Kinda belittling. Your operation is based out of Capitol Hill...but is it a (I think he implied that its THE) Capitol Hill newspaper?

Is Seattle Times a fucking Eastlake newspaper?

sheesh.

ddv

Gah. I'm torn between scoffing at Connelly's whiny doucheitude and failure to understand what the First Amendment actually is, and snarking about ECB being on the receiving end of sloppy journalism for once.

But really, that's OK. In fact, it's great. It's why people read it, for the love of Pete...you fill a niche. The Stranger isn't (and shouldn't be) as objective as any other media outlet. There is such a thing as "The Stranger's View," and thank God for that.

I think the Burgess coverage has left out some important questions, but not for the lame reasons laid out by Connelly, who doesn't seem to get that the First Amendment PROTECTS The Stranger's right to ask these questions. Duh. Read it. I think (as ECB seems to have acknowledged) that questions about gay marriage, etc, preclude the asking of more germane questions about, say, the Viaduct (on which Burgess is spot-on) or density.

Old Fart Alert!

I have an affinty for your views at the paper, but c'mon, no one is going to remotely take you seriously with that attitude.

"Our Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment to provide an alternative to boorish, repressive and authoritarian behavior."

Just when you think you've absorbed all the idiocy and presumption represented by those few words, another wave comes crashing over you. Try it again:

"Our Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment to provide an alternative to boorish, repressive and authoritarian behavior."

Amazing.

Joel of the bruised ego is unforgiving of the scoop. Asking Burgess the hard questions is something they could have done a week ago. They didn't. Too late, the rest is blather.

Too bad. So sad. Cry elsewhere, Joel.

I'm sorry, I just thought that bears repeating. Maybe a thousand times or so.

As for the Burgess coverage, I think it has been ok -- convinced me even more that on balance he would be better than Della for a city council position (but keep him out of the judicial branch!) Then again, I don't live on Capitol Hill, so I guess I don't get to vote...

2) The West Seattle thing was, obviously, a joke.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/sharkansky_shitty_tipper_vindictive_jerk

That was where I drew the inference that the situation you complain about here was in fact similar to how you reported on Stephan. If he was lying, then I stand corrected.

FYI, in Seattle we elect the city council on an all city basis. The term is city wide.

Good Grief, where have you been ? You don't have to be on C. Hill to vote for Burgess, just have impaired/bad politics ... yes there are R' in the city. (see Broadmoor, they live in gated clusters)

I live in Belltown -- the point was that if you live on Capitol Hill and/or work for The Stranger, you think that living somewhere other than Capitol Hill will/should disqualify you from voting in Seattle elections.

Burgess is not a great choice. I've posted before that I wish someone better had run against Della, but he is an idiot and he deserves to be a one-term councilmember...

That's one.

Two is:

As high priests of anti-religious prejudice in Seattle, editors at the Capitol Hill newspaper summoned Burgess for a grilling last week.

This is actually true as well. You may feel it's justified, but that's not the same thing as having it not be true. Dan is a raging bigot when it comes to religion and most of the rest of you aren't much better.

Righteous.

Lisa Brown is one of the best Dems in the state - from - guess, where, Spokane. She runs the Senate, and is bucking for Gov after Christine.

Spokane DEFEATED an attempt to take away legal protections for Gay people years ago.

Where is Erica supposed to go to become a starchy Republican?

Yeah, we're mad that they're spending our US tax dollars and killing our US soldiers for a War for Lies in Iraq.

And you think we should be ... polite?

I'm surprised there aren't riots.

They are bitter their whole lives, it follows. And the present Pope is pushing back to the 19 th century.

Pity all around. I like Dan's candid scorn for anti gay religion.

Dan never says anything bad about the Church of Christ or the Unitarians, for good reason.

Judah, tell us all why we are supposed to be cozy with our oppressors?

Show me where I said Spokane was Red or that living there would turn Erica into one. Show me where I even implied it.

One chronic failure of imagination on display in the pages of the Stranger is the failure to recognize or understand that not all Democrats are so-called "progressives" -- that not everyone who disagrees with the war or who believes in civil liberties necessarily shares the Stranger's contempt for religion, their love of mass transit or their attitude about illegal immigration. The Stranger's constant refrain about the failure of "the Democratic super-majority" to advance the Stranger's political platform in Olympia is emblematic of the Stranger's narrow-mindedness about the spectrum of political and social thought outside the tiny enclave of "urban archipelago" where they ironically chug PBR and practice their downward dogs.

