Archives for March 2009

Man, those righties sure are obsessed with Darcy Burner’s resume… obsessed with getting it wrong.

Yesterday, (u)SP’s Eric Earling “reported” that Darcy would be taking the Executive Director position at the Congressional Progressive Caucus, prompting the usual wingnut mirth about Darcy being some sort of hard left socialist or something.  His reliable source?  A Facebook update from former Reichert Chief of Staff Mike Shields, a man who made a career out of lying about Darcy and her accomplishments.

In fact, Darcy is taking an ED job in the other Washington, but it most definitely is not with the Progressive Caucus.  I know this because I actually bothered to ask Darcy, who sounded very excited about the opportunity to head up a new not-for-profit policy foundation; details will be forthcoming she promised, once it is officially announced.

In the meanwhile, I wouldn’t count on (u)SP to fill the news void left by the collapse of the P-I.

Do any families balance their budgets anywhere other than the kitchen table?

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.

People are very, very mad about lots of stuff, but especially the latest AIG bailout. The American people are losing patience and tolerance with politicians and corrupt corporate lackeys. (Is that completely redundant?)

Lobbyists should send me twelve (12) five ounce (5 oz.) USDA “Grade A” beef tenderloin steaks, frozen and individually wrapped, or I will kill their legislation.

I’m not freaking kidding. Try me. Flowers too.

It’s Saint Patrick’s Day, so there is a special green edition of Drinking Liberally tonight.

Join us tonight at Seattle’s Town Hall (Seneca between 7th and 8th ave, downstairs) from 7:30pm-9pm, for an evening with political pollster, insider, consultant, and author Stanley Greenberg.

Drawing from his book Dispatches from the War Room, Greenberg will recount his experiences working for five world leaders during their campaigns and governance. He’ll offer a candid look at Bill Clinton’s 1992 successful run for the presidency, his work for Nelson Mandela’s presidential run, Tony Blair as he unveiled “New Labour,” and Ehud Barak’s attempts at peacemaking. Greenberg will offer his assessment of why some politicians succeed, while other fail to bring their governing vision to fruition.

Tickets are $5 at the door. An ad hoc drinking get-together will follow the event.

Rumor has it that some hard-core drinkers and anti-reading types will gather at the usual spot—the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E—for dinner, a Guinness or two, and the oral transmission of political culture.

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 327 chapters of Drinking Liberally scattered across the earth. So put on your best caubeen, grab your favorite shillelagh, and stroll on down to a location near you.

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders asks “How Did the Seattle Times Become a Local Media Villain?” and then does a pretty thorough job answering the question.  In short, the Times has long catered to the fast growing suburban market, while the more urban P-I has better matched and served the interests of the city named in its masthead.  Not a bad business strategy for the Times, I suppose, but hardly endearing to us city folk.

The Seattle Times also clearly became the more Republican/conservative of the two papers exactly at a time when Democrats were cementing their hold on Seattle and its close-in suburbs, with the Times editorial board reflecting (and at times, regurgitating) the increasingly anti-labor, anti-tax, anti-government ideology of its publisher.  As former political reporter Neil Modie once explained to me, his Hearst-owned P-I actually had more editorial independence than the locally-owned Times because its absentee owners couldn’t care less about our state and local politics.

But Sanders is also dead-on in describing the print death of the P-I as a chance for the Times to recast its public image:

In a way, there’s an opportunity here for the Times. Right now, whatever the merits of the sentiment, the Seattle Times—the SEATTLE Times—is not seen by enough people as a true voice of this city. It wouldn’t take much, though, to start turning that around.

Sanders suggests the Times should start by leafing through the archives of their former rival, but I’ve got a more dramatic and immediate recommendation for Times publisher Frank Blethen:  if you really want to send a message to P-I loyalists that your paper can credibly represent all the voices in our public debate, you should go out and hire yourself a bona fide, liberal shitkicker like… well… me.

