HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle Times headline reads “1996 UW grad named to oversee Pike Place Market,” which begs the question: what is so headline worthy about the fact that newly named Market executive direct Ben Franz-Knight is a 1996 University of Washington graduate?

Was 1996 a particularly good or bad year for the UW, or is it so surprising that a UW grad would ascend to such a position? Are UW grads rare around here, or do its graduates rarely achieve such a level of success by their mid-30’s?

Or does the Times believe its readers so parochial that this was the only thing on Franz-Knight’s resume that they would find relevant?

Odd.

(And in case you’re wondering, had I written the headline, it probably would have read something like: “Pike Place Market names new executive director.” Simple, to the point, and more actively phrased.)

If, as Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna complains, payouts for settle lawsuits against the state have grown substantially in recent years, rather than making it harder for citizens to sue the state, perhaps taxpayers might just want to go out and hire themselves a better lawyer?

I’m just sayin’.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Tennessee No Evil
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I’ve recently started reading Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, a book that I’ve long wanted to read, but never got around to until now. Friedman has been a fascinating figure to me because he’s someone who was far ahead of his time in understanding the futility of the drug war, yet is also someone whose libertarianism is associated with fascist views. I’ve always wanted to know how much of what we think of Milton Friedman is based upon the things he actually advocated, how much is based on people’s misunderstandings of the things he actually advocated, and how much is based upon what’s happened in American society and our economy since he wrote it.

I’m only through the first 4 chapters, so I’m not quite ready to tackle that entire subject yet, but there were two things this week that compounded my thinking on this subject. First was the intense back and forth at Balloon Juice between E.D. Kain and John Cole. As someone who sits somewhere inbetween the liberal and libertarian poles of thinking, I’ve been incredibly impressed with Kain’s ability to balance the two. I’ve long believed that this is where the real debates need to happen, but that far too often libertarians fall back on overly simplified mantras rather than engaging on the merits. Kain didn’t do that, and in turn, some of the commenters (but not all) chose to fall back on overly simplified mantras about libertarians rather than engaging on the merits of the argument he made.

The second item that got me thinking about Milton Friedman and his influence was this post from Stefan Sharkansky about Mayor McGinn’s jobs plan, which perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about when I use the term “overly simplified mantras”:

So. We’ll let city bureaucrats who have no experience creating jobs in the private sector pick and choose the entrepreneurs whom they feel can (1) do the best job of creating jobs in the private sector, or (2) be the most attractive recipients of patronage. That’s destined to turn out well.

Maybe instead of raising taxes on the private sector so inexperienced bureaucrats can destroy even more wealth in the private sector, we just let private enterprises use their own resources to make their own purchasing, investment and hiring decisions?

Nah.

This is a common sentiment among libertarians; that government “bureaucrats” are like a black hole for public funds meant to boost employment, and that in order to really boost employment, only someone from corporate America can be trusted with such a complex task. Reading through Free to Choose, it’s easy to pick out the passages that lead to this belief, but Sharkansky takes this to an absurd extreme that I’m not even sure Friedman would go along with.

On top of that, Sharkansky doesn’t even seem to understand what he’s arguing against. Here’s a section of the Times article he didn’t excerpt:

The plan didn’t include many new announcements. Much of the money involved is federal stimulus funds applied for under the previous administration. But it teams up the mayor with the business community after an uneasy eight months and puts on paper a collection of things the city can do even in a difficult economy.

George Allen, lobbyist for the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, said the plan plays off the mayor’s strength — bringing together a diverse group of people and ideas — and will make a true difference in recovering local jobs.

The idea that McGinn isn’t working with the private sector on this is completely baseless. Not to mention that the largest chunk of the money is going to small businesses in the forms of loans and tax breaks, so that they can make their own choices about how to manage that money. You could potentially argue that one of the particular beneficiaries listed in the article is unworthy of assistance because the work they do isn’t going to benefit us in the long run, but Sharkansky is too lazy to do that. Instead, he just repeats a tired old stereotype about government bureaucrats and pretends he’s made some kind of argument. He hasn’t.

I don’t dispute that there are differences between public and private institutions. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. But how bureaucratic an institution becomes has more to do with its size, rather than whether it exists to serve the public, serve shareholders, or serve itself. There are public institutions that are nimble and serve the public well, and there are private companies that are unbelievably bureaucratic (I’ve worked for several). The key to encouraging job growth tends to be about boosting small-scale entrepreneurship, which much of McGinn’s plan seems focused on. The real tragedy of Sharkansky’s brand of “glibertarianism” is that it often does the exact opposite of that, through giveaways to large scale private institutions that do little to create American jobs or move our economy forward. What I remain unclear about still is whether or not idiocy like this is the logical extension of Friedman’s philosophy, or if this is a bastardization that ignores a significant amount of nuance. At this point, I still think it’s the latter, but it’s a topic I’m hoping to explore in some upcoming posts.