If you're going to tell me I'm full of shit it might be a good idea to be demonstrate a basic grasp of what I said, you fucking dilhole.

To put it simply, it's the Stranger. It's Dan Savages newspaper. It's Dan's opinions you either agree or disagree with. You may agree or disagree with some, all, or none of it. But it's Dan's overly opinionated editorial that you read. ESPECIALLY IN THE SLOG. All you have to do is appreciate where Dan is coming from. I came from a catholic family too. Divorced cathoic family, and I can imagine Dan's experience with religion many many many times worse than mine. Not everyone gets to have positve relgious experiences you know? Some of us have to deal with dillhole religious fanatics that scar us for life.

And you should come to an edit meeting sometime -- my opinions don't carry the weight you seem to think they do. Other staffers have their own take on stuff, and we argue and bicker and la la la. But we all agree that the viaduct should come down and that pot should be legal and so should abortion and gay sex is neato.

I don't know. The Christians I meet are romantics of sorts. They are in love with the idea of family, security, god. The real world doesn't really ... let's just say they need to evolve with the real world better. I can sit on my soap box all day. But I meet more people who do the Christian thing, get married and have babies when they are young only to have it ALL go down in flames than people who live happily ever after. They mean well ... they are just too impatient ... The cynicism towards religion I think is what puts people off in these posts ... I rarely see them actually post anything.

Yeah, I know. I used to live in a mostly-black neighborhood and the black kids there beat me up a bunch of times and called me honkey and kike and one time this teenager even had his German Shepard attack me while I was walking to the grocery store. So now I hate black people.

I mean, that justifies bigotry, right? If I have an excuse for it?

Wait, now you're going to tell me that it's different because religion is a choice and race isn't. Have you ever read that book, How the Irish Became White? You should check it out.

And in case this isn't obvious (one never wants to give people on the internet too much credit), I don't actually hate black people.

Argh! And now my whole argument has completely unraveled! Damn you, Savage! *shakes fist at the sky*

And you should come to an edit meeting sometime

Sure. What time?

Goodness, some of my best mothers are Catholic.

Not being thought highly of does not equal hatred.

Where people simply more accepting of alternative views? (gay biggotry aside?)

I mean, if we're keeping score of the "damage religion does to individuals, societies, twin towers, etc".

I guess that's probably why it clearly wasn't aimed at you.

Either way, Connelly is missing the point of The Stranger's critism of Burgess' reinvention as a progressive. Erica's coverage of Burgess' position has been more skeptical of his sincerity than an attack on his personal beliefs.

We should all be skeptical when marketing and politics cross paths as they unavoidabley do.

The point of bringing them up is to demonstrate that atheism, as such, does not prevent the types of atrocities Dan associates with religion. The implication is that atrocities have a correlative rather than a causative relationship with religion and that that Dan's beef with religion -- on that score -- is therefore bullshit.

Keep trying, slick. You'll get there eventually.

Insofar as "dildo" has one l, so does dilhole.

And now I call upon you to show where Dan declared that such a correlative relationship exists. Saying religion causes damage is not the same as saying damage is correlated with religion. You appear to not understand the difference between a conditional and a biconditional assertion.

1. dillhole

Originally used on the TV series Beavis and Butthead, presumably because you can't say dickhole on TV.

A mild insult.

To be fair, it does appear with both one "l" and two "l's", and the kids who post definitions over there aren't exactly rocket scientists.

And rereading your post. I don't really give a shit if you don't like black people. Don't know why? I just don't feel it matters.

Erica, thanks for the long excerpt of Connelly's column. That's one of the things I love about Media Matters, is the ability to catch the context. I know it upsets Bill O'Reilly, but that can't be helped.

I didn't say Dan declared that a correlative relationship exists. I said that Dan declared that a causal relationship exists, and I was attempting to demonstrate that it was, at best, correlative. I think what's tripping you up is, "the implication." I meant "my implication" -- not that the two are mutually exclusive.

You appear to not understand the difference between a conditional and a biconditional assertion.

Whatever maynard.

at least that's Sam Harris' argument as i understand it.

the point is that the 20th century anomaly of Atheist Communism does not absolve monotheistic religion of its 2000 year history of genocidal crimes whatsoever.

The goyium are ignorant, rural, and deserving of scorn. Gevurah is associated in the soul with the power to restrain one's innate urge to bestow goodness upon others, when the recipient of that good is judged to be unworthy and liable to misuse it. Seattle's idiot Christians deserve all the scorn Dan Savage and his crew can muster. Mount the Merkava of Daniel and soar through the fires to glory! Mazel Tov!

