Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Burner-Reichert, the New Numbe... | The Morning News »

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Catfight!

posted by on November 12 at 12:56 PM

Oooh! Lisa Nicata is going after Alexis Sherman!

Dear Editor,

You cannot imagine the pride of being recognized in print by the literary giant Alexis Sherman in his ode to the Sonics. Although we’ve shared the platform to address the public on political and artistic matters, I sensed I didn’t register much above the other props on his stage.

So low and behold, here from an admitted leftist Democrat, I was singled out from among the 74% of Seattle voters who happened to agree with me that our wages shouldn’t subsidize big-business professional sports franchises. And my name was correctly spelled too! Although from someone who can quote from memory a few hundred poems, one should not expect less.

If only that prodigious mind could grasp the difference between appreciating Ray Allen’s jump shots from feeding an endless stream of coins into a broken machine. I am confident that the first is as beautiful as any Emily Dickinson prose, just as I am aware that the later can be as addicting as crack to a holistic basketball fan.

Nick Licata

Hm… Ms. Lisa Nicata senses that he didn’t register much above “the other props” on various stages when he has appeared in public with Ms. Alexis Sherman. But the non-registration appears to have been mutual, as the author of the piece on the Sonics in this week’s Stranger is actually Sherman Alexie, not his female double, that international woman of mystery, Alexis Sherman.

If nothing else good comes of this catfight between one of Seattle’s brightest literary stars and one of our leading lefty pols, there’s at least this: Sherman Alexie has a drag name now.

Alexie.jpg

The long hair is a little confusing, Alexis.

RSS icon Comments

1

Hey now!!! Fuck the Sonics, anyone care to comment on the Lambs 90+ yard fumble recovery for a TD? (I hope it isn't too early to gloat...)

Posted by Mike in MO | November 12, 2006 1:36 PM
2

One more example of how Licata is so incredibly disconnected from the real world that he can no longer be effective.

Is it any wonder that our city has devolved into a raging clusterfuck with leaders like this?

Sure, he may have been on the right side of the Sonics issue, but can you honestly say that this guy has a clue about how the other 99% of Seattleites live outside the commune?

Then again, he probably does understand - he just doesn't care.

Posted by Reader in QA | November 12, 2006 2:21 PM
3

Forget about the "Alexis Sherman" thing--what the hell did he mean by "low and behold"? A barbaric phoneticism!

Posted by Andrew | November 12, 2006 2:33 PM
4

I am confident that the first is as beautiful as any Emily Dickinson prose.

Wouldn't "poetry" make more sense here?

Posted by some deaths take forever | November 12, 2006 2:43 PM
5

**** Official Final ****
KING COUNTY 11/29/2005 2:03:37 PM
Nov 8, 2005
General Election 2005 Page 20 of 49

City Of Seattle Council - Position 6

Nick Licata NP 121511 77.68%

Paul A. Bascomb NP 34392 21.99%

Write-in 519 0.33%

Posted by elenchos | November 12, 2006 2:43 PM
6

I love Sherman Alexi, and did I mention I have a black friend named Allen which absolves me of all responsibility for my own racism?

All snark aside, the bitching of people who think we should pay for their un-enriching entertainment is total bullshit. At least with government subsided art (which is sometimes brought up to challenge the opposition) people are somewhat enlightened and educated by the experience. Sports is not art and it does not enrich, so it shouldn't be payed for by the people.

Posted by brandon h | November 12, 2006 3:20 PM
7

I am a pretty smart guy, and this entry has left me more confused than I originally was.

Posted by Gomez | November 12, 2006 3:28 PM
8

Hilarious!

Isn't it funny when you pull one on the readers?

Let's use fake names! We're having a good time, and we're advocates! Can't take a joke? That's your problem.

What juveniles.

Posted by Savage Dan Savage Dan? | November 12, 2006 3:44 PM
9

the marketing plan of the danger is that --- exactly --- it is all a joke

that is why with a giant readership - its election choices are ignored, not a joke to voters

Posted by Jac | November 12, 2006 4:09 PM
10

Licata is the only person I have ever met and watched in action - the only one, whose brain quite possibly has shrivled from too much dope smoking

and if you have followed Seattle politics, he is about as left as former mayor Paul Schell, but he does like the Blue Moon, big leftist issue

Posted by aubrey | November 12, 2006 4:14 PM
11

So easy to through darts on message boards.

