HorsesAss.Org

Search Results for: drinking liberally

Editorial Dissent (Open Thread)

by — ,

Only several hours after Ed Murray decided against running for reelection, the HA Editorial Board decided to endorse Ed Murray not running for reelection. Unlike The Seattle Times or other editorial boards, the HA Editorial Board encourages dissent (at Drinking Liberally last night).

So no, Ed Murray can run if he wants. Nothing has been proven. That said, if he decides to run, or even just in his public statements and defense in court, he should stop the victim blaming. And obviously, fuck him if he did it.

Carl Ballard

Live Blogging the First Presidential Debate

by — ,

Okay…the debate is about to begin. Have at it in the comment threads. I’ll post my nuggets of wisdom from the folks at Drinking Liberally and from Twitter.

[6:05] Opening topic: reducing income inequality in a period of low unemployment.
Clinton: Invest, invest, invest.
Drumpf: CHINA! CHINA! CHINA!

Trump claims that U.S. doesn’t have the largest, most sophisticated manufacturing facilities in the world. Ummm…Mr. Trump, ever hear of Boeing’s plant in Everett? Largest in the world.

[6:13] Drumpf, “The U.S. doesn’t know what it is doing” in manufacturing. Unbelievable!

[6:14] Drumpf is starting to fall apart already, with his little aside to Clinton.

[6:15] Drumpf’s import tax bring to mind Bill Murray’s famous SNL lounge skit: “Trade Wars / If they had made wars / Let there be trade wars / ooohhh oh yeah.

[6:19] Again and again, Drumpf tells us what we “have to do” without any concrete proposals.

[6:20] Clinton successfully holds off Drumpf’s attempt at disruption.

[6:21] Hello? Moderators?

[6:26]: Drumpf completely LOST IT! “No wonder you have been fighting ISIS your entire life.” ISIS didn’t even exist when she last held a government position.

[6:33]: Drumpf has an audit conspiracy.

[6:39]: “We spent 6 trillion dollars in the middle east” and we didn’t even take all of their oil….

[6:40]: Clinton may have used a private email server, but at least she paid her IT subcontractors.

[6:43]: Drumpf has calmed down, but is having trouble focusing.

[6:44]: Drumpf things Hillary is afraid to say “law and order”. WTF?!?

[6:48]: Drumpf is rattling off endorsements. What’s next, poll numbers?

[6:50]: Donald Trump wants to take guns away…from dark-skinned people.

[6:52]: Clinton makes a passionate argument for justice reform. Trump’s response, “she won’t law and order!” and “stop and frisk!”

[7:00]: Dear @realDonaldTrump Obama produced the standard Hawaii birth certificate in 2008.

[7:12]: DJT uses “Cyber” incorrectly. Clearly new to the word. Norbert Weiner spins in his grave.

[7:15]:Drumpf blames Obama/Clinton for leaving Iraq. You know…the withdrawal that was set up by Bush’s failure to come to an agreement with Iraq.

[7:22]: At the end of a crazy, defensive tyrade, “I have better judgement than her.”

[7:24]: Trump is sniffling a lot. Is he well enough to be President?????????

[7:26]: Clinton’s “caviler attitude about nuclear weapons” segment was potent.

[7:27]: Holy shit. @realDonaldTrump understanding of defending other countries amounts to gangster movies.

[7:33]: Clinton’s strategy: say something clear. Let Drumpf babble.

[7:35]: No shit on Clinton’s statement on stamina. Look at her freaking schedule while SOS! Brutal travel and meeting schedule.

The Minimum Wage Survives

by — ,

Darryl mentioned it in this morning’s Drinking Liberally thread, but it’s kind of a big deal that the US Supreme Court won’t hear the Seattle minimum wage case. There are 2 reasons why it’s mass rad. First, for Seattle and other places where we want to set a minimum wage, and are going to have the sort of slow, multi-tiered implementation that we got. We can keep the law in place without this imaginary legal hurdle. For the fast food workers and other franchise employees who’ll get a raise going forward, it’s worth it on its own.

But, it also signals that with Antonin Scalia off the court, maybe the country won’t slip further into a new Lochner era. Maybe we won’t decide as many cases primarily on the basis of what’s good for business.

