The infamous fake sex offender postcard mailing was only three years ago.
That worked out well. And if they think I’m going to stop bringing it up, they’re wrong. It was sort of a local Schiavo case. Republicans in all their naked depravity, exposed. Good times.
For us.
Barney Frank is right about Barack Obama:
Frank worries that Obama’s evenhandedness may prove to be a political liability. “On the financial crisis, Obama said that both sides were asleep at the switch,” Frank said. “But that’s not true. The Republicans were wide awake, and they made choices to oppose regulation. They had bad ideas. He says, ‘I don’t want to fight the fights of the nineties,’ but I don’t see any alternative to refighting the fights of the nineties if we want to change things.”
Frank illuminates the president-elect’s chief weakness.
Also: Has conservative ideology been discredited by reality? Frank thinks so:
“We are at a moment now when liberalism is poised to have its biggest impact on America since Roosevelt, because the conservative viewpoint has been so thoroughly repudiated by reality,” Frank said. “Someone asked Harold Macmillan what has the most impact on political decisions. He said, ‘Events, dear boy, events.’ Events have just totally repudiated them, and we’re now in a position to take advantage of that.” He went on, “You know Hegel. Thesis: No regulation at all. Antithesis: Now the government owns the banks. What I gotta do next year is the synthesis.”
Conservatism doesn’t exist anymore. One could argue that conservatism isn’t so much an ideology, but rather a reaction to liberalism.
Conservatives do not feel obligated to offer solutions to problems. Why? Because if government is used to solve problems, then they can no longer argue (with a straight face) that government is always the problem.
Conservatives, like alcoholics, come in varieties. There are “unrepentant conservatives.” They argue from absolutist positions that have no basis in reality. There are “functional conservatives.” Bush is a bigtime “functional conservative.” No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug program, bailouts for businesses… While Bush’s programs have a mixed record of success, you have to give him credit for at least attempting to solve problems with government.
The Philadelphia Eagles beat the hated New York Giants today in the NFC divisional playoffs, 23-11, and will head off to Arizona for their fifth NFC championship game in eight years. I like their chances of getting to the Super Bowl, but for an Eagles fan, just facing the Giants in the playoffs is kinda like a Super Bowl in itself.
TANGENTIAL ASIDE:
I’m listening to the post-game sports talk on Philadelphia’s WIP, streaming over my iPhone, and I’m not hearing any local ads. Nada.
Obviously, CBS Radio is running only national ads on its radio streams, which makes a ton of sense, since local ads aren’t of much interest to a national audience. And while the size of the streaming audience for each individual radio station may only be a fraction of the broadcast audience, combined across CBS’ many stations, it starts to add up. Strikes me as a great way to use the Internet to monetize existing content.
Bob Caldwell, editorial page editor of The Oregonian, in a column about civility in public discourse. (article not on-line right now, print version Jan. 11, 2009, page B1)
Also last week, some readers greeted the launch of Elizabeth Hovde’s local conservative column as the occasion to make their comments personal, and, in a few cases, downright vile.
And here’s the first sentence from Hovde’s debut column last week:
I’m not David Reinhard, but I’ll take his hate mail.
Hard to imagine a few kooks took her up on it. Dirty hippies!
It’s a strange newspaper world when shoving right-wing columnists down people’s throats is a civic duty. I’m not tempted to cancel my subscription over the hiring of Hovde, as a newspaper can print whatever it wants pretty much, but I am tempted to cancel my subscription because Caldwell insists on defining his new columnists as “center-right,” which is essentially a Republican canard. (You’ll recall the desperate attempts after the election by Republicans to reassure themselves that the country is still conservative, despite the most solid evidence of all, the election itself.)
By defining his new “center-right” columnists as being in opposition to the O’s editorial board, he magically transforms a traditionally Republican-leaning newspaper into a liberal one. Voilà! (Yes, they endorsed Obama. So what? The choice was between insane and not insane, the insanity being another four years of Republican rule rather than John McCain himself, the choice of running mate notwithstanding.)
Hey, here’s an idea. Newspapers, seeing as they are all going out of business and stuff, could judge their opinion columnists by the intellectual strength of the ideas they write about rather than making sure enough of them piss off the DFH. It may be fun to make the libruls mad but it’s kind of a zero sum game, and there was enough of that mindlessness in the last eight years to last a lifetime.
Thus when columnists are inclined to parrot RNC and stink tank talking points, this would count against them! Those with their own knowledge of history, government and politics and original ideas might thrive!
For example, if a conservative could actually make a convincing argument why unions have no inherent right to exist, based on history and the law, I might listen. Here’s a hint: personal resentments and “free-market” folderol are not convincing arguments.
I know, I know. I’m being uncivil by bringing any of this up.
Last week’s winner was Julie Anne Kempf, who guessed the correct answer of Charleston, South Carolina in only 11 minutes (link here). Here’s this week’s, good luck!
Talks over a possible new I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland have heated up a bit, according to this article from The Oregonian:
Portland and Vancouver squared off Friday on the size of a new Interstate 5 bridge, with Vancouver officials aiming for a high-capacity span and Portland insisting that a smaller, more environmentally friendly alternative could suffice.
The article quotes new Portland Mayor Sam Adams as saying he could possibly support a ten lane bridge, and then David Bragdon, who heads Metro, weighs in along the same lines:
Metro Council President David Bragdon sided with Adams, saying he could agree to 10 lanes. But that support would be based on charging high tolls to encourage mass transit use and discourage rush-hour commuting.
