Goldy

I’m on the air again today, filling in for Ken Schram on KOMO 1000’s The Commentators, 10AM to 2PM.  Tune in to hear me and John Carlson go at it on a number of hot button issues:

1oAM – Why won’t anybody challenge Greg Nickels for mayor?  You know… anybody of course, except Dan Savage, who joins us at the top of the hour to promote his alleged run for the office.

11AM – Is Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe”?  And even if so, should Rep. Barney Frank have said it?  What are the limits of religious tolerance?

12PM – Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?  WA state has some of the most restrictive felon voter laws in the nation.  A bill before the legislature might change that.

1PM – Should WA state ban online poker… and if so, is it even technically possible to enforce the law?

Court documents filed today, including a declaration from a University of Washington accounting professor, suggest the Building Industry Association may have illegally skimmed millions of dollars from retro-rebate beneficiary accounts over the past several years, and ask for a court order requiring BIAW to retain an independent third party to prepare a “comprehensive trust accounting.”

Professor Stephen Sefcik is a distinguished professor of accounting in the UW School of Business, and currently serves as the Associate Dean of Undergradate Programs at the Michael G. Foster School of Business.  He was retained by plaintiffs to review financial documents provided by the BIAW and its associated organizations, and to identify and estimate economic losses sustained due to mismanagement and other practices.

At this stage of my work, I have completed a sufficient financial analysis to support my general conclusions that a thorough independent accounting is necessary and that substantial interest has been skimmed from the Trust.  However, due to the opacity of the Trust’s bookkeeping, a sigificant additional work would be necessary to precisely quantify values.

How much money are talking about?  Between $600,000 and $1.3 million in skimmed interest over the past four to five years, plus an additional $3.6 million in principal and interest since 2003 due to an improperly calculated and paid “marketing assistance fee.”  That’s a lot of money.  And how did the BIAW accomplish this?

I have found that the Trust has allowed trust assets to be repeatedly placed in the interest-bearing accounts fo its for-profit affiliate, BIAW Member Services Corporation (“MSC).  While in such accounts, trust funds were repeatedly commingled with assets of MSC.

Huh.  How very Tim Eyman of them.

BIAW has long argued that its diversion of funds for political purposes is legal, an assertion contested by plaintiffs in this ongoing lawsuit, but skimmed (ie, stolen) funds are illegal no matter how you spend them.  If a third party accounting confirms Prof. Sefcik’s findings, the BIAW may have a lot more to worry about than a mere civil suit.

Which brings us to SB 6035, a bill which would require increased oversight and transparency for the retro-rebate, and which only narrowly passed the Senate on a 25-24 vote.  The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Commerce & Labor tomorrow morning, but despite known BIAW shenanigans, and recent revelations that retro has been overpaying participants by as much as $15 million a year since 1994 (due to a programming error), many Olympia observers don’t expect the House Democratic leadership to let it even come to the floor for a vote.

Why?  Well, I guess you’d have to ask the House Democratic leadership.

I’m on the radio now, filling in for Ken Schram on The Commentators on KOMO AM 1000.  Tune in.

When Republican wunderkind, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gave his party’s response to President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress, he decried Democrats for passing a spending bill “larded with wasteful spending,” including…

… $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Of course, Jindal was roundly ridiculed at the time for this absolutely boneheaded comment.  Jindal is the governer of a state dependent on tens of billions of federal dollars to predict, prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and however exotic “volcano monitoring” may sound to his fellow bayou residents, he’s in no position to criticize disaster preparedness expenditures elsewhere.

But in light of today’s eruption of Alaska’s Mt. Redoubt, I’d say another round of ridicule is called for.

Alaska’s Mount Redoubt volcano erupted four times overnight, sending an ash plume more than 9 miles high into the air, but the state’s largest city has likely been spared from any ashfall.

[…] Using radar and satellite technology, the National Weather Service is predicting ash to start falling later Monday morning.

Dave Stricklan, a hydrometeorogical technician with the National Weather Service, expected very fine ash. … “The heavier stuff drops out very quickly, and then the other stuff filters out. There’s going to be a very fine amount of it that’s going to be suspended in the atmosphere for quite some time, but nothing to really affect anything such as aviation travel. The heavier stuff will filter out,” he said.

Still, Alaska Airlines on Monday canceled 19 flights in and out of the Anchorage international airport because of the ash.

