Darcy Burner: Defending and Protecting the Constitution

“I Will Not Compromise On Upholding The Constitution”
Darcy Burner -- September 20, 2008

This is why I love Darcy.

Joan McCarter writes wonderfully: A Day in the Life of the Darcy Burner Campaign.

Highly recommended.

Contribute here.
I just kicked in $250 USD. Wow, is our country worth it.

There's more...

I-1000 — It’s Not About Disabilities

I am a man with disabilities.

Moving HURTS.

My walking stick has been in my family two generations.

Like many people, I have disabilities you can not see. But the being a gimp thing is pretty damn obvious.

Back before I became a crip, I was a paramedic and a flight medic.

I worked as a paramedic for almost ten years. Houston, Little Rock, Tucson & South Tucson, Oakland, and up in the mountains doing rope work. The videos you see on television of medics going down hoists out of helicopters with red crosses on them, into floods, ravines, and mountains? That was me. I flew all over the western United States in both little prop planes and on high-flying Lear Jets. I worked in big-city inner-city neighborhoods — the ghetto — and I flew above it all as a flight medic. Except for the moments when I dropped in and pulled someone out.

All that is behind me now. Even walking hobbling to the bathroom hurts.

Some people, who claim disabled status, are lying about I-1000, the Death With Dignity initiative. They claim it is a trick to put down folks like me, people with long-term chronic injuries or medical issues. They are liars trying to scare people.

Don’t be fooled.

Death With Dignity has NOTHING to do with people with disabilities. That is a vicious, cruel, dishonorable lie.

I’m going to tell you the truth:

If you’re a cripple or a gimp or a wheelie, or just so hurt you don’t know how you can take it some days, I-1000 doesn’t apply to you AT ALL. Nada. Nicht. Non. Not one fracking bit. The ONLY people Death With Dignity applies to are people who are TERMINALLY ill.

If you have a disease which multiple physicians sign off as fatal, that you’re going to DIE and die soon, then and only then can YOU request a dose. That’s it. It is your call, no one else.

None of this has anything to do with people with disabilities. Not a thing. If you have pain, get a good pain doctor. It’s amazing how much pain can be managed with meds these days. I KNOW. I take pain and associated meds every three to four hours around the clock and have for years. Most of the time they work.

Here’s my point. Pain hurts. Disabilities suck. But Death With Dignity isn’t about people with disabilities. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Don’t listen to the liars.

Unless what you have is fatal NOW, unless you are dying NOW, Death With Dignity has jack shit to do with you. Because it only applies if you are dying NOW and multiple doctors say so.

In that final moment, I know I want my mother, my children, myself, to be able to be as PRESENT, as AWARE as possible. When death comes — and it is coming, one death to a life, that’s the way it works — I want my eyes to be open so I can watch the transition happen.

Death With Dignity allows this to happen.

The liars would have you believe otherwise. That it has something to do with being a gimp, a cripple, a wheelie, or otherwise a person with a disability. It does not.

Death With Dignity has to do with YOU and the people you love; with being in charge of your life… and your death… when it is time. YOU, and your doctors, and your family, will know when it is time.

Right now it is time, please, to Vote YES on Prop. 1000.

Written for HorsesAss. Cross-posted at Group News Blog.

There's more...

Support Darcy Burner

Do you live in the Washington 8th district? Know anybody who does? Help get out the vote for her this Tuesday (19th).

Darcy Burner

There's more...

At the Fundraiser

Darcy Burner fundraiser attended by Thomas Goldstein and Lauren Berkowitz
at the home of Maureen Judge on Mercer Island, Washington, July 9, 2008.
photo Jesse Wendel / Group News Blog.

All Politics is Local

A local fundraiser for Darcy Burner went well Wednesday evening.

People dropped in and out all evening, walking, driving, even biking.

The couple you see above -- Thomas is the Executive Director of Washington Bus, an awesomely cool program which goes all over Washington State registering young people to vote. Yes, it has a bus. Lauren is simply cool. -- showed up at Darcy's fundraiser on road bikes. ROAD BIKES.

Thomas was riding Shimano Dura-Ace group (around since 1973) on his road bike, which is nowhere near as cool as my Campagnolo Record group (Campy's been around since 1933). Campy -- When you care enough to send the very best.

Not doing another Coming of Age ride with my kids this year due to the demands of the political season. Still am managing to get out and tool around here and there on my Titanium-Carbon LeMond. I'd say probably 10-15 of the people who showed up for Darcy's fundraiser came on bicycles.

