Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Monday, March 9, 2009

Mrs. Krannert

Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM

9d5e/1236663589-thekrannerts.jpg

She's bolted to the wall these days. But not very well—all you'd need is a Phillips screwdriver and about three minutes.

For Charles (Somewhat); More Portents of Doom!

Posted by Jonathan Golob on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM

(Thanks to my high school pals Sri and Nick.)

Continue after the jump if you hated this video and want to complain about it in comments....

Continue reading »

People Are Mean on the Internets

Posted by Anthony Hecht on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Bob Costas had Will Leitch from Deadspin on his show to argue with Buzz Bissinger—sports journalist, author, and really, really pissed off about the Internet. This is a beautiful, amazing, clash of media cultures.

No embed, gotta go to Deadspin to watch.

Costas and Bissinger are arguing that sports writing on the Internet can be of "poor quality" and commenters are jerks, and therefore... Well, they don't really address that. Therefore, what? People shouldn't be allowed to have blogs? You should have to have a press pass to have a blog? You know, Bob and Buzz, there's a lot of content in newspapers and on TV that's also of "poor quality." Really, I've seen some of it.

Bissinger and Costas want everyone to know that in the good old days, journalists and celebrity athletes were really special and privileged (they had ACCESS!) and didn't have to have their rarified air polluted by regular people—the fans—calling them fetus-faced windbags or suggesting that they might be better qualified to manage a Denny's. And the people saying these things don't even have ACCESS! Plus it's not nice.

Also on the show is Cleveland Browns wide-receiver Braylon Edwards, and if anyone should be pissed, it would be him, right? These jerkwad bloggers are talking shit about him and his teammates, and they don't even have ACCESS! But no, he's not pissed. He says the input is valuable and it keeps him humble.

Also, Costas thinks the Internet poses "no threat" to television.

I'm all for quality. People should write good and be smart. But Costas and Bissinger really have no point to make. People are mean and their writing is juvenile, and so... Nothing. They're just mad about it. As Leitch says, the Internet is a meritocracy. This stuff is popular, so get used to it. People read serious writing (increasingly online, often on blogs), and they read un-serious blogs. In the same day, even! And they understand the difference.

via @stevenblum

Never Feel Naked...Never!

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM

3517/1236639290-itcamefromherbelt_.jpgGeekologie has a post up tossing us toward the Belt Sword, a sword you can hide in your belt. The website describes it as "World’s First - Massive Sword - Hidden in Pants Belt." Hopefully, this will take off like gangbusters and become a nationwide craze, like a lethal Snuggie. There are many videos of a topless girl, pictured at left, demonstrating the Belt Sword (which is alternately called the RazorSword). Because you're never naked with a Belt Sword! ...Never!

My favorite part of all this is the comments on the Geekologie blog, especially these two:


The deployment #2 video clearly reveals a nipple, and once you get an eye for what her nipple shape is and where it's located, you can clearly find it in #1 as well.

So it's not a total loss, although I would have assumed that the bare MINIMUM effort in a "lets hide a boob but not try to look like we're hiding a boob" arena would involve using fake hair a similar color to the models real hair. I actually didn't even notice the hair color was wrong until about the 3rd watching...I was focused on trying to find the nipple. hah!

and

I can tell you from experience that whipping around a flexiple strip of steel, sharp or not, is a fast road to losing an ear. I hope this "company" has good lawyers, I'm thinking about suing just for mental anguish.

The nipple or the crazy-dangerous weapon? This is the eternal internet question.

State Smacks Down Seattle Semi-Pro Wrestling

Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Seattle Semi-Pro (SSP) wrestling may be down for the count.

The SSP has been grappling with the Washington State Department of Licensing (WSDOL) over whether the group's goofy wrestling matches constitute sporting events—which are heavily regulated by the state—or, as SSP puts it, "fight cabaret."

Today, the WSDOL issued a final ruling, declaring that "Seattle Semi-Pro Wrestling promotes and engages in 'wrestling events' [and] is required to obtain a license...in order to legally [continue].”

These licenses—along with insurance and on-site medical staff required by the state—would come at great cost and the state's ruling will likely put an end to SSP.

In June 2008, the WSDOL began investigating SSP after a disgruntled former wrestler sent a letter to the department about the group’s shows, complaining about wrestlers' lack of training, security at shows and "several of the performers using…marijuana prior to bouts."

Over the next few months, the WSDOL, liquor control board and Seattle Police Department sent officers to observe and report on SSP's monthly shows.

While SPD officers wrote reports which make SSP out to be a dangerous menace to society, liquor board agents seemed to really get the show's goofball theatrical nature:

“There was a series of strikes exchanged by actors which were imitations of old Three Stooges routines" one liquor board officer wrote about a show last August. "About two thirds of the show was comprised of female burlesque dancers."