Systemic

by — ,

When liberals and conservatives have conversations about things like homelessness, it can be frustrating. Conservatives want individuals to take personal responsibility. And while liberals find individual responsibility important, we also understand that there are systemic problems that have to be dealt with. That it’s really tough to bootstrap yourself into a house if you’re homeless and there isn’t enough supply. So, sometimes we talk past each other. Jason Rantz tries to circle that square by showing how liberals being tolerant is the real systemic problem (h/t).

I’ve been meaning to do a longer piece for a while, but it keeps being nice out. After like 4 days, it’s still too nice of a day to do a metacommentary piece on the whole thing, but here are some highlights:

But why so many in this neighborhood? I’ve never seen as many until recently. As other neighborhoods are engaged in trying to help deal with the problem, Capitol Hill seems like they’re allowing it to develop unfettered. I think I know why: ideology.

Homelessness is everywhere. I don’t know what neighborhood doesn’t have homeless people. Including suburban and rural places in King County. Also, is Cap. Hill’s tolerance new? Because otherwise, it doesn’t really apply to this supposedly new problem. Also, too, I walked from the light rail station to Drinking Liberally last Tuesday, and back fairly late at night. It was after reading this piece, so I was on the lookout for homeless people. It didn’t seem like a whole lot, at least compared to other neighborhoods. Sure, I passed by some people sleeping in doorways, but I don’t think more than Downtown or Belltown. Certainly not more than, say, the Terminal 91 Bike Path or SoDo, if we’re trading anecdote for data.

Progressive ideologues like to preach how tolerant they are. You ask them and they’ll proudly tell you. Now, they don’t support ideological diversity, but they’re pro-LGBT, pro-people of color, pro-atheist, pro-multicultralism, pro-whatever. The only things they’re against seem to be capitalism and cisgendered white Christian Republican men. And to show how tolerant they are, they seek to ban microaggressions; they support college students who need “safe spaces” from opinions that make them uncomfortable. They like to declare themselves allies of any group they believe to be oppressed.

Atheism and multiculturalism are both ideologies. So that third sentence is self-refuting. Some progressive ideologues are against capitalism, but I think most aren’t. Also, I don’t know what against “cisgendered white Christian Republican men” even means. Like, don’t think they should dominate the conversation, sure. But progressives are not the ones trying to regulate where cis people can poop or poised to nominate someone who wants a travel ban on Christians. Anyway, I guess we should just be glad he learned the word cisgendered and this isn’t a rant about that.

Oh my God there was so much wrong with that paragraph. OK. Keep going.

Nobody is trying to ban microaggressions. Pointing out how harmful they are? Sure. You can go yell racial epithets (macroaggressions if you like) in the park, and nobody is going to ban you. But you think a ban on microaggressions is in the works? Also, safe spaces and being allies to the oppressed is pretty rad. Like everywhere should be unsafe in general and harmful to oppressed people? What the fuck even is that? In fairness, he walks that back a bit in the next couple paragraphs, that I’m skipping. But still.

I think some ideological activists won’t help the homeless because they subconsciously want to live around them. They can say that they don’t judge people based on their appearance or status as someone who lives on the street, and this gives them a sense of superiority to those of us who want to intervene.

This describes literally nobody. The solutions to homelessness include build more housing and make it affordable. It isn’t just tolerate it. The closest thing I can think of to being tolerant as a policy was housing for chronic public inebriates, but that has been a success story among King County’s mixed-at-best record.

Open Thread 3/21

by — ,

So this happened over the weekend.

If you care about the opening of the new line, other people have said more interesting things than me. But here’s my 2 cents anyway.

This isn’t such a new thing in the way that the line from the airport to Westlake was. That being the first line and all. But it being on time and under budget, as well as a useful extension is promising. The stations are beautiful, and in great locations.

the only real negative for me was that I was a bit claustrophobic getting off at the U-Link station. I wandered around a bit before getting on the escalators but still felt boxed in. I hope at some point we get better as a city at stand to the right walk on the left.

All in all, quite good. I imagine I’ll take it pretty regularly. It’s a bit far from the Capitol Hill station, but if it isn’t raining too bad, you can take the train to Drinking Liberally.

Open Thread 2-3

by — ,

This (autoplays) is a few days old (they make Iowa Caucus predictions) but I just listened to it yesterday on my way to Drinking Liberally. It got me thinking about the foreign policy philosophies of the Democratic candidates. I would dispute that Clinton’s foreign policy philosophy is just about competence. I’d say that women’s rights are human rights was an animating idea during her tenure at State and in the Senate.