Atheists don't run around claiming that atheism makes people moral and good. Religious people make that claim about religion, which makes the immoral and bad actions of religious people germane, Judah. "There is no morality without religion," some jackass once said. That's not true, as morally upright atheists prove every day. And there is immorality with religion, as immoral religious people prove every day.

I wonder is it fair to make statements stating all of the worlds scorn is caused by faith, or perhaps even MOST of the worlds scorn is caused by faith.

I want to make the argument that the worlds scorn caused by faith is done when someone can profit from it. When I look at issues of faith, I like to take a few deep breaths and ask myself who makes the most money keeping the US fundamentalist christian red neck trolls and the picture gets even more lucid, and it helps me relax.

Stop, I'm laughing so hard!

And then Erica does a Mike Fancher imitation: "The Stranger is not a monolith any more than the P-I; the writers and editors ere hold a diversity of views on a variety of different issues." Yeah, right! You almost said we're fair and balanced.

This is the publication that runs nasty things that just sputter into a Fuck You to this person or that.

And now, you're protesting that somebody lacks standards?

Wow. As Dan might say, where do I start?

Grow up.

Eric, don't act like Mike Fancher.

The Stranger is entertaining because it is not bound by rules of fact, fairness or the limits of decency that makes dailies dull.

Erica and Josh often do interviews together, paired like snakes. So enjoy it!

Most of the world's scorn is caused by stagnant anger. Jerks just use religion as justification to act out.

Not all religious people are jerks.

Not all non-religious people are not jerks. Those kinds of jerks are more creative with their reasoning.

I would say the jerk/civilized person ratio is even in both camps.

Do I need to? I haven't critiqued their views of fascism -- just the quality of their atheism.

That's not to say I haven't read Hitchens or Dawkins; I have. I've read quite a bit from both of them about religion, and various other things from Hitchens -- politics, history and such. Neither is it to say that I haven't read Hitler or Stalin on religion, which I've also done. Mao I've only read about. But I feel okay comparing Hitchens' and Dawkins' atheism, broadly, to the doctrinal atheism of the dictatorships I mentioned on the evidence I've seen, without getting into their attempts to draw advantageous distinctions that may not be consistent with other things I've seen them write and heard them say.

One hardly need read Kissinger's Diplomacy to have a reasonably informed opinion about his handling of foreign policy.

Religious people make that claim about religion, which makes the immoral and bad actions of religious people germane, Judah.

Some do. Some don't.

Atheists don't run around claiming that atheism makes people moral and good.

And here again: some do, some don't. In either case, it's fairly common for atheists to claim that their atheism insulates them from unreason, bigotry, superstition, and mass hysteria. If you don't make those claims, that's fine. But it's disingenuous to pretend it doesn't happen.

Therego, I don't expect any homosexual person to turn the other cheek on this.

People put evolutionary science to similar use: rather than just admit they're homophobes, some people claim that their problem with homosexuality is that it's bad for the species -- "If everyone were gay, the human race would die out!" Do gays now have a reason to dislike Darwinism? Biology? Of course not.

People who use evolutionary science like that are misusing it. They're drawing faulty conclusions that serve their own prejudices based on an incomplete understanding of the discipline. So-called "racial science" did it for decades.

The kind of religious bigots you reference are doing pretty much the same thing with religion. Take religion and science away from them, they'll make something else up.

As far as The Stranger aka Savage Weekly, that's WHY I read the paper... it's interesting. They pick fights. They respond to taunts. The paper ENGAGES. I like it, I prefer it to other papers which skim along pretending to be grown-up and above it all.

Personally people can believe whatever the hell they want to believe. But to throw in something metaphysical into a science class undermines the basis of disipline in general. It's not that science is the absolute truth, it's the search of truth. In order for us to survive we have to evolve too, and if that means pluto doesn't get to a planet anymore. That's the cost of science. Why religion doesn't have to play by the same rules is beyond me.

For someone who pays RENT by sliming people, she really flips the fuck out when someone slings some of her own shit back at her. And for a feminist, she sure seems to enjoy the paternal protection of the stranger's brute squad.

WHAT A HACK!

The Jewish soul is shrouded in brilliant light, a divine spark bringing tzedek to the goyium. Jewish men are not insecure because their masculine selves are sliced open, exposed to the divine. La Chiem!

Dan, you already knew that, and you know it, so it is known. Seattle houses some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the face of the planet. Hello?! Me?!