Licata is one of the best city council people Seattle has ever had. He's smart, consistant, and principled. He's not perfect - nor is any pol, but he has recently taken the right side in standing up to the SPD and Howard Schultz and Wally Walker. Nick's a liberal in all the best ways.

Posted by Meinert | November 12, 2006 4:48 PM
12

PS = Sherman's article is shit. Poorly written nonsense. Sherman, what's your position? That we should save the Sonics? Ok...like how? Care to explain or is rational analysis beyond you? I am a huge Sonics fan, but it's clear that the NBA financial model is broken and the plan they launched to blackmail the public into ponying up tax dollars to support their broken financial scheme is incredibly unpopular with the public. Fortunately we live in a democracy where the rich don't (always) get to force everyone else to pay for their toys. The Sonics are a toy, and one we can't afford and now thanks in part to Licata's leadership we don't have to. It's a bummer the players and owners are so greedy and selfish that they will steal a sports team like the Sonics from a city like Seattle that has supported the team for decades all to add a little more to the million of dollars they make a year. And sad that someone like Alexi would buy into the bullshit that is public funding of pro-sports. But then, since he lives the 'american dream' and makes so much money, and I assume can afford the high priced game tickets, he probably no longer cares about the people in Seattle who struggle to get by who the millionaires and billionaires of the Sonics would have subsidize their salaries.

The worst thing about Alexi's article is that it made me have to finally finish reading something he wrote, all in search of a well written point of view. I should have known better. Reading Alexi is as frustrating as watching Ridenaouer.

Posted by Meinert | November 12, 2006 5:18 PM
13

in your humble opinion...

Posted by watcher | November 12, 2006 5:50 PM
14

Out of curiosity, what makes it so obvious that the NBA's business model is broken? It seems like the league is doing pretty well these days.

It's too bad the sonics have to deal with the residual bitterness over Safeco and Qwest fields' being built. If we are lucky, they will leave town soon and Paul Allen will move the out on paroleBlazers up the road.

Posted by doink@gmail.com | November 12, 2006 6:03 PM
15

"The worst thing about Alexi's article is that it made me have to finally finish reading something he wrote, all in search of a well written point of view."

Ditto. Just silly ravings.

Don't blame Licata (or anyone) for the Sonics' leaving. If Sonics' fans want to go support the team with their money, god bless. Just don't pick my pocket.

Posted by David Sucher | November 12, 2006 6:20 PM
16

It's important to note that arts organizations are not owned by multimillionaires/billionaires. Likewise, the top salaries at those organizations top out at six figures, not seven.

If the Sonics are willing to be loyal to fans that have been loyal to them for decades, then let them do what the SF Giants were forced to do. Let them take out a loan and build a new arena with their own money.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 12, 2006 7:41 PM
17

NBA - the NBA makes plenty of income that should result in a profit, unfortunately, the players make too much money and the teams do not share their endorsement income. NBA payrolls have ballooned, but not only because of the players. Staff sizes have tripled and coaches are making many times what they were a couple of decades ago. This would be fine if the salary increases matched increases in income, but they do not. So the teams, if they had to rely just on billion or so dollars the NBA brings in per year, would all be losing money. Thus, their economic model is broken.

The NBA of course has learned that by threatening to move a franchise out of a city, they can demand tax dollars from politicians who have to answer to the public when a team moves. Most city council members in most cities, though they know the city cannot ultimately afford to pay such blackmail over the longterm, cave and give in to the teams. Fortunately in Seattle we have strong council members like Licata, who took the economically responsible stand. You can call him a 'liberal' and insult him in other ways all you want for that stand, but Nick is actually pretty fiscally conservative, and he definitely took a fiscally conservative stand in the face of the Sonics. The principle of course is that private businesses with massive salaries do not need and should not receive public money. Further, people should not have money forceably taken from them in order to support private business without an excellent reason. Problem is, the only reason the Sonics can give is civic pride because all the independent studies show pro-sports teams do not create a positive economic impact in their communities. I'd claim that with the $400,000,000 dollars the Sonics want, we can create a lot of great things that will create more civic pride than one mediocre pro-basetball team can - things like a top notch public education system.

