Goldy

The deal to make Microsoft the exclusive search provider for Yahoo received much attention around these parts (as nearly everything surrounding Microsoft does) but according to a report on CNET, by consolidating the lucrative search/online advertising market from three to two major players, the deal might not pass Justice Department muster as is:

In this case, the Justice Department is likely looking at two different aspects of the deal. On one hand, regulators are expected to probe whether advertisers will be harmed by the loss of an outlet for their ad dollars, as well as whether Google has less incentive to compete for searchers now that there’s only two fish in the pond. … “This deal is going to eliminate a competitor in search in a market that has high barriers to entry and only has three players,” [antitrust lawyer Matthew] Cantor said. He compared it to the reaction that would have arisen in the 1960s if two of the three major television networks had decided to merge amid a far-smaller media landscape.

[…] Cantor thinks the Justice Department will force Microsoft and Yahoo to put Yahoo’s search technology assets up for auction to let the deal go through. That would allow a third major player to enter the business, although that new entrant would still have the burden of attracting searchers: Yahoo has said that an overwhelming majority of the people using Yahoo search are already doing so from a Yahoo Web page, the combination of which are among the most visited pages on the Internet.

However, that might not be as appealing to Microsoft and would at least throw the deal into question. The company has spent millions on the development and launch of Bing, but it likely is interested in retaining certain aspects of Yahoo’s search technology, not to mention some of its engineers.

It’s interesting that with all the focus in the Seattle Times about Google’s supposedly crushing monopoly, little has been written about the anti-competitive aspects of Microsoft’s own search initiative. Huh. Good thing, at least, there’s plenty of competition in the tech news and analysis business.

Hey… check out my new ringtone:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/SuziePalin.mp3]

That’s Republican activist Peggy Boze, wife of right-wing KTTH talker David Boze, on her husband’s show telling Susan Hutchison exactly what she thinks of her. And of course, that’s Suzie, laughing appreciatively at the compliment.

With a little audio editing magic it sounds great on my iPhone, and it’ll sound great on your phone too. Just download the MP3 (or iPhone m4r) and copy it to your phone.

You can almost feel the Seattle Times editorial board gloating after a King County judge levied sanctions on Kent teachers—an onerous $200 per day, per teacher, retroactive—but if I were a Kent teacher, rather than go back to work, as the district, court and Times demand, or stay on strike and pay the fine, I’d simply quit my job.

Really. I know myself, and I simply couldn’t do my job to the best of my ability, knowing that I was working for an employer who disrespected me. And in asking for sanctions while rejecting a contract offer below it’s own original proposal, the Kent School District has shown its teachers an incredible amount of disrespect.

When the Kent teachers union made an offer Thursday morning that was $200,000 less than the Kent School District’s own bottom line yet would still reduce class sizes, teachers thought they had a solution that would bring an end to the now 16-day strike.

They were hoping to reach a tentative agreement before a 1 p.m. hearing before the judge who had issued an injunction Sept. 1 ordering the teachers back to the classroom on Sept. 8.

So when the district rejected the union’s offer — and made no plans for future bargaining sessions — the teachers were stunned. […] Then came King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas’ sanctions — $200 a day per teacher, retroactive to Sept. 8, and $1,500 a day for the teachers union if teachers are not in class and ready for students on Monday.

Rather than bargaining in good faith the district obviously chose to use the courts to force teachers back to work on the district’s terms, leaving the union with little or no bargaining power.  Well fuck that.

Just because the district can use the courts, doesn’t mean it should, and given the choice between breaking my union or paying a fine I can’t afford, I’d simply choose neither. I mean, why the hell would I want to work for bastards like that?

Of course, this contract dispute will be settled in the end—they always are—and few if any teachers will quit their jobs in the process. But the bitterness will remain, and it will surely exact a toll on the district, the teachers and the students for years to come. So while the Times vindictively celebrates the district’s victory in court, in the end, everybody loses.

As reported on BlatherWatch, KIRO-FM’s “Too Beautiful To Live” was in fact eponymously named, ending its on-air run about a year and nine months after it started. That’s about as long as my show lasted on KIRO, and while I’ve got nothing against TBTL or its host Luke Burbank, I gotta say, in the radio business, what goes around comes around.

While it was never explicitly stated, it seemed clear at the time that I and most of the rest of my weekend and late-night colleagues were axed at least partially to make room on the payroll for the somewhat pricier TBTL. I was of course disappointed at the time, and a lot of inside-radio folks reassured me that KIRO was making a big mistake dumping me… but then, none of these radio-insiders have since offered me a show on their stations, so it was really hard to argue with KIRO’s decision from a business perspective.  In the year and a half since, the switch to FM, the advent of the PPM, and the declining radio market in general have hit KIRO hard, so despite my full spot load, and my relatively low costs, I don’t know if my show would have survived regardless.