I asked a few people at Drinking Liberally how they would sum up Sanders’ foreign policy. And we found some interesting things about his record, but I don’t know if it’s predictive for voters or for the bureaucracy if he gets elected. I’d very much like to know more about his foreign policy, but I haven’t seen it yet. It’s one state down, so we may well see something that crystallizes it going forward.

(this has been edited a bit to make it clear I’m just talking about foreign policy)

The Socialist State of the Union Response!

by — ,

Assuming I get my blown-out tire replaced in time (thanks, I-5 through Tacoma!), I’ll be at Drinking Liberally live tweeting the State of the Union. But afterwards I invite you to join me for what’s become a Seattle tradition these past few years: city council member Kshama Sawant’s annual Socialist response.

I’ve embedded the live stream above. And remember all you Bernie-come-latelies: we’ve been electing Socialists here in Seattle since before it was cool!

Open Thread 1-6

by — ,

Now that Jim McDermott has made it official, it’ll be interesting to see who replaces him. I don’t have any favorites really, but I’d sort of prefer not voting for a person who thought they should primary him. One worry that came up at Drinking Liberally would be someone running as a Prefers Republican Party candidate could slip past a crowded primary field and make it into the general if there are enough Democrats. I don’t think that’s an issue.

So, any preferences?

Rep. Jim McDermott rumored to retire without first dying

by — ,

Seattle’s “Congressman for Life” Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA-07) will, apparently, defy his appellation and retire from the House without first dying.

McDermott is expected to announce his retirement on Monday. If KING 5’s sources are correct, that is.

Image of Rep. Jim McDermott
The 79 year-old psychiatrist-turned-politician was first elected to the Washington state legislature, representing the 43 district, in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. House in 1988, taking office on Jan 3 of 1989.

McDermott had several causes in Congress including health care issues of all types and, generally, pissing off the Republican leadership. His battle against Newt Gingrich over Gingrich’s violation of a House Ethics committee agreement was epic (but cost McDermott a lot of money). McDermott also fought an unorthodox battle to strike the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

McDermott once showed up the the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally. A couple of College Republicans decided to stop by that same evening and pestered the Congressman. He largely ignored them. But, then again, he hasn’t been back.

Maybe he’ll have more time for recreational politics and beer next year.

G.O.P. Debate Open Thread

by — ,

The debate should start at 5:30. I’ll be at Drinking Liberally and live-blogging the event (internet bandwidth permitting).

To get this thread started, here is an interesting video that was released today:

Does this provide any insights about one particular G.O.P. candidate’s (1) truthfulness, (2) great memory, (3) campaign substance?

5:10: The kiddie debate is over. Caught the closing statements. Sen. Man-on-dog wins just because he had such an upbeat way of talking about death.

5:25: What the fuck, CNN? “Trump arrives at debate” isn’t fucking news.

5:33: Someone named “Rinse Prius” or something is giving some bullshit talk. He sounds like a used car salesman.

5:36: Is Donald Trump holding up the show? Holy fuck…start without him!

5:43: Rand Paul has morphed into Ron Paul: Unelectable oddball.

5:44: Red ties are in.

5:46: Again?!? Seriously? The national anthem? This debate better involve some sort of physical test of skill!

5:48: Did Paul just say the Constitution is wrong?

5:52: Hey, Chris Christie, those LA father’s are probably thankful they aren’t crossing a bridge in NJ!

5:55: Jeb Bush: “I’ll keep our country safe, secure, and free”…just like my Brother did.

5:58: Carson pauses for a moment of silence. Don’t be fooled…he just REALLY needed to close his eyes.

6:02: Jeb: “Trump would be a Kaos president.” Get Smart!

6:05: Cruz is a one issue candidate tonight: “Obama won’t say ‘radical Islamic Terrorism’, so vote for me.

6:08: Is Christie wearing a “junk” pin on his lapel?

6:20: Christie needs to make an executive decision to straighten his tie.

6:22: Carson bails on a question…and looks really bad doing it. Wow.

6:26: Fiorina throws around “CEO” as if Americans have a positive association with the term.

6:36: Aaaaaaahhhh…a Muslimey looking questioner! Everyone duck under your podiums!!! (podia?)

6:39: Actually, Donald, Bush seems a little more energetic than you do this evening….

7:08: This debate has become exceptionally empty and repetitive.

7:11: “Punch Russia in ‘The Nose'” Nikolai Gogol smiled.

7:12: Earth to Fiorina: The withdrawal from Iraq was Bush’s doing.