ECB, you still haven't answered whether you tried to talk to Sharkansy before you posted the original Slog post?? (See #21, 22, 24)

ECB -- how about an expose on how The Stranger contributes to our paternalistic society and leads to the objectification of women through its advertising. Now THAT would make for some good readin'!

Hey Dan, why don't you get an intern to set up a camera and broadcast your editorial meetings? Even the Spokane Spokesman-Review webcasts their editorial meetings online every day. It would quiet these critics and provide some great entertainment and fashion tips too.

If you want to hear a snippet about the theory behind editorial transparency and a trip back in time to Jim West and Larry Craig pre-bathroom, listen
(On The Media, NPR).

You don't get to set up an experiment that proves emperically the existance of god.

Not that there is anything wrong in that, but it's not up to a science class to teach people how resolve people's beliefs in God! (More importantly, I think it's the children that feel that what they beleive is going to dissappoint mommy and daddy, shame on them for being insecure in the first place).

What this haas to do with the stranger .... it's free speech. I feel the gay community has been very much slighted by the Christian Community. Why should they make nice any time soon? Especially since good Christian folk were oh so happy when Matthew Sheperd really got what was coming to him. You want to talk about an all inclusive community?

I propose this to you, the existance of God is important to the people who really choose to think and dwell upon it. The majority of people in this world really don't think very deeply about these things, don't question these things these "values" unless it affects their position in the community. Religion has less to do with spirituality and more to do with community, a sense of belonging, and sense of structure, at least to the average Joe. And then what happens when people don't exactly fit in said community?

So what's your theory here, that a community model built on some alternative to religion is going to create a more inclusive community? What're you, stupid?

Most people are insular self-satisfied assholes. Among these "average Joes" you mention, anyone who feels like they belong to any group believes their group is better than some other groups. Doesn't matter what the characteristics of the groups are. On some level Christians think they're better than Jews, pagans think they're better than Christians, theatre people think they're better than Hollywood people and so on. And gays definitely think they're better than straights: look at any thread on the Slog about club violence or whatever. There's always a chorus of, "Gay men just don't do that kind of thing!"

This wave of atheism you and Dan seem so impressed by is basically just creating another group; another club; another church. I'm sure it'll be good for the gays, so of course the gays will be for it. But the idea that this new secular atheism is going to be a net improvement -- that the atheists aren't going to have groups of people they shit on on a regular basis -- is just ridiculous. They're already creating a consensus about who's too stupid to be in their special urban archipelago.

Obviously everyone can and will do whatever they want. But don't try and sell me the idea that this is going to be a net improvement. The pieces are just shifting around on the board so someone else can get fucked, and if you're too stupid or too deeply in denial to recognize that, it's your problem more than it's mine.

I think we might actually agree on something. I'm just not going to sit around and believe and listen to people tell me that I'm morally inferior because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Been there, done that, have the rosary beads ... and I just don't buy it anymore. I just think there are better ways to be good to your fellow man. But that is just me ... If I go to hell making the world a better place. I can sit there, burn and at least be reassured that I made other people happy.

BITE ME YOU ATHIEST FOOLS, If we met in real life "I would burn you down"

and then tell you that if I(yeah badass and self proclaimed master of LOGIC I am) met you in an alley.... well then???

Uh-huh. And?

Ah, well...having gone to gay clubs for over 15 years and attended circuit parties packed with literally thousands and thousands of drunk gay men I can say without a doubt: Gay men just don't do that kind of thing!
Not sure what this has to do with Tim Burgess but the minds of gay men just seemed to be programmed differently. You get that same ratio of heavily drunk straight men and you have a completely different outcome. I saw it back in high school and it is happening even worse with today's younger wannabe "thug" generation. Again I am not sure that this has to do with Tim Burgess

Back pedaling? Ha.

And yes, it's clearly very important to me that people read my blog; that's why I update it about once a month.

-Judah is either a character made up by a bored person, or the most obnoxious douchebag in the world.

-Dilhole is a really stupid insult.

-Everyone pretty much agrees that The Stranger has an agenda. No shit.

-Apparently Connelly and ECB are ... children?

-Slog commenters get really pissed off at Dan Savage. It's a little ridiculous.

-Religious people are 100% more likely to be shitty than non-religious people.

-Spokane is NOT a bastion of red, conservative values... huh.

-Pit bulls are evil.

I'm an obnoxious douchebag. I think Bill O'Reilly is probably the most obnoxious douchebag.

Well hey, good thing you're here to set me straight. I look forward to seeing you in other comment strings.