HorsesAss.Org

To reiterate, I agree with Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen in opposing proposed FCC rule changes that would permit greater media consolidation. But…

The changes would have increased the number of TV stations a company can own in one market, and repealed the cross-ownership ban, which blocks a company from owning a TV station and newspaper in the same town.

You know, like the owners of KING-5 or one of the other local TV stations buying the Seattle P-I and making a competitive run at the Times by consolidating their news gathering operations. That, according to Frank, just wouldn’t serve our local community interests as much as, say… driving the P-I out of business and turning Seattle into a one-newspaper town.

Of course, what the current regulations don’t do is prevent a local TV station from expanding its news operations and transforming its website into an online Seattle Times killer.

I’m just saying.

The US Supreme Court is preparing to hear the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case:

The controversy erupted in 2002 after Joseph Frederick, then a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, displayed a banner proclaiming “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while standing across the street from the school as the Winter Olympics torch was passing through Juneau.

Then-Principal Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days.

Well, I’m pretty sure you can all guess where I stand on this issue, but I just enjoy hearing the righty trolls coming to my blog and argue for repressing the First Amendment rights of others.

I’ve pretty much pooh-poohed Viaduct retrofit proposals, mostly because WSDOT engineers had insisted it wasn’t a cost effective option. No doubt we can extend the life of the Viaduct — we’re doing that now — but at some point it just becomes safer, less disruptive and cheaper over the long haul to replace the thing than it is to constantly repair it. Damn entropy.

Now comes a new WSDOT report that suggests a retrofit might be possible, though it doesn’t yet project the cost or the serviceable years added to the life-span of the structure.

Does this change my assessment of the various options? Well, sorta.

Money aside, there’s absolutely no doubt that given the choice between a tunnel and a bigger, wider rebuild, the former is by far the preferable option… and anybody who tells you different is either lying or crazy. The current Viaduct is a gaping wound through our city, a hunk of crumbling concrete that physically separates the downtown from the waterfront. It is a dirty, noisy, ugly monstrosity that lowers property values and offends both the physical and the aesthetic senses. It is an embarrassment to Seattle’s aspiration towards being a world-class city.

One can forgive city planners a half-century ago. I mean… who knew? But absent the existing Viaduct from our current city landscape, nobody in their right mind would ever seriously propose building one today. Such a proposal would be a nonstarter.

The only serious argument against a tunnel is the cost — at least an extra couple billion over the $2.8 billion estimate for a rebuild. But even that calculation is shortsighted. The tunnel option would dramatically increase property values in the area, and with more than double the serviceable life-span of an elevated replacement, a tunnel could end up saving future generations many billions of dollars in early replacement costs.

If we can afford the tunnel — if we can find the extra money to pay for it — we would be nuts to pass up this once in a half-century opportunity to reshape our downtown and waterfront for the better.

Which brings us back to the retrofit option.

If in fact we can safely extend the life of the Viaduct for another couple decades at the relatively bargain-basement price of say, only a billion dollars… given our region’s unique consensus-driven political culture, perhaps such a half-assed stopgap measure is the best solution we can come up with at this time. It would not only be less expensive, but less disruptive, as a retrofit is presumably the only option that doesn’t require tearing the damn thing down.

And best of all, it would give us the twenty years we obviously need to make a major decision in this town.

With a retrofit temporarily preventing the Viaduct from toppling over onto the waterfront, we would now have several years to develop complete engineering plans for the tunnel, rebuild and no-build options, which can then be put out for a public referendum by 2011… and again in 2013, and 2017. It’ll take a few more years to get the contract bids in place before voters approve the final project in 2021 and again in 2023, before repealing it only one year later in 2024. At which point the Legislature will finally step in and override the will of the voters. At this rate we can expect construction to begin sometime shortly before we’re all eaten by the Morlocks.

I know that’s not much of an endorsement of the retrofit option, but if the perfect is the enemy of the good, that’s about as good as you’re going to get from me.