Replacing TBTL in the slot will be the familiar (and I assume, much cheaper) voice of Frank Shires, who is nearly always wrong and incredibly uninformed, but who happens to be perhaps the nicest and most gracious person I’ve met in radio, so I wish him the best of luck. Also my best wishes to Luke, Sean and Jen… especially to Jen, who is as friendly in person as she comes off on the radio, and to the ever so easy-going Sean, who as my first board-op made my baptism-by-fire radio debut so much less frightening and disastrous than it should’ve been.

And finally, here’s my fervent wish that KIRO and its newsroom survives this economic and audience downturn and eventually comes back stronger than ever.  I came to KIRO merely to do my own liberal thing, but it was when I had the privilege of keeping listeners company and informed during the 2006 wind storm and power outage that I learned what an incredible resource a radio station could be to a region. We would all benefit to see KIRO return to its live and local glory, regardless of who is behind the mic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXFHXqrrJ6g[/youtube]

Seattle Jew is planning to attend the Glenn Beck event, and he needs your help:

As a non violent demonstration, I would like to be accompanied by one or more liberals carrying (legally) holstered (unloaded)firearms. Realistic stage weapons or blank guns are also welcome buy I am informed that these will also require carry permits.

Don’t own a gun myself, but I’d love to see the reaction of the crowd to a cadre of armed liberals.

A lot of you have probably already seen the photo of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) heckling President Barack Obama, but did you notice that carefully coifed head of silver hair just beneath him? Why that’s Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) of course.

And apparently, Reichert isn’t just close to Wilson in terms of physical proximity. A quick search of OpenSecrets.org finds Reichert has received three contributions totaling $5,000 from Wilson, via his Carolina Majority PAC.

So considering his close relationship with Wilson, I’d be curious to hear what Reichert has to say about his patron’s inappropriate outburst, and whether he too believes that President Obama “lied” in stating that his plan would not insure illegal immigrants?

UPDATE:
You know what else Reichert and Wilson have in common? The uncommon ability to inspire unprecedented generosity… for their opponents. Since heckling the President last night, over 10,000 individuals have contributed over $350,000 to the campaign of Wilson’s challenger, Rob Miller, over $179,000 of it coming via Daily Kos alone, prompting elections analyst Charlie Cook to downgrade Wilson’s reelection prospects.

Send a few bucks of your own Miller’s way, and send a very loud message back to Rep. Wilson.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l9-eT9WzPY[/youtube]

Substantive policy aside, the two biggest highlights from President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform speech last night came within seconds of each other, and both involved the utterance of the “L” word. Of course, I’m talking about the word “lie.”

The first instance came from the President himself, in refuting one of the must absurdly false allegations being lobbed by opponents of reform, and his bluntness was welcome:

“Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”

By “prominent politicians” President Obama was likely referring to Sarah Palin amongst others, and by “lie” he was accusing them of making false statements with the deliberate intent to deceive. “Lie” is a strong word, and one that should not be bandied about lightly by a person of such stature as the President of the United States, but in this instance its usage was both apt and appropriate.

No doubt Palin is not the most informed politician ever to strut across the national stage, but when she repeats the same false statement over and over again, even after being repeatedly and thoroughly fact-checked, refuted and rebutted, it is more than fair to accuse her of lying.  And in a policy debate of such import as that in which we are now engaged, mere gainsaying is not sufficient; it was absolutely crucial for the President to blow up this particularly pernicious lie, and in no uncertain words.

The truth is, people lie. The ability to lie marks a recognizable milestone in every toddler’s cognitive development, and this talent to consciously deceive is one of the uniquely human traits that separates us from most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Indeed, if lying were not such a basic element of everday human interaction, its prohibition would not be the most frequently violated of the Ten Commandments.

And yet, despite the abstract cliche of “lying politicians,” you will almost never read the “L” word printed in the polite pages of our family newspapers. Oh, they’ll fact-check and refute the claims of politicians, they’ll highlight disputes, and even occasionally label statements as clearly false. But they’ll almost never imply intent by accusing a politician or public figure of spreading actual “lies.”

That’s what I found so refreshing… not that President Obama refuted the other side’s lies, but that he bluntly called them as such.

The second use of the word “lie” last night was not nearly as refreshing, but in a way, just as welcome, when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) heckled the President by screaming “You lie!” from the floor of the chambers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyTelRaoBAI[/youtube]

Of course, Wilson’s use of the “L” word couldn’t be more different than the President’s. The death panel allegations are demonstrably false, yet continue to be repeated by prominent politicians well after having been thoroughly disproved; these are indeed lies, plain and simple. But while Wilson might dispute President Obama’s assertion that his proposal would not insure illegal immigrants, “you lie” is not a refutation, and there is absolutely no evidence or consensus that Obama’s statement was false, let alone said with the intent to deceive.