At first glance it seems odd that an attorney general so lavishly praised by doe-eyed editorialists for allegedly championing open government would take the lead in removing one of our most powerful tools for assuring government accountability. But when you think about it, it all kinda makes sense.

In a guest column in yesterday’s Seattle Times, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna proposes that one way to close our state’s multi-billion dollar budget gap would be to make it harder for citizens to sue the state, but in a single paragraph McKenna not only lays out the crux of his argument, he also lets slip his true motivation:

Washington is in a class by itself — wide open to lawsuits with huge payouts. Suits demanding outrageous sums have become commonplace over the past few decades. Payouts have grown from $241,000 in the 1963-65 budget to more than $100 million during the last — and trial attorneys collect $30 million of that before sending the rest to those who have suffered.

It’s those damn trial attorneys who are bankrupting our government! If we could only get rid of them, and the public employee unions, our budgets would shrink, our taxes would fall, and Washington State would become a veritable paradise! … At least, according to Rob McKenna.

And what do trial attorneys and organized labor have in common? They both predominantly fund Democrats, of course, and in fact together comprise one of the largest chunks of the Democratic funding machine.

In other words, McKenna’s advocacy for shielding state government from citizen lawsuits is largely partisan:

Why are our state laws so much more permissive than every other state’s liability rules? The uncomfortable truth is that personal-injury lawyers are among the wealthiest and most powerful interest groups, and they vigorously oppose attempts to end Washington’s outlier status.

According to the Liability Reform Coalition, political-action committees run by trial attorneys contributed more than $1.4 million in the 2008 statewide election cycle. Trial lawyers chipped in millions more in individual contributions. That helps explain why during nearly every legislative session, legislators vote on bills that would actually increase, not reduce, taxpayers’ liability; 2010 was no exception.

Hear that? A PAC run by trial attorneys spent more than $1.4 million during the 2008 cycle. Heaven forfend!

Um… but… the Building Industry Association of Washington and its associated organizations spent, what… $13 million that year, in the gubernatorial race alone? I don’t hear McKenna complaining about that, and yet year after year the BIAW successfully blocks legislation that would permit homeowners from suing builders for shoddy construction.

(Sigh.)

Despite McKenna’s unsupported claims, Washington is not “in a class by itself,” nor are our state laws “more permissive than every other state’s liability laws.” Yeah, maybe we do pay out “eight times more than Tennessee, five times more than Arizona,” I dunno… but would we really want to be just like Tennessee or Arizona? And while Washington’s government does not claim “sovereign immunity” as McKenna advocates, unlike many other states, Washington does not allow for punitive damages in claims against the state.

Oops. I guess McKenna forgot to share that with his readers.

And his selective citation of facts doesn’t stop there, for McKenna stoops to perhaps the lowest form of political persuasion, the out of context anecdote:

The state is sued even when it follows all the rules. For example, a woman is convicted of forging a $13 check. She’s released after serving her sentence and carefully supervised by the Department of Corrections. But when she causes a fatal car accident, the state is sued and ultimately forced to settle the case for $300,000. While our hearts go out to the family who lost their loved one, the check forger caused the accident. State employees followed proper procedures. Yet lawsuits like these persist.

First of all, that’s just one successful lawsuit out of many, most of which do clearly address acts of negligence or malfeasance on the part of the state. And second of all, McKenna intentionally misrepresents the facts in even this particular case. Yes, the woman in question had merely been convicted of forging a $13 check, but she had a long criminal record including drug charges, missed court appearances and at least four DUI arrests:

Enoch-Jevne had received suspended sentences for four of her DUI convictions. In May of 1999, she was arrested on drug charges in Grant County. A judge revoked a previous sentence and ordered that she be held through December of that year. Instead, city and county officials failed to review court records and released Enoch-Jevne in October.

Upon her early release Enoch-Jevne failed to report to her state corrections officer as required, and even though the state had classified her as a danger to the public, and knew that she was violating the terms of her supervision, it made no effort to arrest her. Two months later, at a time when, by a judge’s order, she should have been locked up at the King County Regional Justice Center, she killed a man in a collision in which, yes, she was once again suspected of being under the influence of alcohol.