If I’ve learned anything from my Republican friends, it’s that trial lawyers are ruining the country. Junk lawsuits with little or no merit, malpractice suits that push good doctors out of work, and litigation against business, the result of which increases costs for all of us. Just ask Senator Trent Lott (R-MS):

“The Democrats seem to think that the answer is a lawsuit. Sue everybody.”
– Sen. Trent Lott, 7/20/01

“I’m among many Mississippi citizens who believe tort reform is needed.”
– Sen. Trent Lott, 5/8/02

“You know, obviously we should [enact tort reform]…Someday it will happen, and the sooner the better.”
– Sen. Trent Lott, 1/24/01

“If their answer to everything is more lawsuits, then yes, that’s a problem, because I certainly don’t support that.”
– Sen. Trent Lott, 8/2/02

“It’s sue, sue, sue… That’s not the answer.”
– Sen. Trent Lott, 8/4/01

Suing isn’t the answer… That is, unless you’re Trent Lott:

“Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other south Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina,” said Lott, R-Miss. “There is no credible argument that there was no wind damage to my home in Pascagoula.”

What a douche bag!

A guy who took a lot of hits for being a trial lawyer is Sen. John Edwards. He made his name in North Carolina’s courtrooms by winning verdicts and negotiating settlements for regular people hurt by the actions of others. When Republicans attack trial lawyers, I like to think of the folks Edwards has helped:

In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys’ behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards’ closing argument, “the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen,” recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s national award for public service.

I’m sure it would have been easier for John Edwards to take a small settlement, collect his percentage, and leave the Lakey’s to figure out how to make ends meet. But he didn’t. If Edwards is a greedy trial lawyer, we need more like him.

If you’re interested in meeting the guy, he’s going to be in town this weekend promoting his new book.

University Bookstore
4326 University Way, NE
Seattle, Washington
Saturday, December 2 at 1:30 p.m.

Hope to see you there!

(This is my first post here at HA. I’d like to give a big ‘thank you’ to Goldy for passing the megaphone and allowing me this opportunity. Read more at my blog, Washington for Edwards.)

Darryl’s already hit the story, but I wanted to come back to it after reading this snippet in the Seattle P-I:

A former longtime employee of the King County Prosecutor’s Office was caught in an Internet sting this week, when police say he arranged to meet someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl for sex.

[…] The Seattle P-I is not publishing the man’s name or details about his work on local political campaigns because he has not been formally charged.

We shall call him “Pervert X.” Although his real name is Larry Corrigan, a GOP operative and former Director of Operations and Budget for King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng. Why the P-I thought it should protect his identity and political affiliations I don’t know, especially after KIRO-TV had already shouted his name all over the airwaves.

The Seattle Times was less discrete. It not only described him as the deputy treasurer for Dave Reichert’s 1997 and 2001 runs for King County sheriff, and as a “supporter without an official role in Reichert’s congressional campaigns,” they also went on to get comments from Reichert and a Maleng spokesman.

So, should Corrigan’s identity have been revealed? It strikes me that either the Times or the P-I must have erred in judgement, and reluctantly, I’m leaning towards the P-I. After all, Corrigan’s political pedigree is the only thing that makes this story rise above the usual din of dirty old men propositioning teenagers, so if it was too soon to reveal his identity, it was certainly too soon to publish the story. But then, who am I to question the journalistic decision making of our local media? I’m just some unschooled blogger.

Now I suppose it’s unfair to use yet another scandal involving yet another GOP mucky-mucky to make some assertion about Republicans in general. So I won’t. Instead I’ll just leave the implication dangling out there without comment.

But it is fair to note that Corrigan wasn’t just some low-level party loyalist. He was incredibly well connected. “Very wired,” I’m told. “Unbelievably so.” And apparently, got along great with folks on both sides of the aisle. I mean, for a Republican.

He was also in the process of using his political connections for personal gain. KIRO reported that Corrigan had left the Prosecutor’s Office two years ago to pursue private business interests… and that business is apparently the local distributorship for Aha Toro Tequila. (Go to the Contact page and you’ll find some other state GOP loyalists. And click on the address for “Kent Johnson” and you’ll find your email addressed to “larry_corrigan”.)

Which explains why Corrigan was also leading the effort to run a statewide initiative in 2007 that would liberalize WA’s liquor laws so as to allow big box and other stores to sell liquor. You know… like Aha Toro tequila.

Of course, we’ve come to expect the character of our initiatives to reflect the character of their sponsors. Here’s hoping this particular initiative is dead.

OK, so apologies for the fact that my first post here is both kind of boring and somewhat contrarian. I’ll try not to let the former happen again.