Perhaps 75 people came over the three and a half hours. State and local, as well as a few national bloggers. There were some elected folks and people who both had run for office and (I think) were running for office. I had a nice chat with about social networks, generational changes, poverty and class, with futurist and blogger Rob Salkowitz, the author of Generation Blend: Managing Across the Technology Age Gap.

A good time was had by all.

Darcy and family are doing well. She wasn't there, by the way. Wasn't intended to be. This was to raise funds for her, and it did that well. So far, with General Clark's request from earlier this week, we're at roughly $129K on a goal of $150K, $150,000 being Burner's entire fundraising goal for July.

I heard tonight one other mega-appeal should hit someone's network in the next day or so, and hopefully that will take her over the top. Then anything else raised will be a head-start on August.

Darcy IS planning to attend at least a day or so of Netroots. Last I heard that's still on. All this is complicated by the insane federal campaign laws which don't let people even buy her a meal or a drink, all the normal stuff one would do for someone whose home burned down. So we do what we can which is donate money to Darcy's campaign as an act of humanity -- to buy Darcy time off to put her life in order.

There's more...

Darcy Burner's Home Burns Down

Five Year Old Henry Saves Family

Tuesday July 1 at roughly 7 AM, Darcy Burner's home burned down.

The fire started in the room of 5-year-old Henry Burner, in his lamp. Henry rushed out of his room and told his Mom, who got everyone (but the family cat) out safely.

The fire spread quickly. It burned the home to the ground. Darcy, her husband Mike, and little Henry are all fine.

Seattle Times

Her 5-year-old son, Henry, came into her and her husband's bedroom around 7 a.m. screaming there was a fire in his room, Burner said.

"I scooped him up and got him out of the house," she said. Everyone, including the family's golden retriever Bruce Wayne, made it out uninjured, but their cat did not survive.

Burner said she hadn't yet considered whether the fire would impact her campaign.

"I am today focused on my family and just really grateful that my family is OK," she said. "Tomorrow I'll wake up and figure out what comes next."

SkyKING raw video.
News Chopper 7 raw video (No audio).

I spoke last night with Sandeep Kaushik, Burner's spokesman. He was with her most of the day. She, her husband, and little Henry are all doing well. Darcy is taking a few days off from the campaign to spend time with her family, and then will return.

Darcy Burner for Congress

I am also deeply grateful for the expressions of support from friends, supporters and others who have called to express their condolences and offer their generous and heartfelt assistance. I am so moved by all of the offers of a place to stay, or clothes to wear, or all of the other offers of help that have poured in throughout the day. While we are fine for now, your kind expressions of support and concern have helped to sustain me through what has been a long and difficult day.

For those who would like to do something to express their support, let me suggest making a contribution to your local humane society or animal shelter in memory of Charlotte, or to the Washington State Council of Firefighters Benevolent Fund.

Thank you all for being there for us in my family's time of need. It means so much to us.

In the meantime...

Today was going to be day two of GNB's first ever fundraiser. We're going to push that back till tomorrow, and here's why.

Darcy's one of us. She's a geek. Look at the shirt she was wearing when she rushed out of her home when it was on fire...

That's XML for Stop the War. It's what she was wearing around the house at 7 AM.

David Goldstein and Kos both have wonderful posts up, the bottom line of which is this: Darcy needs a few days off. Due to the demands of modern campaigning, the only way she can take time off to be with her family is if we raise funds for her.

I invite each of you to donate to Darcy. Because of federal campaign laws, we can't send Henry new toys or Darcy new clothes. But we can give her time with her family by letting her stay home a few extra days.

Please give generously to Darcy's campaign today. And don't worry. Our scheduled GNB fundraiser will return tomorrow.

Thank you to everyone.

Darcy Burner outside her home which has just burned down.
July 1, 2008. photo Ellen M. Banner/The Seattle Times.

Update: 2:45 PM.

GNB doesn't endorse candidates.

I like Darcy personally, but part of the job of politician's is to be likable.

What we're doing here is the humane thing, the modern equivalent of sending over some blankets, clothes, and plates of food -- which we legally can not do with a federal candidate for office. Well, maybe the plates of food, but that's about it. *sighs*

Anyway, I already chipped in $100 bucks, not because I'm endorsing anyone but because I think it's the right thing to do for someone who's just lost their home and damn near everything they own. Not out of GNB funds -- out of my personal account.

I encourage people to give generously. I know her. She truly is one of our own.

Update: 4:00 PM.


And the dog is saved too...

Markos at DailyKos has set the goal of raising $150,000 to take the burden off Darcy throughout all of July.

As of 3 PM we're at $50K and climbing.

Y'all are THE BEST.

There's more...