I repeat, the word “lie” should not be bandied about lightly, and yet that’s exactly what Rep. Wilson did.

But of course the biggest difference between the President’s use of the “L” word and that of Rep. Wilson was the context, for the latter came from a US representative, heckling from the floor of the chambers, during a presidential address to a joint session of Congress… a violation of Congressional decorum the likes of which I have never before seen.

Whether Rep. Wilson felt free to interrupt the President because he is a black man, or merely a Democrat, I do not know. But I welcome his show of disrespect because it clearly illustrates the self-destructive naivete of attempting to work with congressional Republicans in an honestly bipartisan fashion, and expecting Republicans to honestly respond in kind. The current class of Republicans do not respect Democrats, do not respect President Obama and do not even respect the Office of the President when occupied by anyone other than their own… which means they do not respect the institution at all. Bipartisanship cannot be imposed unilaterally, and without at least the grudging respect of the party on the other side, would be an ultimately futile and self-defeating pursuit for anything more than rhetorical purposes.

Last night’s speech should be a turning point in the debate on healthcare reform, not just because the President clearly laid out the case for his proposals, but because Rep. Wilson clearly illustrated the petty, hateful and obstructionist nature of the Republican opposition.

No doubt there are many Republicans in Congress who find Rep. Wilson’s behavior dishonorable, but if they wish to avoid being painted with the same broad brush they must do more than merely criticize their colleague or even censure him. They must now prove themselves to be a loyal opposition, or else risk having their own call for bipartisanship demonstrably proven to be a lie.

As reported yesterday on Publicola, Susan Hutchison has substantially trailed Dow Constantine in the all important money race since the August primary. But Constantine supporters should not grow complacent, nor Hutchison fans too discouraged, because as I reported several weeks back, GOP stalwart John Stanton had been quietly promising to wage a million dollar “independent” expenditure campaign on Hutchison’s behalf.

Hutchison’s inability to keep up with her earlier fundraising pace stems mostly from the fact that the bulk of her money came in the form of double-max donations; she simply can’t legally tap much of her ultra-wealthy base a second time. But there’s no limit to how much one can give to “independent” expenditure campaigns, and that’s the beauty of Stanton’s alleged efforts.

We’ll have no idea how much Stanton and his Republican cohorts really raise until the money is spent, but considering what’s at stake in this race, especially for powerful developers seeking to crawl out from underneath our growth management statutes, a million dollars seems like a small price to pay.

We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties this morning, which may result in scattered down periods throughout the day.  Please be patient.

In scolding Kent teachers to get back to work, the always anti-union Seattle Times argues that “Defying court order teaches the wrong lesson.” Uh-huh. Really?

Putting aside the issues of this particular strike (I haven’t paid them much attention, and don’t plan to), teachers, like nearly all workers, have a moral right to strike, even if in Washington state they may not have that legal right, and standing up for one’s rights, even in defiance of the courts, is never the wrong lesson to teach our children, especially in a nation like ours with such a strong authoritarian streak to its national character… a character quickly revealed in the first couple comments in the Times’ comment thread:

davidfelder
anderson island, WA
Why should any Kent student EVER believe another thing his/her teacher tells them?  A teacher willing to disobey a lawful order is a teacher who has no right to expect his/her students to follow the teacher’s rules. A national disgrace.

onein81
moses lake, WA
great first message. mine it to fire every single one of them. take the union leadership and lock them away in jail. am i being to hard. no. back in 1981 Patco members and union leadership were hauled off to jail in handcuffs and chains. fire each and every single one of them.

Whatever the Times editors thought they were saying, surely they must have understood that this is the kind of sentiment their headline would inspire. And while no doubt Times publisher Frank Blethen would be cheered at the thought of union members being hauled away in handcuffs, America in fact has a proud history of civil disobedience… a history lesson conveniently ignored by those who would use the power of the state to trample the rights of others.

The headline in the Seattle Times sounds awfully hopeful, “Wash. lawmakers take next step toward ed reform.” So what exactly is that next step?

They haven’t found a single new dollar to pay for their ideas, but state lawmakers and education officials are pushing ahead with plans to start implementing education reform.

A new education reform committee recently held its first meeting. It is chaired by the superintendent of public instruction and counts among its members the speaker of the House and the chair of the Senate Education Committee, so the political will to move on is there.

No money to pay for their ideas, or any idea how to raise the money, but at least they started a new committee.  Can’t get much bolder than that.

But some of the faces around the table have sat at similar meetings, battling similar issues for years.