I was also at the FCC hearing last night, and beyond Goldy’s (and Andrew’s) posts below, and Frank the Dog-Shooter’s self-aggrandizing introductory remarks, I came away with another take.

I remember having come out of the March 2003 FCC hearing on ownership deregulation, held at UW’s HUB Ballroom, feeling euphoric. A huge crowd showed up to give the FCC an earful on its destructive rulemaking proposal to allow greater deregulation of media ownership, specifically, crossownership in the same city of radio/TV stations and newspaper and cable companies.

After an unexpected sea of public comment and Congressional criticism, the inevitable decision by the Commission’s Republican majority was overturned in federal appeals court. And, so, last night, the FCC was back in town, for a virtually identical hearing on a virtually identical rulemaking proposal. So either I’ve changed a lot politically in three years (which I doubt), or the expectations that now come with a new and remarkably powerful media democracy movement are vastly higher, which I think is more the case. Because even as 400 plus people braved a frigid, slushy night to turn out and give the FCC another earful, I came away this time with a slightly sour taste.

Despite the turnout, and the overwhelming opposition to media deregulation by the crowd, progressives reading themselves into the public record did themselves few favors last night. The two most compelling speakers on the night, IMO, were John Carlson (KVI talk show host and the night’s sole self-identified Republican), who made the conservative case for regulating media ownership, and UW President Mark Emmert, who made an educator’s pitch for media diversity as necessary for fostering critical thinking skills in a democracy. In a sea of progressives, the standout critics were a conservative talk show host and (essentially) the CEO of one of the region’s biggest employers.

Granted, Carlson and Emmert are both polished public speakers, and both are familiar with how to couch arguments that make sense to lawmakers and regulators. But that’s just the point: with few exceptions, the several dozen mostly left-leaning public speakers that followed in testimony weren’t. Many were lost in a sea of abstract theory; a number made the repetitive case that concentrated media ownership is bad – completely true, but also tangential and in important ways irrelevant to the proceeding, since that question was settled (for the FCC’s purposes) by Congress with the abysmal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Remarkably few progressives specifically addressed the actual issue at hand: whether having different big corporations owning your newspapers and your radio/TV outlets is better than having the same corporate monolith owning both. Only one speaker addressed that issue head-on in those terms, and several compelling progressive arguments against cross-ownership went entirely unmentioned. (For example, addressing the pro-business argument that Internet diversity makes distinctions between regulated broadcast stations and unregulated newspapers irrelevant — an argument Carlson skewered — by noting either that many Americans still don’t have home Internet access, let alone broadband, or that while diverse information is widely available on the Internet, citizens must seek it out — through search engines, links, or URLs — whereas turning a dial, flipping through a remote, or dropping quarters in a box gets you radio, TV, and newspapers, a far more general mass audience.) While these arguments and others went asking, two speakers somehow felt that it would be helpful to do satirical presentations in a federal hearing, as though it were yet another Seattle School Board hearing. Another plugged her socialist newspaper (sigh…) as running the sorts of stories corporate media ought to but won’t.

At least nobody sang.

In other words, it was a few former professional journalists and current media management types (a working journalist would never testify at such a hearing), plus a fairly representative cross-section of our region’s progressive Left, flakes included. The two FCC Commissioners who came to Seattle and who are holding these hearings around the country must have the patience of saints.

The flakes worry me less than the relative absence of compelling and on-point testimony from progressives – and I say this as someone who founded a broadcast trade company whose bread and butter was covering FCC rulemaking proposals. (The company is now owned by Clear Channel. Big sigh.) Few speakers were polished. Few dressed nicely — a detail that doesn’t matter much in a Seattle public hearing, but very much does in D.C.

Few seemed to understand what sorts of testimony might move the FCC, particularly (as Carlson grasped) how to frame issues in a way that would speak to at least one of the three Republican commissioners not present. (After all, the point is to win, not just to ratify the views of the two Democratic commissioners on hand.) Failing debate tactics, few even spoke from the heart as to what media diversity meant to them. And on a related note, excepting Jan Strout of NOW, the only speakers who addressed how lack of diverse ownership affects minority ownership were non-whites.

The FCC hearing was a microcosm of a larger problem. Progressives have been out of power so routinely that when we do have power, far too often we have no idea how to use it. The media democracy movement now has power; anyone doubting it should consider that despite a $200 million lobbying campaign by big telecommunications firms, that movement stopped Congress this session from ending net neutrality. That’s power. But in this case, when local grass roots progressives had the opportunity to publicly put their views on federal record, by and large they whiffed.