What Condition Our Condition Is In

They call Economics "the dismal science". If you've ever taken a basic econ class, you'll know why. The assumptions upon which economics are built are known to be faulty (people do not act "rationally" as defined by economists), the conclusions are often depressing, many of the important questions are left unasked, and the ability of economists to agree on how the world works (or an economy works) is extremely limited. These problems notwithstanding, we spend an appalling amount of time thinking about the economy, worrying about the economy, trying to effect the economy, trying to predict the economy, and generally obsessed with the economy.

So let's take a look at a few current "conditions"

Pricing the War

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes suggest that the Iraq War is going to cost $3 trillion or even more. You can see the current direct costs of the war for the US, states, towns, or congressional districts at the National Priorities Project.

The Economist weighs in, largely with quotes from others, so I won't quote it. But check out this blog entry by Robert Reich.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, "Barack Obama says the war costs each household about $100 per month." Here's the math:

• Amount requested by the Bush Administration for 2008 War Funding: $196,400,000,000 (that's $196.4 billion)
• Number of households in the US: 126,316,181 (that's 126 million)
• Annual Cost per Household: $196,400,000,000 / 126,316,181 = $1554.83
• Monthly Cost per Household: $1554.83 / 12 = $129.57

That $1550 annual cost is the whole War on Terror, not just the Iraq War. What could you do with $1550 in your household? Of course, it's not evenly distributed. People who pay more taxes bear more of the direct cost.

But we all bear the secondary costs, like current and future interest expense for the money we're borrowing to pursue the war. We also all bear the opportunity cost. According to the National Priorities Project site, taxpayers in the state of Washington (my nearest US neighbor) will spend $1.9 billion for Iraq War funding in FY 2008. That money could have bought:

• health care for 300,000 people
• health care for 767,000 children
• Head Start for 214,000 children
• 35,000 public safety officers
• 30,000 music & art teachers
• 31,000 elementary school teachers
• 317,000 scholarships to university
• 179 elementary schools
• 25,000 port inspectors for shipping containers
• 10,000 affordable housing units

In FY 2009, projected spending for the taxpayers of Washington state will be $3.2 billion (168% of the FY 2008 spending.

According to Zachary Coile of the Chronicle:

In historical perspective, the Iraq conflict is already one of the most expensive conflicts in U.S. history.

The price tag in Iraq now is more than double the cost of the Korean War and a third more expensive than the Vietnam War, which lasted 12 years. Stiglitz and Bilmes calculate that it will be at least 10 times as costly as the 1991 Gulf War and twice the cost of World War I.

Only World War II was more expensive. That four-year war - in which 16 million U.S. troops were deployed on two fronts, fighting against Germany and Japan - cost about $5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

In early 2003, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels said a war with Iraq could cost $50 billion to $60 billion. Even Congressional Democrats suggested it would cost only $93 billion (although they specifically excluded peacekeeping costs).

The Economist article linked above is quick to note that "suggestions that the war is responsible for current economic malaise are misguided--to the contrary, given under-utilised capacity, the war is probably helping to keep the economy moving". Their contention is that we're not using our full production capacity because of current problems with the dollar and demand and the credit crunch and so keeping the machines operating by having a war is reducing our economic problems. IF that is correct, and I doubt it is, surely we could do at least as well by spending that money here in the US, perhaps fixing some of the crumbling infrastructure in which Republicans don't believe we should invest money.

Home Foreclosures

California, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida are experiencing foreclosure rates of more than 1 in 150. If you click through to the zoomable map, you can examine your region, or downtown Tampa, or wherever. Some neighborhoods are getting very hard hit. Absolutely great map.

During the peak of the Great Depression (1932-33), foreclosure rates reached roughly 10% (pdf). That's 10% of all mortgages, not 10% of all houses. Our current rate is about 1% of all households. About 1.3 million homes entered foreclosure in 2007, with 1 to 2 million households predicted to face foreclosure in the next 18 months or so. The US home-loan market was about $3 trillion in 2006. About 1 million new single family homes were sold in 2006. The average house sold in 2006 cost $305,000. If all houses were fully financed (not likely), $3 trillion / $300,000 = 10,000,000 houses sold in 2006. If 1.3 million homes entered foreclosure in 2007, that's equal to 13% of the houses sold in 2006. If half of all home purchase costs were financed, then $3 trillion / $150,000 = 20,000,000 houses sold in 2006 and 1.3 million foreclosures represents about 6.5% of the houses sold in 2006. Without better data I can't get more precise, but we appear to be below the 10% foreclosure rates of the Great Depression, but within an order of magnitude and possibly in the vicinity of half of those rates. Too close for my comfort, certainly.