That’s right Frank, give me a regular column… hell, give me a seat on your editorial board, and with it, your personal assurance that I have the freedom to passionately refute the opinions of you and my new colleagues, without fear of reprisal or the need to constantly look over my shoulders.  Send a message to readers and the community at large, that the Times not only welcomes debate, it invites it, especially when it challenges the styles and orthodoxies of our media/political/business establishment.  Send a message that you’re actually learning something from the Internet other than fear.

(And yes, after all I’ve said and written, I’d happily go to work for Frank Blethen; if I could cash a paycheck from the Church of Latter Day Saints, I’d certainly have no qualms cashing one of his.)

Yeah, I know, that’s not much of a cover letter, which I suppose partially explains my current employment status, so if you really can’t bring yourself to swallow your pride and hire me, then you should hire somebody like Sandeep Kaushik, who’d be just as interesting a read, but I’m guessing a tad more acceptable to your current staff after years of brown-nosing them on behalf of his political clients.  But whatever.  You get the point.

The Times does have an opportunity to woo former P-I subscribers, but that window won’t remain open forever, so now, Frank, is the time to send a clear, persuasive and loud message that you are willing to represent the views and sensibilities of all Seattleites, not just those of our stodgy ruling class.  It is time to send the message that the Times is willing to embrace change.

And who better to send that message than your paper’s loudest critic?

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.

When the film Star Trek Nemesis laid an egg at the box office, the brass at Paramount were perplexed. A flop at the box office, panned by critics, yawned at by hard core fans, ignored by non-nerd movie goers, the fabled franchise made famous by Shatner and Nimoy finally ran out of gas.

Movie execs are creatures of habit. This explains Godfather: Part III. It explains the two Alien Vs. Predator movies. It explains Adam Sandler’s film career. Given a choice, movie executives will go for the safe, dumb, moderately profitable choice versus the visionary, ground-breaking choice.

A few years after the flop of Nemesis, Star Trek’s corporate parents, Paramount, declined to make the safe choice, and instead put their brand in the hands of someone outside the company.

February 24, 2007 After months of speculation, J.J. Abrams has signed on to direct the next installment of the “Star Trek” feature franchise, sources said late Friday. “Star Trek XI” revolves around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.

J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost, and Alias) decided to take the film series in an entirely new direction. He rebooted the franchise, recasting the characters from the much-loved original series as their younger selves. The new film, titled quite simply as Star Trek, hits theaters in May, and at $150 million has the largest budget of any Trek film to date. Talk about boldly going…

What does all of this have to do with newspapers? It’s simple. Recast the entire newspaper with younger, fresher talent. And not with journalists, either. Recast them with younger actors playing journalists. Something to make younger readers pay attention. You know, like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

We don’t need new media, and we don’t need new journalists. What we need are actors playing the part of journalists. Because if America has learned anything in the last few years, it’s this:

1) Don’t eat peanut butter.

2) The people running our banks are insane.

3) Actors can be trusted to bring you the news.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo-qc-oDwfM[/youtube]

Dan Savage appears a tad frustrated with Seattle politics:

I’ve had it with Peter and Tim and Nick and Richard pansy-assing around about running for mayor. They announce they’re thinking about it, they think about it, and then they announce that running for mayor is just too scary or too expensive or that Greg is just too formidable an opponent. Christ, do these guys have one lonely little nut between the four of ’em?

Dan’s solution to all this pansy-assing?  He’s running for mayor.  Really.  Although he promises to resign 24-hours after being sworn in.

When it comes to the race to replace King County Executive Ron Sims on the other hand, indecisiveness doesn’t appear to be much of a problem.  Just a week after he announced he was considering a run, State Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-Mercer Island) is making it official, joining councilmembers Larry Phillips and Dow Constantine in what’s shaping up to be an interesting race.

I know there are a lot of Seattle-centric folks who can’t take their eyes off the battle between Larry and Dow, but I wouldn’t take Fred’s candidacy lightly.  He’s got a lot of support amongst social progressives, and should have broader appeal in East King County than the two city slickers.