On the Washington side, both Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and the city council member challenging him, Tim Leavitt, didn’t seem to like the idea of a smaller eight lane bridge, with Leavitt immediately playing to the peanut gallery by saying
“I’m not really interested in compromising on issues related to safety and congestion and the economy of our region,” said Leavitt, chair of the board of C-Tran, Clark County’s mass transit agency.
I’ve always found sanctimony to be the best possible political strategy, which could explain why I never ran for office. But I digress.
More than a few things strike me as interesting here. [Read more…]
Exactly how I like games that I’m not personally attending:
A winter storm from the Midwest could dump as much as eight-inches of snow at the Meadowlands, site of Sunday’s Eagles-New York Giants NFL playoff game.
The forecast calls for the snow to fall throughout much of Saturday to be followed on Sunday by sub-freezing temperatures accompanied by a gusty wind.
For everyone here affected by the floods, I hope you find a way to stay warm and dry this weekend.
(And there are some 45 more clips from the past week in politics at Hominid Views)
If you have a used car you’d be willing to part with, I’m interested. I’m about to start a new job, and I’m going to need some wheels, at least for a few months. (Until my Maserati clears customs… Damn American emissions regulations!) Click on my name to contact me via email.
Thank you! Back to regularly scheduled programming on the demise of local media…
Well, it’s official:
The Seattle P-I is being put up for sale, and if after 60 days it has not sold, it will either be turned into a Web-only publication or discontinued entirely.
“One thing is clear: at the end of the sale process, we do not see ourselves publishing in print,” said Steven Swartz, president of the Hearst Corp.’s newspaper division.
At the end of the next decade I think we’ll see a lot of cities without daily newspapers publishing in print, but it’s still sad to see it happen in the here and now.
I sure hope Hearst does invest in a web-only venture, but if they don’t, and they can’t find a buyer, I’ll be sure to put my bid in. It couldn’t hurt.
So how is it that KING-5 TV has “a source close to the deal” telling them that the sale (and ultimate closure) of the Seattle P-I is imminent, while everybody at the P-I and the rival Times seemed to have been totally in the dark? Could it be that KING-5 got the scoop on the deal because they’re at the heart of it?
That’s the rumor that’s making the rounds now, which has Hearst in a deal to buy KING-5’s parent company Belo Corp., and it’s 20 TV stations, thus being forced offload the P-I in compliance with the FCC’s cross-ownership rules. And since nobody’s buying newspapers these days, that’s essentially a death sentence for Seattle’s oldest daily.
Expect light posting from me the next few days, and perhaps a few service interruptions, as I implement some major upgrades under the hood in preparation for some exciting new changes here at HA. Stay tuned and be patient.
KING-5 is reporting that the Hearst Corporation is putting the Seattle P-I up for sale… a prelude to the folding of Seattle’s first daily newspaper.
[A] source close to the deal tells KING 5 that the paper’s owner, Hearst Corporation, will announce as soon as tomorrow that it’s putting the P-I up for sale. Under the joint operating agreement between the P-I and The Seattle Times, the P-I must be offered for sale for at least 30 days before it can cease operation.
[…] We’re told Hearst does not expect another buyer to step forward and that Seattle will likely become a one newspaper town within the next few months.
Fuck.
Ironically, there’s been much chatter recently about the Seattle Times’ fast deteriorating financial situation, with speculation that the Blethen family might be forced to sell or shut down it’s paper. Hmm. I wonder if Seattle might become a no-newspaper town?
No doubt you have a damn good reason for closing down such a large chunk of Rainier Ave South, but when you detour traffic from such a major arterial, you might want to think about placing the detour signs along the entire route, instead of just leading us into the hills above Renton, and leaving us to figure out the rest by ourselves. (The u-turn on Waters ST followed by the sharp right on Holyoke was not intuitive.)
I’m just sayin’….
The Seattle Times editorial board has published a correction today regarding a school scheduled for closure: “It is the Old Hay building, not John Hay Elementary.”
That’s okay. Mistakes happen, and it’s always good form to correct them. No biggie.
But as long as the Times’ editorialists are admitting their factual errors, it sure would be refreshing to see them admit their editorial errors as well. You know… those times when their opinions were just plain wrong.
For example, take this bit of oh-so-conventional wisdom from a February 13, 2008 editorial:
The transit-only folks delude themselves if they believe voters killed last fall’s “Roads and Transit” ballot measure because they didn’t want the roads. They do want the roads. And the idea of combining transit and roads was right. Both are needed. The ballot measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high.
Uh-huh.
In hindsight, with the subsequent passage of the transit portion of the measure, and by a comfortable margin, the opinion leaders at the Times look pretty damn out of touch. But it didn’t take much hindsight to pick apart the Times’ analysis, for as I wrote at the time:
Um… when the Times says voters “do want roads,” and the “measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high,” they’re basing those assertions on what? Polls? Intuition? Gentle assurances from John Stanton over foie gras and Chateau Lynch-Bages at the Rainier Club? A public opinion fairy they plucked out of their ass?
Yeah, that’s right, Prop 1 failed solely because of the rail portion of the package. All those polls that showed RTID dragging the measure down, and all that opposition from anti-roads advocates like the Sierra Club — that had absolutely nothing to do with Prop 1’s failure. Jesus… talk about deluded.
Of course, nobody’s perfect, and even I got it wrong on this issue, insisting during the months leading up to the 2007 measure that the powers that be would never allow a transit only measure on the ballot in 2008. My bad. But at least I admitted it.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!