Yes! The Times regularly cites "facts" and yet never clearly explains where that fact came from or references. You are supposed to take their word for it (and you really shouldn't).

The Times editorial board for, the most part, does sloppy or lazy work. This is especially true with editorials about education and it's hard to fathom. They are not dumb people so if you want to win an argument (or at least have people listen to your side), give complete information. Back up what you say with real information and yes, facts.

That's great, Cienna. You go ahead and tackle the Times Ed Board as much as you like. Seems like there's enough largely-unread foolishness there for plenty of posts for the two of you.

A small quibble about word usage: This blog entry isn't really a fisking.

I'm not going to comb this whole stupid editorial line by line, as Goldy often does <-This is fisking.

Forgive my pedantry, please. Carry on.

If Harrell has ideas for legislation, it's kind of weird to be running for Mayor of Seattle. Legislators legislate. Shouldn't he be running for the state house? Or if he wants to influence state law from an executive post, isn't that the Governor's office?

It's nice to have helpful opinions about what the state law ought to be, but if it's wholly outside the scope of the office you're seeking, it's kind of a distraction. Remember how they mocked McGinn for running for mayor with a platform that included taking over and reforming Seattle schools, which aren't in the Mayor's purview?

Don't get me wrong. Harrell would make a kick ass legislator. Why not unseat Chopp next time around?

Harrel's legislation is a great solution to a pervasive problem that results in widespread disenfranchisement.

There is also a bill being introduced in the State legislature that would allow vacation of more than one misdemeanor when all other conditions of vacating a conviction have been met. Support HB 1087!

@5--Harrell is chair of the City Council Public Safety Committee. For the past two years he has been working on a city ordinance to deal with the problem, both for employment and housing. I agree with you about running against Frank Chopp, but it is Harrell's decision, and not ours.

I read it as nodding towards Goldy's usual fisking, and going ahead into a rebuttal/takedown of the Times, which us more generally is what Goldy does.

"In which I..." is a tired literary device, and it does not make you sound smarter.

@It's only rape after

The issue here is the Times propensity to stretch facts around their biased agendas!

All, you're trying to elude the issue by soliciting an emotional response. Whether or not you agree with the bill is one thing. The bigger issue here is that the Times, because of it's statues as a respected news source here in the Puget Sound area, is able to throw it's weight around and put "facts" up that are hardly more than deliberate misinterpretations. It's a newspaper, they are supposed to report unbiasedly!!!

And by the tone of your post @It's only rape after all, you'd fit in so well with the Times that I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for them.

@rapetroll: let us know your position on the Seattle Times' ongoing serial rapes of civics and culture, THEN we'll attempt discussion on hiring ex-cons at The Stranger. And I don't know why you're pestering Cienna - isn't that really a question for Dan Savage? Sorry to make sense on you all of a sudden, but that's how we roll at Slog.