7:19: Trump hurt himself with his juvenile “tough guy” insults to Jeb and then talking poll numbers. He should save that crap for campaign events.

7:32: Donald Trump. A totally low energy debater. Low ENERGY. Am I right?

7:37: Kasich says stuff that doesn’t sound extreme. But doesn’t really say anything at all.

7:45: As President, Dr. Carson could do brain surgery on “unstable” Kim Jong Un

7:45: Carson memorized a bunch of military stuff!

7:47: Ummm…Jeb Bush used a private email server while Gubernator of FL.

7:55: At this point Carson seems almost incapable of speaking…

8:03: Jeb bush stumbles his way through his closing comments. He was doing okish until then.

8:04: Rubio: “Now millions of Americans feel left behind”…like most Muslim Americans?

8:05: Carson’s “exceptionalism” closing statement makes him sound like he munched on lead paint chips as a lad.

Wrap-up. Another retched debate. My complaints is that WAAAAYYYYYY too much time was spent on security and terrorism. Fact is…foreign terrorism is a pretty minor threat in the U.S. Domestic terrorism is a much bigger threat, but no real discussion of that. That’s because IT DOESN’T SCARE VOTERS enough. I missed a chunk of the debate, but I didn’t hear anything about climate change, the environment, air polution, the economy, health care, domestic infrastructure, gun safety, white collar & Wall Street crime, higher education, primary education, mass transit & reducing traffic congestion, tax relief for the poor, reducing income inequality, energy independence, credit card fraud, etc., etc. These are issues that affect Americans every single day. And there was nothing.

These guys are in a political campaign bubble, and completely out of touch with the real America. But they got that fear thing going….

GOP Debate open thread

by — ,

      Okay…it is not clear whether we can watch the debate here at Drinking Liberally, but I’ll be streaming and listening on a laptop.

Feel free to go at it in the comment thread.

5:58: Okay…audio and video are up and running here at the Roanoke.

6:00: National anthem before a debate suggest this is some kind of fucking sporting event! Let there be BLOOOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!

6:03: Holy fuck…get on with it already.

6:04: Why is Paul in there? Most pollsters don’t even bother doing Clinton-Paul match-ups anymore.

6:08: Carson blatantly lies about the effect of raising minimum wage.

6:10: Shorter Rubio: America is great because we have poor people for the rich to exploit.

6:14: Kasich on balancing the budget. I recall that Clinton did that, and that Shrub shot that to hell. Lesson: If you are fiscally responsible don’t elect a Bush or a Republican.

6:18: FAUX debate moderator doesn’t appear to understand “participation rate”.

6:20: Jeb Bush’s new platform: Repeal Everything Obama.

6:21: Fiorina uncomfortably wedges a anecdote in to a profound non-answer.

https://twitter.com/DanteAtkins/status/664266627417030656

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/664273075299418112

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/664289601788313600

Well, that was awful.

Editorial Endorsements Are Stupid (but Here’s Who I’m Supporting for City Council)

by — ,

HA doesn’t really do political endorsements because A) I think unsigned endorsements are kinda stupid, and B) it’s generally no secret who we individually support. But since I haven’t been writing much at HA recently, and I don’t have Slog at my disposal anymore to influence elections, I thought I’d take a moment to clarify my thoughts on a handful of city council races.

District 2: I’m voting for Tammy Morales
Nothing personal against Bruce Harrell… but I’ve got nothing personal for him either, and I’m hard pressed to think of anything he’s accomplished during his eight years on the council. He’s way too conventional for my liking, and yeah, okay, I’m a little pissed off at his pissiness towards Kshama Sawant. So I’m voting for Tammy Morales.

Morales is affable, smart, energetic, and not totally full of herself. (Also, she doesn’t live in Bellevue, ever.) Yes, I know Josh Farris speaks more directly to my issues, and I’m glad he’s running, but Morales stands the better chance of forcing Harrell to break a sweat. And I want to see Harrell sweat.

Kshama Sawant

Surpise! I support Kshama Sawant!

District 3: I’ve maxed out to Kshama Sawant
I rarely donate to political campaigns because I figure my blogging is contribution enough. But Kshama is more than just special. Never in my 12 years of closely following state and local politics have I seen a newly elected official achieve so much so quickly, sometimes by the mere threat of her presence. And as much as Sawant has dragged Seattle politics to the left, her defeat would be taken as a mandate to drag it sharply to the right. That’s why the business community is spending so much to defeat her.