Something to ponder now that, at both the state legislative and congressional levels, progressives now have unprecedented power.

Andrew at NPI live-blogged this evening’s FCC hearing on media consolidation, and he reports that Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen was the first to speak.

Blethen, who was politely welcomed, used most of his time to complain about consolidation and centralization of media in America, and grumble about “the powerful who co-opt the free press”. Indeed.

How about that. Frank and I agree on something.

All snarkiness aside, Frank and I do agree on this issue, which is rather ironic, because as passionate as Frank is in his opposition to loosening federal restrictions on media consolidation, that didn’t seem to stop him from directing his editorial board to endorse a slate of Republicans who uniformly support these new rules. (Or, in the case of Dave Reichert, had absolutely no idea what the phrase “media consolidation” meant.)

Okay… I guess I couldn’t quite put my snarkiness aside. But Frank and I do agree. In theory.

Anyway, Andrew has more on tonight’s hearing here, here, here, and here.

From a KIRO TV report this evening:

According to booking records, Larry Corrigan, the former director of operations and budget for the King County Prosecutors office, was arrested Wednesday in an online sting.

Corrigan, accused of attempted child rape and communication with a minor for sex, was released Thursday on his own recognizance, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.
Corrigan was allegedly using an Internet messenger service to contact what he thought was a 13-year-old girl to meet for sex.

Police arrested Corrigan Wednesday afternoon at a Capitol Hill video store where he had arranged to meet the teenage girl.

Corrigan had worked as the director of operations and budget for 25 years before leaving nearly two years ago to pursue business interests, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.

Oh, man, a 25 year employee of King County…and in operations and budget. No doubt the Wingnuts will be up our liberal asses claiming Corrigan—a long term King County bureaucrat—is a typical Democrat. They’ll accuse the King County Dems of harboring and nurturing child predators. No doubt the righties will use this as an example of why Ron Sims is corrupt, and use it to claim King County steals both children and elections.

No doubt this will ultimately be blamed on…Dean Logan!

Oh wait a minute…It looks like Larry Corrigan is a big cheerleader for Republicans. I mean, he endorsed Sam Reed, and he is one of Bret Olsen’s distinguished supporters. The PDC shows him contributing mostly to Wingnuts like Luke Esser and Bret Olsen.

So, suck it Wingnuts. He’s one of yours.

(Man…what is it with these King County Republicans, anyway?)

Following up on a previous post, I just invited Geov Parrish to blog here on HA. Geov was an editorial board member and regular columnist at the Seattle Weekly before that publication imploded under new management. Apparently, he’d rather write for free here, than prostitute himself there. I guess that’s why they call it a “free press.”

Sonics owner Clay Bennett claims he’s serious about building a new suburban arena for the team. Personally, I don’t believe him. His recent announcements are most likely intended to provide cover when he finally picks up and moves the team to Oklahoma City.

But if the state Legislature does decide to give him everything he wants (you know, a free, $300 million arena where he keeps all the revenue, state and local government picks up all the tabs for repairs, and he can still leave before the bonds are paid off,) I’ve got a suggestion on how to fund it: an income tax on the salaries earned by visiting athletes during their “duty days” in the state.

No… really.

At least twenty other states already levy just such a “jock tax”… a tax our own Sonics, Mariners and Seahawks players already pay on nearly every away game. So why shouldn’t we tax opposing players too?

It won’t cost WA residents anything, and in fact, it won’t cost most of the visiting players all that much either, as any tax they pay here can be deducted from their state and federal income taxes, and they’re already hiring accountants to file tax returns in a dozen or more states. And they’re millionaires. Put a high exemption on the tax so as not to burden low-paid athletes in low-profile sports, but make the A-Rods pay their due. They can afford it.

As it is we don’t seem to have an ethical problem taxing visiting tourists for car rentals and hotel rooms to pay off the bonds at Safeco and Qwest fields, so why shouldn’t we be taxing the people who benefit most from these public projects, the athletes whose multimillion dollar contracts are subsidized by the super luxury boxes Bennett covets?

As for the constitutional issues, well that’s just a bonus as far as I see it. We get to test that bogus 1933 decision without the prospect of throwing the state into financial chaos should it inexplicably be upheld. And with that red herring out of the way, we can finally debate tax restructuring purely on the merits, without the constitutional question being used as a sledgehammer or an excuse.