Because ash intake can damage jet engines, causing planes to, you know, crash.  But I guess, as long as they’re not crashing in the bayou, it’s no big problem.

And Jindal is a guy Republicans tout as one of their rising stars?

Seattle Times executive editor David Boardman wants to let P-I loyalists know “who we are — and who we aren’t.”  But mostly, just the “aren’t” part.

Apparently, they’re not a right-wing paper, and they’re not a left-wing paper.  They’re not a suburban paper, but they certainly haven’t been the urban paper.  They’re not the establishment paper, but nobody in their right mind would ever label them an anti-establishment paper.

So then David… what the hell are you?

And perhaps, maybe, isn’t the typical daily’s lack of a clear identity, let alone a little personality, part of the industry’s problem?  I mean, criticize FOX News all you want (and God knows it’s easy), but they’ve been damn successful embracing both bias and personality… and at least most viewers know what they’re getting when they flip it on.

(Oh… and this conceit that reporters are automatons, unhumanly free of their own personal bias… or that of the guy who signs their paycheck and approves promotions… I just don’t think readers are buying it anymore.  Which may help explain why fewer and fewer people are buying daily newspapers.)

The truth is, apart from the masthead, most Seattleites couldn’t tell the Times and the P-I apart.  So I’m not so sure that promising readers you produce pretty much exactly the same product as the paper that just went under, is a sound, long term business strategy.

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

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

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

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

As Gov. Chris Gregoire prepares to enter the gravest budget battle of her career, it is instructive to look back with admiration on the actions of former President Bush during a similar crisis.

Oh… not George W. Bush… he was a total moron and dickwad whose irresponsible domestic and foreign policies largely left us in our current economic shithole, and who history will rightly remember as one of our worst presidents ever.  No, I’m talking about his father, George H.W. Bush, a rather middling president, but one who was at least well-trained and prepared for the position, and who when push came to shove ultimately sacrificed a huge chunk of political capital (and perhaps his reelection) by abandoning his famous campaign pledge and agreeing to substantial tax increases in the 1990 budget.

Throughout 1988, then Vice-President Bush consistently campaigned on a no-new-tax pledge, and it is safe to say that the most memorable and oft-quoted moment of his Republican nomination speech came in the form of the Peggy Noonan scribed line, “Read my lips:  no new taxes!”  It was a profoundly irresponsible promise, but it no doubt helped him win the election against an opponent Republicans smeared as “the Governor from Taxachusetts.”

The pledge had been made under the rosy assumption that the fast growth of the late 198o’s would continue indefinitely, but when the economy stumbled and tax revenues fell far short of projections, the nation was faced with a yawning budget deficit… the largest in peacetime history.  So in 1990 President Bush did what had to be done; he went back on his word and agreed to a budget that amongst other things, levied a 10% surtax on the income of the wealthiest Americans.  The New York Post mocked President Bush for making a mockery of his convention pledge, printing the headline, “Read my Lips:  I Lied.”

But it was the pledge that had proven foolish and irresponsible, not the breaking of it, and Bush 41 has always deserved credit for putting governance ahead of politics, at least in that particular situation.  The 1990 budget agreement was the first step toward getting our ballooning federal deficits under control, laying the groundwork for a Clinton budget that ultimately led to surpluses by the end of the decade.  Given the economic circumstances, raising taxes was the right thing to do, however unpopular and at whatever the political cost.

Gov. Gregoire faces a similar situation, a recent no-new-tax pledge coming back to haunt her as she struggles with a revenue shortfall more than twice as large as even the most pessimistic projections only a few months back.  And like Bush 41 before, the press is already preparing to mock her should she ultimately go back on her word.

But unlike Bush, Gregoire’s no-new-tax pledge was never the centerpiece of her campaign, and she never used it to draw a stark ideological distinction with her opponent.  Besides, voters simply don’t elect Democrats to hold the line on taxes—it goes against type—so if this really was a top issue for the majority of voters last November, the vocally anti-tax Dino Rossi wouldn’t have lost by 6.5 percentage points.

Gov. Gregoire’s unfortunate acquiescence in ruling out tax increases was ill-advised and ultimately unnecessary, but it was not nearly as forceful or irresponsible as H.W’s signature soundbite.  So if a Republican president, facing a revolt from within the ranks of his own party, could swallow his famous words for the good of the nation, then Gregoire, with a Democratic legislature at her back, could certainly do similar for the good of our state.