But then Sherman has cried 20 times about the Sonics recently so I guess we should 'save' them.

Posted by Meinert | November 12, 2006 8:21 PM
18

licata doesn't seem to think "alexis" is a woman; he uses male pronouns in reference to him.

... as if the stranger is a typo-free operation.

Posted by glass houses | November 12, 2006 9:14 PM
19

I know both Sherman and Nick. They're both good people. One's just miffed cause we won't pay for his toy, the other's making sure we don't pay for other people's toys.

This will all blow over.

Once the Sonics go the Sooner route.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 12, 2006 9:17 PM
20

#16 - Not to vector too far off topic, but it's also important to note that the salaries topping out at six figures at these arts organizations refer to staff positions. Especially true in the performing arts, the migrant artists (actors, dancers, singers) who may infrequently work at these same organizations will nonetheless subsidize these institutions by making far, far less. Routinely, a new director of marketing and development will be paid more than an actor who may have worked for decades at the same organization.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 12, 2006 10:37 PM
21

Watch for "Lisa who leaks" now to dry up, leaving both alternative papers largely out in the cold and irrelevant.

Posted by Napoleon XIV | November 12, 2006 10:56 PM
22

Licata is a very smart but very run of the mill politician. Yuk.

You take an isssue that is very widely supported by the populace and make it yours. There was NO support for paying the bill for the Sonics BEFORE team Licata did the ref. None.

How safe is that? Now he pretends to have wonder skills as political leader, and the stranger talks him up to the sky.

Simpleton stuff.

Most fiscal conservatives feel spending money on anything is a waste somehow. They all scare me, because infrastructure, social programs, and all the other misc. of a well run city are not a waste of money. Their expense returns many fold on investment but fiscal conservatives always want to spend on the cheap. Licata has botched the sweeping program appreoved by voters to replace many fire stations. He can't stand to spend the money, over 100 million, even when voter approved

Because of very steep rises in constructions costs his delay, delay, delay program will make the rebuilds and new stations cost vastly more. Thrifty, to him, hang on to the purse. Truth, stupid.

He does need to go back to the commune and play senior guru.

Posted by Jay | November 12, 2006 11:56 PM
23

Jay,
Nick Licata didn't just jump on the band wagon with this referendum.
He took the lead last winter helping the council come up with smart/reasonable guidelines for any Sonics deal long before Van Dyk hit the streets in the summer. This was when the Sonics were in Olympia (with the Team Ceis's support ... not a very smart politician, I guess?) asking for the $200 million.
Licata was also an anti-stadium subsidy activist back in the mid-late 90s when it was all going down with SAFECO.
You're right that Licata's fiscal conservatism can be short sighted, but for the reasons Meinert sates, Licata is not being short sighted when it comes to subsidizing the Sonics. This isn't about building a basic stadium and a winning basketball team (which would be cool), but rather, it's about building a yuppie entertainment palace (that will keep patrons away from neigbhorhood businesses and locked in the arena) that's designed to reap huge revenues to support inflated player salaries & owners' profits. Obviously the NBA is a broken business model. Example A: The Sonics want a $200 million subsidy. Example B: Your tax dollars were already subsidizing the Sonics to the tune of $2.3 million a year since 2000 ... still paying down the last subsidy.

Posted by Josh Feit | November 13, 2006 12:30 AM
24

Dear out of touch/(Sonics obsessed nut bag) stranger writer,

The city passed I-91 with 73% of the vote.

STFU and stop asking us to subsidize your addiction.

Thanks,
The Citizenry

Posted by seattl98104 | November 13, 2006 8:35 AM
25

Why does everyone have such a vitriolic hatred of the Sonics (ne all professional sports in WA?) that they're unwilling or unable to recognize that other people may not feel the same? Frankly, there is poetry in professional sports. It's wonderful to see people who are the best doing what they do best - whether it's an opera, a play, dance, lecture, or, indeed, play sports. Yes, the economic infrastructure of professional sports is off-kilter. That doesn't negate the simple fact that people like and sometimes love sports as much or far more than other kinds of performing arts.