Real Wages

Real wages are down for this generation of adult Americans. Taking men in their 30s as a generational proxy, real wages are 12% less than in 1974. According to the EMP American Dream Report, released in May 2007 (WSJ article quoted here, gated version here):

Beginning with a comparison of men ages 30-39 in 1994 with their fathers' generation, men ages 30-39 in 1964, we see a small, but fairly insignificant, amount of intergenerational progress...Adjusting for inflation, median income increased by less than $2000 between 1964 and 1994, from about $31,000 to under $33,000 -- a 5 percent increase (0.2 percent per year) during this thirty-year period.

The story changes for a younger cohort. Those in their thirties in 2004 had a median income of about $35,000 a year. Men in their fathers’ cohort, those who are now in their sixties, had a median income of about $40,000 when they were the same age in 1974. Indeed, there has been no progress at all for the youngest generation. As a group, they have on average 12 percent less income than their fathers’ generation at the same age.

Bottom line, our condition ain't everything it should be. It's pretty clear that the experiment in relatively unbridled capitalism over the last 30 years or so has failed many Americans. It's time for change.

There's more...

The Rule of Law

Supreme Court Strikes Down Challenge to Washington State Elections

Good for the Supreme Court.

Some of my liberal colleagues are up in arms about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling (7-2) in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, which said that, at least for now, the top two vote-getters in Washington State's primary election, regardless of political party, will advance to the general election.

My liberal colleagues are upset because they see this as the Court giving the finger to a political party's ability to control who its members are.

That is not what has happened.

The Supreme Court is acting precisely how we as progressives, committed to restoring the RULE OF LAW in the United States, should want them to act.

The Justices -- with all four of the "liberal" Justices in the majority -- did precisely what high school civics classes, back when we had high school civics classes, told their students is the role of the Judicial branch: ruled narrowly, only on the issue in front of them, and avoided making sweeping constitutional pronouncements when there was a way to avoid doing so (and there was.)

The job of the Judicial branch is to let the Legislative and Executive branches do their job, and to step in only when the law needs interpreting, to rule as narrowly as possible, and then to get back out of the way.

This is precisely what The Supreme Court did yesterday. Under Chief Justice Roberts we should expect to see this more often.

Good.

The key distinction in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party is FACIALLY v. AS-APPLIED.

• Facially means the law as written, i.e.: Black-letter law, e.g.: Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
• As-applied means the law as implemented, e.g.: Washington Administrative Code plus how the law works in practice in the lives of real people.

The Justices are saying they are unwilling to consider if the law is unconstitutional on its face (as written), because it has never been implemented. The Supreme Court says it is not the place of the Judicial branch:

• to decide if the Legislative branch has made a mistake,
• absent the Executive branch implementing the law in a way in which real people are harmed,
  
• unless the law clearly violates the written Constitution/Amendments or a previous (Constitutional) ruling of the Court, e.g.: imposes prior restraint on free speech, or imposes restrictions on abortion in the first trimester.

Otherwise, the Court is unwilling to rule against a law simply since someone says someday, somehow, the law might violate the Constitution if implemented poorly.

As this law has not yet been implemented, the Court says, we know our Constitutional role and refuse to over-reach. If once the law has been implemented, you believe you are harmed, make your case then. We have not ruled on the fundamental claim you are making as a constitutional issue; you have not been harmed and possibly never will be. We have said only that we will not reach your core claim today, and -- which is why we refuse to go further -- perhaps it will not ever be necessary to reach to the constitutional claim.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
(The Steel Seizure Case)

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Concurring

The Framers, however, did not make the judiciary the overseer of our government. They were familiar with the revisory functions entrusted to judges in a few of the States, and refused to lodge such powers in this Court. Judicial power can be exercised only as to matters that were the traditional concern of the courts at Westminster, and only if they arise in ways that to the expert feel of lawyers constitute "Cases" or "Controversies." Even as to questions that were the staple of judicial business, it is not for the courts to pass upon them unless they are indispensably involved in a conventional litigation -- and then only to the extent that they are so involved. Rigorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial function is especially demanded in controversies that arouse appeals to the Constitution. The attitude with which this Court must approach its duty when confronted with such issues is precisely the opposite of that normally manifested by the general public. So-called constitutional questions seem to exercise a mesmeric influence over the popular mind. This eagerness to settle -- preferably forever -- a specific problem on the basis of the broadest possible constitutional pronouncements may not unfairly be called one of our minor national traits. An English observer of our scene has acutely described it:

At the first sound of a new argument over the United States Constitution and its interpretation, the hearts of Americans leap with a fearful joy. The blood stirs powerfully in their veins, and a new lustre brightens their eyes. Like King Harry's men before Harfleur, they stand like greyhounds in the slips, straining upon the start.