Anybody who has ever met the TNT’s Joe Turner knows he’s a cynical, cranky, old curmudgeon of a reporter… you know, in a lovable sorta way.  So what was his take on that controversial WSLC email, once he finally got to read it?

It doesn’t seem that over the top, at least not so bad as the reaction implied.

Huh.  Looks like I’m not the only Olympia observer who thinks the Dems overreacted, and I don’t know anybody who suggests that the WSLC actually faces prosecution.  In fact, I’m so confident that nothing remotely illegal took place, that if charges are filed, I promise to dress up in a dog costume, paint a target on my back, and take a dump on Frank Blethen’s front lawn.

Well, I’ll give RNC chair Michael Steele credit for one thing… there’s certainly no change in his party’s political climate under his leadership:

Michael Steele has taken the GOP’s global-warming denial to a new height: “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process.”

Yeah, sure it is.   And Steele knows this because of his vast experience as a seminarian, attorney and political hack, whereas the overwhelming percentage of climate scientists who say our planet really is warming, well… what the hell do they know?

A policy debate is one thing, but I mean really… don’t you R’s find it the least bit embarrassing to belong to a party that denies science?

I agree with the Seattle Times editorial board in one respect, silly rules do beget silly results, but the ballot mockery they rail against really is as much their own fault as anybody’s.

[L]awmakers should find a way to close one gap in the law that allows candidates to make a mockery of the ballot. Current rules say a candidate can list political party preference below their name as anything that fits within 16 letters.

In the 2008 election, the net result was candidates who listed themselves as members of parties, such as “Prefers Salmon/Yoga Party” or “Prefers Cut Taxes G.O.P. Party.”

Neither are the names of real parties. Some candidates used the 16-character rule to create a campaign slogan, and in the process, ridiculed the ballot.

[…] The same rule allowed Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to list “prefers G.O.P. Party,” probably because of the dire state of the Republican brand.

Yup, this sure does make a mockery of the ballot, but I think it worthwhile to point out that this mockery is entirely within the spirit of a top-two primary system that intentionally ridicules the party based system it seeks to replace.  In championing both the top-two primary and the move to “nonpartisan” elections in King County, the Times has repeatedly berated and belittled the rights of political parties and their longstanding role in the American political process—should it come as a surprise that others, without a printing press at their disposal, have chosen to echo this meme on the ballot itself?

(It is a curious irony that when the Chinese Communists trample the rights of political parties we rightly accuse them of being anti-democratic, but when we do the same here it is always in the name of more democracy. Huh.)

Of course I support the rule change the Times urges, but it merely lances a single oozing boil rather than addressing the underlying disease eating away at our body politic:  a profound disrespect for politics itself.  Even after the rule change a Republican could still claim “prefers Democratic Party” on the ballot rather than Dino Rossi’s more subtle deception, for as long as the parties are denied the basic right to officially identify or deny candidates as their own, party identification will remain entirely meaningless.

Parties and partisanship have long played a vital role in American democracy, as a means of institutionalizing dissent, and of encouraging a vigorous public debate.  In the long run, it is the Times and other defenders of civility, through their relentless undermining of a meaningful dialectic, who really make a mockery of our political process.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has announced that tomorrow will be the last day of publication for the print edition.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer will roll off the presses for the last time Tuesday, ending a 146-year run.

The Hearst Corp. announced Monday that it would stop publishing the newspaper, Seattle’s oldest business, and cease delivery to more than 117,600 weekday readers.

The company, however, said it will maintain seattlepi.com, making it the nation’s largest daily newspaper to shift to an entirely digital news product.

And just like that, it’s gone. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of on-line publication will continue. It’s not like having fewer reporters in Olympia has been a good thing.

UPDATE (Goldy):
Last night I went to check “tomorrow’s” headlines in the Seattle P-I, and my usual bookmark produced and error page that resolved to the URL:  “disaster.seattlepi.nwsource.com”.  I guess that was an omen.