I’m absolutely serious. You want the Sonics to stay in the region, but you don’t want to raise local taxes to pay the ransom? Tax visiting athletes. What could be so controversial about that?

You’ve already seen some changes on HA with the recent upgrade to WordPress 2.0, and I intend to add some more feature enhancements over time. But in perhaps the biggest change, I’ll be experimenting with loosening my grip over HA’s editorial content.

Yesterday, I invited Darryl of Hominid Views and Will (AKA Belltowner and formerly of Pike Place Politics) to post whenever and whatever they want. What they write is up to them. Whether they keep their posting privileges is up to you. Well… it’s up to me really, but I’ll certainly consider your feedback. Sorta. We’ll see how it goes.

So in the future, before you angrily attack me for challenging your assumptions or offending your stick-up-your-ass sensibilities, please take a look at the author credit at the top. If you’re going to flame a blogger, at least make sure it’s the right one.

Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat and I don’t always see eye to eye on education. During the school closure process we got into quite a heated email exchange in which I accused him of failing to question the assumptions and data put forth by the district, and he accused me of myopic NIMBYism. We both thought the parent revolt I was engaged in would likely end up undermining the entire closure process. On that count, we were both wrong.

But I wouldn’t have argued so passionately with Danny if I didn’t respect his opinion, and so it is gratifying to see us both on the same side of the manufactured debate over a proposed city takeover of Seattle schools: “Schools in crisis? Not really.”

Danny is sick of being told that he’s sending his kids to “a collapsing institution run by dysfunctional boobs,” but unlike most of the district’s critics, who seem content to back up their arguments with hyperbole and stereotypes, Danny decided to actually look at the numbers. He compared test scores from districts in the state’s ten largest cities, and what did he find?

Seattle high-schoolers rank 3rd in reading, behind only Bellevue and Federal Way. Seattle scores five points above the state average in math, ahead of Federal Way, Renton, Auburn, Enumclaw, Mukilteo and Lake Stevens… and 22 points better than Tacoma. As Danny writes, “If we’re in crisis, Tacoma’s schools must have cracked off and fallen into the sea.”

And what of the vaunted Bellevue schools that so many former urban families have abandoned Seattle for? Well, they’re great. If you’re rich.

Math and reading scores for low-income elementary kids in Seattle have doubled since 1998, and now are higher than scores for low-income kids in Bellevue — even though this at-risk group makes up 40 percent of the student body in Seattle, and 20 percent in Bellevue.

Danny asks for a little perspective, which is exactly what I’ve been asking for (here and here,) though not so politely. I think Danny sums it up best:

The schools themselves simply aren’t “blighted” or in “crisis.” Some are great and some aren’t, which isn’t good enough. But what they need is constructive help, not broad-brush insults.

The mayor and the former mayor and the editorial board for this newspaper ought to back off. My kid goes to a Seattle public school, and from where I sit you all are starting to do more harm than good.

The only thing I’d add is that it is the disparity between the great, the good and the not-so-good schools that is really at the heart of most of the district’s problems. It is this issue that I intend to focus on in future posts.

An editorial in today’s Seattle Times agrees with Gov. Christine Gregoire’s proposal to delay the requirement that students pass the math portion of the WASL in order to graduate from High School. But they reiterate their “grim assessment” that Washington students are woefully “ill-prepared for the rigors of math.”

No further evidence is needed than the failure of nearly half of the state’s sophomores — about 34,000 — on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning math test last spring and in summer re-takes.

Hmm. So… “no further evidence is needed” than students’ poor performance on the WASL. And yet, further down the editorial we find this throw-away little tidbit:

There is a disconnect when it comes to high-achieving students as well. Bellevue Superintendent Mike Riley tells Seattle Times education reporter Lynn Thompson that many of the district’s students do well on the math section of the SAT but stumble on the WASL.

Uh huh.

So if students do well on the SAT, but stumble on the WASL, is that “evidence” that we aren’t preparing these students for math. Or rather, is it evidence that one or both of these tests suck? I mean, would it be okay if the majority of our state’s students passed the WASL, but performed far below the national average on the SAT?