The Sherman Alexie article was great. It put the issue in the context of people connecting with one another. Sports do that for people in ways that other performing arts don't. Currently I am with a university with no real sports teams. As a result (and I've done research on this) there is little sense of community. Whether students hate sports and the money "wasted" on them or love their teams, it provides a link. Common ground. Context for human connection. I still know how my alma mater is doing sports-wise. As a Seattle native, I am able to feel connection with my hometown every time the Mariners or the Seahawks take the field or the Sonics hit the court on television. Fans of their rivals understand why I'm rooting for them and are usually both supportive and kindly mocking depending on how the game goes.

When was the last time you and your friends got together to watch a modern dance-off on television? Hell, when was the last time you went to a play? People decry sports for the arts. There is more than enough for both to co-exist. This legislation was meant as a "fuck you" to all professional sports and eventually Seattle will eventually lose all of their teams. Good for you. It's be nice if the city would put all the "savings" to support of other arts, but it won't. Taxes will rise anyway and the money will go to the viaduct and special interests and salaries for already top-paid officials. Congratulations.

Posted by dewsterling | November 13, 2006 9:16 AM
26

cool! Nick Licata writes a badly written letter in response to Miss Sherman's badly written article!!!

If 'Alexie Sherman' is one of the leading lights of the Seattle literary scene then someone should really pay the light bill....

Posted by michael strangeways | November 13, 2006 9:43 AM
27

if the sonics were such a dire need of the seattle community and specifically to stay at the key arena, don't you think seattlites (as a community) would have seen the need to keep the sonics "at all costs"?

that's where rational beings and obsessed fans differ. sure, I'd love the sonics to stay, but I'm going to pay them a randsome to keep them. sure I know they have great players and have had some of the best in history, that doesn't mean they deserve what ever they want.

I91 is not a fuck you to the sonics, it's a fuck you to the sonics/nba/pro sports business practices. the two can be mutually exclusive.

and actually my friends do get together to watch modern dance, go to the opera, and attend rock concerts and roller derby. sonics basketball is not the only culturally important community activity nor sports activity in seattle.

Posted by seattl98104 | November 13, 2006 10:10 AM
28

Dewsterling - I am against public money for pro-sports and yet I am a big sports (pro and amatuer) fan. The argument at hand has nothing to do with sports per se. It has to do with how our government spends limited resources, especually in the face of other seemingly more important needs being underfunded. If I were a politician I would look at all sorts of ways to stop spending so much on sports across the board. For instance, not only should Seattle not have to pay for the Sonics, but we should all be questioning the need to close down schools and not pay teachers more when The Seattle School district is spending millions per year on intermural sports and new football stadiums and has property worth millions more in Memorial Stadium that either needs millions put into it to make it safe or should be sold and repurposed. Our city already spends more per capita on sports than any other city in the world. We do crazy things like spend $500,000 on a new imitation grass field for the park on Cap Hill after recently having spent over $100,000 on putting new grass on the same field.

Bottom line is this - spending on sports is out of control and is siphoning money away from more important needs. Our city should not subsidize pro-sports, and we should also ween our school system off the Sports uber alles philosphy. No public money should be spent on intermural sports in our public education system. INTRAmural is fine. Athletics are good and have several benefits, but we don't need to spend so much money on them. Hopefully we have taken our first step towards getting this spending under control.

Posted by Meinert | November 13, 2006 10:42 AM
29

Fuck Sherman Alexie and every other sports fan with the same bizarre sense of entitlement to public tax dollars. Key Arena was stripped to the rafters and competely rebuilt just 9 years ago to the Sonics' specifications. If little Shermy doesn't like it, he can go ahead and follow the Sonics to Oklahoma City.

And he should lose the mullet while he's at it.

Posted by Sick of Sherman and the Sonics | November 13, 2006 11:27 AM
30

Uh Nick, you weren't "singled out from 74 percent of Seattle voters" as the target of Alexie abuse. You are the most prominent public opponent of spending tax dollars on sports stadiums. Sometimes you're considered a hero for this (and you obviously enjoy that part) and sometimes you get told to fuck off. That's politics, dude.