Oh. That’s not an encouraging sign.

First came the governor’s Washington Learns task force that published an ambitious plan to improve education in 2006. That report led to the state’s new Early Learning Department, but the Legislature could not find the money to implement most of the other ideas.

There’s that pesky money problem again.

Then came the reinvented State Board of Education, which moved ahead on some related ideas, including new high school math requirements and a proposal to require high school students to earn 24 credits instead of 19 to graduate.

Next, the Basic Education Finance Task Force, wrote a road map last summer for completely changing the way the state distributes its education dollars. The task force’s ambitious plans would cost an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion a year, on top of the $7 billion a year the state already spends on education.

And the money…?

The 2009 Legislature adopted some of the task force’s ideas and put a new group, the Quality Education Council, in charge of implementing the plan, but with a new twist. This time, the task force is also in charge of finding the money to pay for the changes.

Rep. Skip Priest, R-Federal Way, has sat around many education reform tables, including Washington Learns and the Basic Education Finance Task Force.

“I think it’s time we have a sense of urgency about this issue,” Priest said after the Quality Education Council held its first meeting at the end of August.

No shit, Sherlock.

Honestly, there is no substantive education reform without the money to pay for it, and all the committees and commissions in the world won’t change that. So in a state facing its deepest fiscal crisis perhaps ever, and a long term  structural revenue deficit as far as the eye can see, the real “next step” to education reform in Washington state is an honest debate about tax restructuring, and unless Republicans like Skip Priest are willing to push for that debate, they really aren’t approaching education reform with any sense of urgency at all.

I’m just sayin’.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofxVMlU97yA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUMQR_Bo7s[/youtube]

In Part II of my “Talkin’ with Teabaggers” adventure, I chat with an elderly gentleman protesting last Thursday’s pro-healthcare reform rally (you know, the one that never happened).  No snarky subtitles or silly inserts this time, just a few minutes of unedited conversation about healthcare, and why us whippersnappers don’t need or deserve it.

In what has become an ironic cliche that typifies the inanity of the current healthcare reform debate, this eighty-ish-year-old man may be opposed to government run health insurance, but he sure does love him some Medicare. When asked if he’s happy with Medicare he says “yes.” When asked if he’d want it taken away, he says “no.” When asked if the government has done an “okay job” running Medicare, he says “As far as I’m concerned, it’s been okay with us.”

In fact, his high degree of satisfaction with his government-run Medicare seems to form the basis for his opposition to any plan that might include a government-run public option for the rest of us. “Why mess it up for old people?” he asked me.

Good question. Perhaps we should give up on this “public option” thing and just allow everybody to buy into Medicare, regardless of age? I know he thinks young folks don’t need it (hell, he didn’t have health insurance until he was 40, so why should anybody else?) but if that’s true then they’d sure be cheap to insure. Meanwhile, they’d still be subsidizing his Medicare coverage through their payroll taxes, just like they’re doing now, so how could that possibly mess anything up for him?

Yeah, sure… under that scenario, Medicare would be the public option. But shhhh, don’t call it that, and we might get his support.

I mostly have a reputation as a foul-mouthed, partisan muckraker and agitator, and with a brand name like HorsesAss.org, why shouldn’t I? But I think it of interest to note that in the wake of Friday’s WTO ruling that EU nations illegally subsidized Boeing rival Airbus, I actually took the time to interview a US congressman, and write a thoughtful, objective analysis of the decision, whereas the Seattle Times—our region’s paper of record—relied solely on reporting and analysis from the Associated Press and Bloomberg News.

A ruling in a controversial international trade dispute that directly impacts one of our region’s most important employers, and the Times couldn’t even be bothered to assign a reporter to cover the story and attempt to get a richer local angle. Kinda pathetic.

Now, I don’t mean to pat myself on the back. It was Rep. Jay Inslee’s staff who deserves the credit for reaching out to me and offering a few minutes with the congressman—an opportunity I jumped at—but if Inslee was making himself available to foul-mouthed bloggers like me, you can be sure he was making himself available to the Seattle Times. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Inslee only had the time to talk with me because most of the rest of our local media simply weren’t interested in putting the effort into such an admittedly wonky story?

Perhaps I was too harsh in implying some sort of bias in our local media’s refusal to cover last week’s pro-healthcare reform rally? Maybe our local media is just lazy?

In defending his efforts to achieve a local monopoly, Times publisher Frank Blethen long promised that freed from the financial drain of the JOA, his newspaper would emerge stronger and more vibrant, but most observers would agree that the Times’ local coverage has continued to shrink since the P-I ceased print publication. Here’s hoping that once this economy turns around, Blethen actually attempts to fulfill his civic promise.