Understand where I’m coming from on this. I’m a smart guy, but was not always the most diligent or cooperative student; I had a tough time spitting back what the teacher wanted, even knowing that doing so was a sure-fire path to an A. I also had a run-in with with an absolutely nutcase, 10th grade English teacher who picked me out as the annual uppity smart kid she liked to fail as an example to the rest of us uppity smart kids. That’s right, despite being one of the best writers in my class (throughout my academic career) I failed 10th grade English, often getting essays returned with a big fat zero, and no other marks or comments. (The teacher had tenure. She also died of a slow growing brain tumor a couple years later.)

So while I mostly got A’s in high school, my GPA was somewhat below that typically needed to qualify for our nation’s top colleges and universities. And yet at least one Ivy League school was willing to overlook my less than stellar GPA, at least partially because my SAT scores were so high.

See, there are a lot of smart people out there, and we can be smart in many different ways, but I happened to be blessed with something college admissions officers highly valued back in the early 1980’s: the standardized test taking gene.

I loved filling in those little circles. It was a puzzle. It was a game. And it was a game I always won.

On the English portion of these tests I could intuit the answer whether or not I could verbalize the grammatical and syntactic rules at play. Sentences either felt right, or they didn’t. And on the math portion of these tests I rarely had to do the math at all. I could almost always instantly eliminate one or two of the multiple choice answers, and make an educated guess that virtually assured me a better than 50-percent chance of getting it right.

I was like a card-counter at a blackjack table, and I always understood the unfair advantage I had over the house or the other players. In 9th grade, after playing around with a couple practice tests in an old prep book, I decided to take the Biology achievement test… and I nearly aced it. I’d never studied most of the subject matter, let alone a three-chamber heart, but one of the practice tests had almost identical questions about a two-chamber heart, and it didn’t take much to connect the dots.

The point is, the one thing these standardized tests are truly capable of evaluating is the ability of the student to take these standardized tests. They do not necessarily test the student’s grasp on the material, and they do not necessarily predict the student’s future performance in college or the real world. Hell… look at me: according to the SATs I’m a fucking genius, yet here I am blogging for free while my thermostat’s set to 58 and I’m struggling to pay my mortgage. How smart is that?

So when I read all these editorials and columns lamenting our student’s poor performance on the WASL, it absolutely infuriates me that nobody ever questions the performance of the WASL. I mean, did it ever occur to anybody that when it comes to measuring the ability of a typical high school student to grasp and apply a body of knowledge, that perhaps the WASL sucks? Is it so outside the realm of possibility to even consider the notion that the very same educators who are constantly being accused of failing to teach our children might also have devised a crappy means of measuring a student’s progress?

In fact, the WASL was never designed to serve as a graduation standard or as a measuring stick for punishing failing schools under President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” It was originally developed to provide schools with a tool for measuring academic progress so that they could better target their students’ needs. The purpose was not to teach to the WASL, but to use the WASL to help teachers better teach the students.

I’m not saying we’re doing a good enough job educating our students. Of course we’re not. And I’m certainly not arguing against the value of standards. But when grades say one thing, and SAT scores say another, and then the WASL says something entirely different… well… I fail to see the logic in assuming that the WASL is the be-all and end-all of academic standards. Indeed, if you spend a little time in the classroom and watch how distorted the curriculum has become, it’s beginning to look like this whole WASL craze has morphed into a faith-based initiative that’s doing more harm than good.

No doubt the WASL is a boon to tough-talking politicians and editorialists. But a passing score won’t pay your mortgage.

Hmm. Looks like “Mark the Redneck” isn’t the only welcher in the Republican Party.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. At least, I think it meets tonight, but who knows how many people will chicken out because of a little frozen water on the roads?

Anyway, I plan on showing up, so I hope some others join me.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. Here’s a full run down of WA’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters, including our newest chapter in the former Republican stronghold of Mercer Island:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	December 27
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	November 30
Mercer Island:	Roanoke Tavern, 1825 72nd Ave SE	(Starting January) Second and fourth Wednesday of each month, 6:00-8:00 pm	January 10
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	December 13
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	December 4
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	November 28
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	November 29
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	November 29
Tri-Cities:	O’Callahans – Shilo Inn, 50 Comstock, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	November 28
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	November 28
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	December 1

(And apparently there’s also an unaffiliated liberal drinking group in Olympia that meets every Monday at 7PM at the Brotherhood Lounge, 119 N. Capital Way.)