Posted by J.R. | November 13, 2006 4:10 PM
31

I don't think that Sherman Alexie is pro big business because he is angry over the likely loss of his team to OK City. If you read any one of his books, or saw the movie "Smoke Signals" you get the idea that when he was a poor outcast of a kid on the reservation, basketball was everything and he was a top notch player throughout his life. Basketball and books seem always to be his focus. So, if he spends some major bucks on seasons tickets because he's worked his heart out to be successful, Big deal. I wonder how many of the bleeding hearts that wrote in own a huge $4000 plasma tv to watch reality shows. Some probably maxxed out a VISA card to purchase one or another major item that may seem like wasteful spending to someone else. Sherman enjoys professional basketball, and big business threw him and every other sports fan in Seattle a mickey. Face it, you're losing a great asset to your city and that's a big deal.

Posted by Bette Rush | November 13, 2006 6:34 PM
32

Bette - I'm no bleeding heart. And I am a huge Sonics fan since when at 12 years old I watched them win an NBA championship. And yes, losing the Sonics will be a blow to Seattle. It's a bummer the greedy NBA is forcing us to walk away from them. But the answer isn't to hand over $400 million to a private business with an average per employee salary of $5 million per year (not including endorsements which make this more).

I have no issue with anyone making $5 million per year. I do have an issue of giving tax dollars to that business when they don't need it.

Why do you think a City with a failing school system in need of major investment into it's physical infrustructure (roads, bridges, police, fire department, sea wall, etc) should spend another $400 mil on an NBA team?

Recently, NHL players took an across the board pay cut of 24%. If the Sonics did the same, then over the 20 years they need the $200 mil from the City (about $400 with all the xtra costs) they would have that money on their own.

Posted by Meinert | November 13, 2006 6:49 PM
33

J.R. is right to call Nick on being a whiner about being singled out. The reality is that Nick made an incredibly insensitive and elitist statement when he said the Sonics have no cultural value. Sherman's piece is centered around this statement thematically. Basketball may not touch Nick's soul just as poetry slams might bore another, but both have the capacity to inspire.

I didn't catch the part where Sherman called for tax subsidies. The NBA tax structure does suck. And we shouldn't hand millionaires more money. Best case scenario--the wealthy millionaires of the eastside pay for a new stadium and we take the light rail over there someday soon...

Posted by hoops fan | November 14, 2006 10:21 AM
34

From 16 "Problem is, the only reason the Sonics can give is civic pride because all the independent studies show pro-sports teams do not create a positive economic impact in their communities."

Whats funny is you are completly wrong... I guess thats why you didn't cite any sources. Here are the documents that assesed the economic impact of the Sonics. All of wich recommend that the Sonics are economically worth the investment.

Seattle Center Survey
http://saveoursonics.org/Media/tabid/356/Default.aspx?PageContentID=43

KeyArena Subcommittee report
http://saveoursonics.org/Media/tabid/356/Default.aspx?PageContentID=44

There's more info at saveoursonics.org

Posted by Griff | November 16, 2006 9:07 PM
35

Oh and we are keeping this team in Seattle (or at least in the suburbs).
-Save Our Sonics

Posted by Griff | November 16, 2006 9:15 PM
36

Let's put Sherman into perspective so we can understand why a pretty good writer can produce such unreasoned bad writing.

Anyone who grew up in one of those prosperous small eastern washington farm towns knows that the all the folks lost their heads to the high school basketball culture from December through state payoffs in march.

If Sherman Alexi was the valued player he says he was for the Reardan Indians then he was probably treated as a god and his "race" was invisible (honestly, many Native Americans blended into these highschools - he wasn't all that unique).

Sad, however, how these small town basketball jocks could never get past their reputations as basketball stars - even if they have moved on to success in other careers.

I agree with Alexi's evaluation of himself, he is a good writer, but, he still has not mastered the art of persuasive bullshit. daisy

Posted by daisy | November 18, 2006 10:11 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).