Was government negligence partially to blame for this tragedy? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s clearly not the absurdly abusive case that McKenna makes it out to be.

Of course there are abusive lawsuits, and I’m not expert enough to argue that there aren’t reasonable reforms to be made that might shield against the worst of these abuses. But to grant the state blanket immunity against most of these suits as a money-saving gimmick is not only unfair to the legitimate victims, it is unserious and shortsighted. For it is through lawsuits like these that the worst abuses of government mismanagement, malfeasance and negligence are revealed, and ultimately reformed. McKenna can tout his support of sunshine laws all he wants, but the courts have always provided the public its most effective tool in keeping our government accountable to the public.

And that’s what we would lose should McKenna prevail.

Sign the petition.

New York cabbie Ahmed H. Sharif was stabbed in the neck, face and arm last night after passenger Michael Enright asked if he was a Muslim, and Sharif answered “yes.” Yet another example of the cultural insensitivity of Muslims flaunting their religion so close to Ground Zero.

Why couldn’t Sharif let the 9/11 families grieve in peace?

Hot on the heals of my post about the presumed “enthusiasm gap” and it’s apparent lack of substantial impact on voter turnout in last week’s primary, The Stranger’s Eli Sanders has a somewhat different take, noticing the record high statewide turnout compared to the lagging performance of King, Snohomish and Pierce counties:

Which leads to the obvious question: Why did so many eligible voters in the greater Seattle metro area—that is to say, so many liberal voters—sit this primary election out?

Which I suppose seems obvious, except that Eli phrased the question slightly wrong. The real question is not why so many Seattle metro voters sat out “this” primary election, but why they sit out all primary elections?

In fact, this was actually a pretty good showing by King County primary voters, registering our second highest turnout rate over the 12 years for which KC Elections archives results online. And as I’ve previously pointed out, King County always trails the rest of the state in primary turnout, often by substantially larger margins.

So there’s nothing particularly surprising or disappointing about Tuesday’s turnout.

But while our region’s turnout always trails the rest of the state in primary elections, it’s almost alway within a point or two of the statewide average, give or take, when it comes to the November general election.

Speculate all you want about the reasons why, but it has nothing to do with this particular election cycle.

Incumbent U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski trails teabagger challenger Joe Miller by about 2000 votes with 98% of precincts reporting in yesterday’s Alaska Republican senatorial primary, and the finger pointing has begun

One GOP source, who requested anonymity, said some are pointing fingers at Murkowski’s team of advisers who told her not to go negative until late in the campaign.

This is an extraordinarily negative election cycle, and with few exceptions, incumbents and challengers alike should be advised to go extraordinarily negative as early and as often as possible. Let the shit fly. That’s how to win in 2010.

With last week’s primary ballots mostly counted, I think it’s safe to take a look at voter turnout and speculate how it might have been influenced by the yawning “voter enthusiasm gap” that Republicans are counting on to sweep them to victory this November. And in fact voters turned out in far greater in Republican areas of the state than they did in dark blue King County, a fact that would seem to bode well for the Part of No this November.

But…

While King County barely turned out 37 percent of registered voters, compared to almost 42 percent in the rest of the state, that differential is pretty typical for Washington state in even-year primary elections. (Odd years are a different beast, when competitive city and county races sustain voter interest in King, while much less is at stake in most of the rest of the state.) For example, in 2006, King County’s primary voter turnout trailed the rest of the state by 36 percent to 40 percent, and in 2008, when Democrats arguably held the enthusiasm edge, the turnout gap was even greater, 35 percent to 46 percent.

What does that mean for November? Who knows? For one, such a top-line analysis does nothing to evaluate who turned out within each county, though it is reasonable to assume from various contests that the electorate trended a bit more Republican than usual. Neither does the primary electorate tell us a lot about what the electorate will necessarily look like in November, though historically, Democrats tend to turn out in higher percentages in the general, though slightly less so during non-presidential years.

But what I can confidently say is that the primary turnout differential itself provides little or no evidence of an impending Republican wave.

How about this? Metro bus drivers should agree to give up their contractually guaranteed 2-percent COLA increase if the Seattle Times agrees to give up its 40-percent B&O tax cut for which Frank Blethen successfully lobbied last year.

I mean, if, as the Times editorial board argues, “the public sector is not in a position to pay out COLAs right now,” then certainly the public sector is not in a position to hand out 40-percent tax cuts to wealthy, Mercer Island millionaires. Right?

Seems like a fair compromise to me. Your move, Frank.

