos lawsuits. Some mean lawyers ran newspaper ads trying to stop changes to the bill, so the Senate has apparently just spiked it. Or at least that’s what it sounds like from Turner’s report. Check out this bit:

The targeted senators lay most of the blame on a former colleague, Brian Weinstein, a Mercer Island lawyer who until December had been a Democratic senator representing King County’s Eastside communities. Weinstein is now a member of Bergman Draper & Frockt, the Seattle law firm that paid for the ads and which has been lobbying for passage of the bill.

“In four years, he (Weinstein) never really learned a thing about how this place works,” Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, said Saturday. Hatfield was supporting a couple changes that Kastama and Haugen wanted to make to the original bill, changes that Weinstein’s firm did not want.

How “this place” works is this: Not only did the senators kill SB 5964, they also killed the so-called Homeowners Bill of Rights, a measure that Weinstein had championed for most of term in the Legislature and which he nearly got passed. It passed the Senate, but died in the House.

Let’s review how being a citizen works in this state, shall we?

Citizens bring up needed consumer protection legislation, and then it never ever ever ever fucking gets passed.

Geebus. Notice how the Legislature doesn’t ever pass bills, especially consumer protection bills, in retaliation for over the top political advertising (cough cough BIAW cough cough.)

Democrats: a circular firing squad of cats who won’t be herded towards a gun safety class where free tuna is being served.

Oh this is hilarious.

According to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, sales of Atlas Shrugged hit an all-time high last year, and have “almost tripled” in the first seven weeks of 2009 against last year.

Michelle Malkin is the Norma Rae of this Galt moment, walking the virtual shop floors of the country’s “wealth producers,” but instead of “Strike!” her sign reads “Going Galt!”

I’m not so sure Norma Rae is the correct analogy. Maybe more like “The Creature From the Black Lagoon” meets “Risky Business,” with a soupçon of “Weird Science” thrown in, with Malkin in the role of the tormenting brother.

This would be so awesome. What’s stopping them? Anyone stupid enough to “go Galt” is likely a drag on the economy in the first place. Go ahead, righties, go Galt! Ha ha ha ha. In this economy there will be twenty people to take your place. Dear me, who on earth will we get to cook up new derivatives schemes? We’d most likely need to search the prisons for that skill set.

It’s always breathtaking how the most privileged (and often crooked) are always the victims in rightist mythology. Ayn Rand. Bwhaaaaaha ha ha ha. I needed a good belly laugh.

From The Big Picture:

Yesterday, in Backdoor Bailouts for Goldman Sachs?, we noted that GS, as well as Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Deutsche Bank, were all made whole on their bad bets with AIG.

That’s right, what was misleadingly described as systemic risk turned out to be in large part little more than a counter-party bailout — money for the very same people who helped cause the problem.

Only the $25 billion figure I mentioned was off by 100% — the WSJ is reporting this morning it was $50 billion dollars, almost a third of $173 billion total AIG loot:

Here is the link to the WSJ article.

Meanwhile, what has become known as The Scariest Chart Ever has been updated (props to The American Prospect:)

Here’s the link to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Flickr posting of the chart.

Someone should make a chart projecting sales growth in pitchforks, which is my growth industry of the day. (In best lunatic stock picker-screamer voice: “People, I am telling you to buy stock in pitchforks, now, because there is only one way pitchfork stocks are going, and that is up up up up up.”

If the Obama administration thinks they can continue the Paulson plan while employment goes off a cliff I’m afraid they are sadly mistaken. My crystal ball is being tuned up so I can hopefully get another 10-15,000 miles out of it somehow, but the “let them eat cake” aspect of this crisis is getting hard to dismiss. Sure, it’s early in the administration, and yes, the stimulus package, flaws and all, did get passed. But good Lord. Exactly how long are the American people supposed to stand for this outlandish thievery by Wall Street?

Is the RICO statute still around?

Our OCD pals over at Seattle Transit Blog are studying the details of our state economic stimulus bill, and they don’t like what they see.

Wait just a minute. What’s that amendment (PDF)? It’s from Representative Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island), whose constituents voted for light rail over the I-90 bridge?

Oh, I see, it screws over light rail across I-90. Again.

Apparently, thanks to Rep. Clibborn’s amendment, the one state project the voter-approved East Link light rail depends on actually ends up with $700,000 less than it had before the federal stimulus money. No doubt good news to those Mercer Islanders looking to maintain their SOV lanes as long as possible.