The Economist, May 10, 1952, p. 370.

The path of duty for this Court, it bears repetition, lies in the opposite direction. Due regard for the implications of the distribution of powers in our Constitution and for the nature of the judicial process as the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution, has not only confined the Court within the narrow domain of appropriate adjudication. It has also led to "a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision." Brandeis, J., in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 346. A basic rule is the duty of the Court not to pass on a constitutional issue at all, however narrowly it may be confined, if the case may, as a matter of intellectual honesty, be decided without even considering delicate problems of power under the Constitution. It ought to be, but apparently is not, a matter of common understanding that clashes between different branches of the government should be avoided if a legal ground of less explosive potentialities is properly available.

Bravo. This is the Rule of Law.

For seven long years we have watched the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration refuse to enforce the law, and the Republican Party turn away.

Yesterday, The Supreme Court said, this Court stands for the rule of law. All four liberal Justices agreed, just as they did in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

I am shocked this decision was not 9-0. Even Justice Thomas understands one of the central functions of the Courts is, when it is possible to not reach to an answer, it is necessary to not reach to an answer (with rare exceptions.) This is called judicial restraint. It is a fundamental part of how our Courts, the law, and the Separation of Powers work. If the Courts did not so restrain themselves, soon the Courts would be interjecting themselves into every damn thing willy-nilly, and the last bastion of freedom from tyranny we have would be lost to politics.

My deep congratulations to the Supreme Court for demonstrating that -- at least when it isn't fractured along political lines -- the Court can still be trusted to follow the Rule of Law.

There's more...

Washington State Republican Caucus Update

via TPMMuckraker we have this report:

So why did Esser call the race with 13% of the delegates still outstanding? "He was giving his analysis," the spokesman said. "He said it appears John McCain has won. This wasn't a certainty." (The party's press release, titled "Sen. McCain Wins Republican Precinct Caucuses in Washington State," bore no such ambiguity.) People who had participated in the caucuses had naturally "expected to hear results and hear analysis of what they had spent the whole day doing," he explained.

Huckabee is demanding a recount, and he is gaining on McCain in Virgina. Isn't it time for Chuck Norris's tired old ass to start showing back up on TV?

There's more...

Shenanigans in Washington State

McCain       3,468 26% 87% reporting
Huckabee   3,226 24%

Did Huckabee win in Washington State? Yesterday, after Huckabee leading all day in Washington, at the last minute the Washington State republican party issued a press release showing John McCain pulling ahead by 1 or 2 percentage points and calling the race for McCain. They never updated the voter totals or turnout after the 87%. Huckabee, after winning the 2 other states that held elections for the Republicans yesterday, got very suspicious about the results.

The Huckabee campaign is deeply disturbed by the obvious irregularities in the Washington State Republican precinct caucuses. It is very unfortunate that the Washington State Party Chairman, Luke Esser, chose to call the race for John McCain after only 87 percent of the vote was counted. According to CNN, the difference between Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee is a mere 242 votes, out of more than 12,000 votes counted-with another 1500 or so votes, apparently, not counted. That is an outrage.

Huckabee has now sent lawyers to Washington state, presumably to audit the votes. This race is not over.

There's more...

Campaign Trail Note #3

I failed caucus class Saturday. *sighs*

My report at techPresident, the technical story of the Presidential race.

techPresident

Failing the Mobile Caucus Test in WA State
by Jesse Wendel

I didn't caucus in Washington State today. Of course, it's my own damn fault for not knowing where my caucus meets.

Personally, I blame the campaigns. They failed the mobile wireless test.

Caucus time is 1 pm. Doors close at 1:30. Left the house at 12:55. Plenty of time; after all, I vote just up the street at the elementary school. Arrived precisely at 1 pm...to an empty parking lot.

Oh yeah. I remember reading, "your caucus location is different from your polling location." No problem. It's an elementary school. That much I remember.

Twenty-eight minutes...

How hard can it be?

There's more...

This being part of your community stuff -- much harder than it looks.

NOTE: Nothing in this post should be construed as an endorsement of either Democratic candidate for president. It is an article with facts and opinions about politics. I have not made up my mind, and GNB is not endorsing any candidate until there is a clear nominee. I intend to add this to all my political posts from now till we have a nominee.

There's more...

Washington State Caucus Update

Anecdotal reports from inside the WA caucuses talk of a rout for Senator Obama in many precincts. More stories like before, packed halls, running out of chairs, overflow, huge turnout. Nothing official.

There's more...