It is a primary election night in five states (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma and Vermont), so come and cheer for your favorite teabagger and spend an evening of electoral politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Some folks will be there early for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 272 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

You know how you get to know somebody online or in email or on the phone, and then when you finally meet them in person they’re nothing like what you expected? Well the first time I met Ivan Weiss, he was exactly what I expected.

Kinda sad that some of the best journalism today comes from a fake news show.

The Seattle Times’ editors just seem to love stories like this — “Online ranters increasingly pay a price” — apparently drooling for the day when uppity bloggers like me are put in our place.

The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

[…] “Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University in California. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’ “

I’ve never claimed that bloggers and commenters should be free to defame their subjects with impunity, but the example above shows why your typical online citizen journalist/participant needs more protection from defamation suits, not less. Obviously, anybody should be allowed to go online and say “my dentist stinks,” because that is a statement of opinion for which one would likely never be found liable in court. I think the Seattle Times editorial board stinks; good luck winning a defamation suit over that.

But just being sued for defamation by a determined plaintiff is enough to crush one financially, thus chilling public discourse via the mere threat of legal action. Yet this is exactly the kinda fearful mindset the the Times seems to be cheerleading.

Times Crown Prince Ryan Blethen, in a previous opinion piece, blames bloggers like me for this very real and imminent threat to online speech, warning that they should “learn to check themselves, and use a modicum of restraint” before, you know, some deep-pocketed asshole decides to make an example of us. But the plaintiff’s side of our defamation laws seems an awfully odd position for a future newspaper publisher to stake out… unless, of course, you view it within the broader context of the industry’s dramatic decline, and Blethen’s documented history of blaming his paper’s woes on external forces rather than, say, his own boneheaded idea to leverage the family business by buying newspapers in Maine. (I’m just sayin’.)

The problem as I see it is that defamation laws that evolved to address the unique circumstances of print and broadcast are simply not well suited to the realities of our more democratic, online media landscape, a nuance that, as I’ve written before, appears to escape Blethen the Younger:

And that is what Blethen, heir to a dead tree publishing throne, obviously doesn’t understand about this new medium. HA isn’t a “publication,” and my words aren’t “spun off the press” in some inviolable, datelined tome. A blog is an ever evolving dialectic, a give and take, a living conversation between writers and readers, and readers with each other, and between one blogging community with the blogosphere as a whole. HA may be my own personal realm, but the world is my fact checker.

Under the old paradigm, where the scarcity of the airwaves and the huge financial barriers to market entry left the bulk of the media in the hands of a powerful and wealthy few, the libel laws were often the best or only defense against the indiscriminate, negligent, and malicious misuse of the power of the press. But in this new medium, this distributed, democratic and decentralized paradigm of the Internet, the best defense against bad journalism is more journalism, the best remedy for falsehood is the truth, and aggrieved parties should only look to the courts as a desperate and last resort.

… [For] in a media landscape increasingly dominated by freelancers, contractors and lone wolves outside the protection of deep-pocketed corporate overlords, the mere threat of costly legal action to resolve disputes threatens the viability of the medium itself, potentially shielding those able to afford attorneys from legitimate criticism by those of us who cannot.

In other words, our defamation laws evolved to protect the average citizenry from powerful publishers like Blethen, not the other way around.

It is, in fact, not reckless bloggers but this blogger-beware meme that presents the real threat to the viability of the Internet as a meaningful and credible medium for disseminating dissent and facilitating public debate. Blethen argues that a lowly comment troll can and should be held to the same defamation standards as a Rupert Murdoch or a, well, Ryan Blethen, but this would be the legal equivalent of hitting a nail with a pile driver.

Unlike Blethen I don’t have attorneys on staff or on retainer, and thus I lack the opportunity to take every potentially controversial post I write, and run it past legal. Neither can I afford to defend myself against even the most frivolous of SLAPP suits. The alternative, which Blethen seems to advocate, is that I write fearfully.

Media-law experts repeat the advice that bloggers and e-mailers need to think twice before sending a message.

“Before you speak ill of anyone online,” Baron said, “you should think hard before pressing the ‘send’ button.”

What an utterly oppressive and ultimately undemocratic sentiment.

The balance that needs to be struck, and that needs to be reflected in our laws, is the balance between the individual harm that can come from truly reckless and malicious free speech, as opposed to the societal harm that comes from crushing dissent. Personally, I’d argue that a legal standard that puts one at risk of financial ruin for posting the words “my dentist stinks,” clearly strikes the wrong balance. But Ryan Blethen and his newspaper apparently disagree, otherwise, I suppose, they would he would be advocating for the law to be changed, rather than for bloggers like me to fearfully mind it.