Facing a record $9 billion projected shortfall and demand for public services at an all time high, the only responsible course is to use all the budgetary tools at our disposal:  cuts, deficit spending and tax increases.  As President George H.W. Bush proved in 1990, going back on your word can sometimes constitute an extraordinary act of political courage.  Here’s hoping Gov. Gregoire proves just as courageous.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6k50qB4Ys[/youtube]

At a Tuesday rally marking the demise of the print edition of the Seattle P-I (and the bulk of its newsroom) Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat showed solidarity with his fellow journalists, telling them “It’s not your fault.”  You didn’t create the Internet, Westneat assured his fallen colleagues, and you didn’t destroy the business model that had long supported print media.

And on one level, Danny’s absolutely right.  The P-I’s staff isn’t out on the street due to anything they did wrong, and they certainly didn’t lose their long struggle with the Times because they produced an inferior product.  Hearst blinked first; had they not, it could have been Danny being consoled by friends Tuesday evening rather than the other way around.

“The Seattle P-I may be going out of business, but the Times is an equally troubled company, and possibly even more troubled,” said Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor and Silicon Valley chief executive who writes the Reflections of a Newsosaur blog.

But on another level, Westneat’s elegy is consistent with a profound sense of denial that seems to afflict the entire news industry, and is crippling its efforts to effectively respond to dramatic changes in technology, economics and consumer tastes.  Yeah, sure… the P-I’s collapse isn’t the fault of its former staffers, any more than the dedicated, industrious craftsmen of the buggy whip industry can be blamed for their own economic displacement a century before, but to merely fault the Internet or a broken business model misses a larger point:  newspapers are losing subscribers and advertisers because they have not been giving customers what they want… at least, not something for which they are willing to pay a high enough price to sustain current operations.

And I hate to get all Adam Smith-y on my friends in the newspaper biz, but isn’t that the way the market is supposed to work?

I’m sure it is comforting to blame Google and Craig’s List or even the woeful mismanagement of your corporate overlords (the Times’ own finances would not be nearly as precarious if Frank Blethen had not over-leveraged the family business to finance his ill-advised invasion of their ancestral homeland), but for all the chatter about business models, I’ve seen very little self-examination amongst working journalists about reimagining the product itself.  I’m not talking about layout or redesigns or ink versus electrons, but actual, you know, words.  I just don’t hear much talk from journalists about reevaluating their devotion to the sort of flat, objective, personalityless, dispassionate prose that has long made the news pages of the Times and the P-I virtually indistinguishable from one another… and nearly every other major daily.

Don’t get me wrong; I love newspapers.  As a child of Watergate I grew up worshipping journalists as heros.  But by golly, much of what we read in the papers has always been godawful boring, even when the subject matter is not.  Forget for a moment all the brainstorming about new ways to present, distribute and monetize journalism, and focus instead on the reporting itself.  Surely there’s more than one way to cover an event, and more than a little room for even the best reporters to grow as writers, but there’s been almost zero innovation in terms of the craft of reporting since the beginning of the J-school era.  Tastes have changed, but the daily newspaper most definitely has not.

Let the business model brainstorming continue, but in the meanwhile editors need to give, and reporters need to embrace, the freedom and encouragement to innovate both in substance and style.  For if you simply keep pushing the same-old, same-old in the face of market rejection, at some level, at least partially, it really will be your fault after all.

Tomorrow is another one of those ridiculous stealth elections for King County Conservation District Board, and thus yet another golden opportunity for an anti-conservation conservative to grab a seat he could never otherwise win.  Paper Noose has the details over at Blogging Georgetown, and… well… it’s just plain depressing.

I’ve received a bunch of emails urging me to write in Mark Sollitto, and that’s exactly what I plan to do, assuming that is, I manage to vote at all.  Voting is conducted in person at only 13 polling places set up throughout the county; the nearest ones to me are at the main branch of the Seattle Public Library or at the Renton Community Center.  Neither is very convenient, which helps explain why so few people actually vote in these bullshit elections.

If local Republicans had their way, this is how all our elections would be run.  So let’s try not to let them have their way on this one:  get out there and vote tomorrow for Mark Sollitto.

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.

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?

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.