So as an indication of how strongly I feel about this race, I’ve contributed the maximum $700 to Sawant’s campaign, and I encourage you to give whatever you can afford. Sure, my generosity is partially a reflection of my improved finances, but it’s mostly a reflection of how important I believe it is to our city, our state, and our nation to keep this particular socialist in office.

District 4: I slipped Michael Maddux a $20
I could think of lots of reasons to deny Jean Godden yet another term, but I only need to give you two: She’s been there too damn long, and she’s simply too damn old. That may not be nice, but it’s true. It’s time for her to move out of the way and give somebody else a chance.

As for Godden’s main opponents, I don’t hate Rob Johnson, but I don’t particularly like a lot of the people and organizations supporting him. And when the Seattle Times endorses Johnson by praising his “willingness to break from Seattle’s insular liberal orthodoxy,” that just gives me the willies. So if I had a vote in this district, I’d be casting my ballot for Michael Maddux, who clearly represents the progressive values of the district and the city. Also, he shows up at Drinking Liberally. So there’s that.

Position 8: I’m voting for Jon Grant, if only to make a statement
This is without a doubt the toughest decision for me. First of all, I weirdly like and respect Tim Burgess (yay universal preschool!), even though he’s consistently the most awful vote on the council, and perhaps the biggest dick on the council when it comes to disrespectful treatment of Sawant. Second, I kinda like all three of Burgess’s serious opponents, if in different ways. Third, Burgess is almost certain to win reelection. So if I’m going to cast what I perceive to be a protest vote, then I’m going to cast it for Jon Grant, who is running almost entirely on tenants rights and affordable housing… issues Burgess kinda sucks on.

Position 9: I’m supporting Bill Bradburd (but secretly voting for Lorena Gonzalez)
The whole thing with Sally Clark’s sudden retirement followed by Lorena Gonzalez’s instant campaign stunk of Ed Murray trying to maneuver a political ally onto the council. But every time I’ve spoken to Gonzalez or have seen her speak, I’ve come away more impressed. I’d really like to vote for Bill Bradburd, what with his focus on affordable housing, but I’m not sure I trust his neighborhoody NIMBYist instincts. So, yeah, I’m voting for Gonzalez (who’s going to win anyway) and hoping she proves a disappointment to Ed.

The Others:
Mike O’Brien and Sally Bagshaw are going to win reelection regardless, and I haven’t paid close enough attention to District’s 1 and 5 (there’s just too damn many candidates!) for me to pick a definitive favorite in either. So if you vote in those districts, I’ve got nothing to offer.

There you have it. It’s not an endorsement, per se, because that would be stupid. I mean, who am I to tell you how to vote? Still, there’s no harm in telling you how I’m going to vote. Take it for what it is.

Hailing A Cab

by — ,

I hope I’m not back-in-my-daying this too much with this post but I’m writing it anyway:

The bus from Drinking Liberally to my apartment has been rerouted so now the best stop is like 10 blocks away from my apartment. It hasn’t been a bad walk the last few times I’ve taken it, but a few nights ago I was already dragging a bit. I had walked to Drinking Liberally when it was still pretty hot out, and I was out too late. 10 blocks was sort of that middle distance where it’s too short to call a cab or an get an Uber but I thought to m’self “if I see a cab, I’ll hail one.”

I didn’t see a cab until I was a block away from my apartment. I feel like even 5 years ago there were enough cabs out downtown — even at 11:30 on a weekday — that I would have caught one. Maybe this is me misremembering things, maybe it’s the route I took home, maybe it was just coincidence and I would have caught a cab most times.

Certainly, this personal story of one night isn’t data in any sense. But it does feel like now that Uber and Lyft are out there there are fewer cabs to be hailed. Maybe from a consumer’s point of view that’s a fine tradeoff for the advantages of ride sharing, but it is an issue. I’m not sure what the solution is.

Open Thread 5/6

by — ,

– Oh hey, public pressure might have actually done something to stop the Arctic drilling fleet from coming to Seattle.

– I never drank as much as the author of this piece, but I can definitely relate to being one of the few non-drinkers by choice at a party.

– I’ve walked there a bunch, but it’ll be nice to try out the bike path is open at Mercer.

– I don’t really follow Canadian politics but it was explained to me at Drinking Liberally that Canada’s Texas just elected a bunch of commies.

– On busing and birthday parties (or, My brief encounter with a bus goddess)

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldy.horsesass.org

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.