Indeed, SSP wasn't a serious wrestling league. Unfortunately, the state's definition of "wrestling" is fairly broad, but it's kind of unbelievable that SSP's defense of itself as a performing art group—or "fight cabaret"—didn't stand.

In 2006, Stranger theater critic Brendan Kiley wrote about a play about gay wrestlers in the 70s, which, as far as I know, wasn't shut down by the state: “The actors are capable and the wrestling is pretty badass, with the requisite kicking, choking, and slamming," Brendan wrote in his review of Piledriver! "The play is about the fakery and politics behind the wrestling[.]"

Huh. Sounds a lot like SSP.

The WSDOL has ordered SSP to cease and desist all performances. SSP members declined to comment, but said they'd be issuing a statement on the group's future sometime tomorrow.

Even Longer Maureen Dowd

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM

The fact that Dowd likes Michelle Obama's arms doesn't mean she's "on my side." My side is the one that thinks Michelle Obama's arms—unlike, say, her remarkable intelligence, her accomplishments, or her ongoing adaptation to the strange, ever-shifting role of First Lady—aren't worth discussing.

Dowd's side? That's the one comparing Michelle Obama to Ginger Rogers and describing bare arms as a display of "overt sexuality":

Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps. Her husband urges bold action, but it is Michelle who looks as though she could easily wind up and punch out Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Madoff and all the corporate creeps who ripped off America.

In the taxi, when I asked David Brooks about her amazing arms, he indicated it was time for her to cover up. “She’s made her point,” he said. “Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning.”

I’d seen the plaint echoed elsewhere. “Someone should tell Michelle to mix up her wardrobe and cover up from time to time,” Sandra McElwaine wrote last week on The Daily Beast.

Washington is a place where people have always been suspect of style and overt sexuality. Too much preening signals that you’re not up late studying cap-and-trade agreements.

David was not smitten by the V-neck, sleeveless eggplant dress Michelle wore at her husband’s address to Congress — the one that caused one Republican congressman to whisper to another, “Babe.”

He said the policy crowd here would consider the dress ostentatious. “Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks here like brains. She should not be known for her physical presence, for one body part.” David brought up the Obamas’ obsession with their workouts. “Sometimes I think half the reason Obama ran for president is so Michelle would have a platform to show off her biceps.”

During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses, because her muscles, combined with her potent personality, made her daunting.

She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flair is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.

Oh, Google...

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM

In reference to this post, Slog tipper Jerry wants to share this automatically rendered Google ad from a YouTube video of the recent brutal Seattle police beating:

21f0/1236639821-policeadfail.jpeg

Many thanks to Jerry and to Jerry's boyfriend, who initially spotted the ad.

Rumors (Updated)

Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Like I've been saying, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newsroom is full of rumors (and uncomfortably short on facts) when it comes to the timing of its own demise. With that in mind, the latest from a reporter there:

FURIOUS rumors that our end is being delayed due to last minute interest in purchasing the paper.

I'm intrigued, and I'm of course looking into it, but I'm also going to repeat what I said below: as the end draws nearer, it's becoming increasingly hard to tell what's real and what's wishful thinking down there on Elliott Ave.

UPDATE: A different source at the P-I directed me to Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li, a "superlaywer" at Seattle's Ellis, Li & McKinstry who specializes in mergers and acquisitions, among other things. He's also a regular columnist for the P-I, and in his farewell column he discussed why "the death of the P-I in print would be a tragedy for this city and region."

I asked Li why his name is associated with rumors of a last-minute effort to purchase the newspaper from Hearst. His only publishable reply:

I can’t say a thing.

Longer Maureen Dowd

Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Dowd is on Michelle's side—and yours, ECB.

During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses, because her muscles, combined with her potent personality, made her daunting.

She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flair is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.

Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it.

Shorter Maureen Dowd

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM

"Oh, my heavens! I cannot abide Lady Obama's scandalously unclad arms! My word, I am simply quavering! Mr. Brooks, DO be a dear and fetch me my fainting couch--I do believe I feel an attack of the vapors coming on!"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of scintillating content the New York Times wanted to make you pay for.

Google Ad Fail

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM

From my Google Reader version of this blog post:

76b6/1236633045-girlsbestfriend.jpg

I'm endlessly amused by Google Ad failures. Someone should dedicate a whole blog to them.

Next, Make "Wikigeddon"

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Jathia's Wager is an open-source movie (allegedly the world's first) that was written by an online community, wiki-style. Now it's available online. Here it is:


I couldn't get past the obnoxious interrogation scene about 5 minutes in.

(Via.)

Remembering the Viaduct

Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Let the nostalgia begin.

97a4/1236633855-picture_7.png
The orginal image can be found here.

Savage Love Letter of the Day

Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I've concluded that you are by no means a fair sex advice columnist. In fact, I seriously doubt your cridentials at all. I've read your column in the Chicago Reader for the very last time. You seem to have no care whether or not anyone takes your advice as a serious forum, because you are reckless.

How the hell do you tell "Fat and Teased" that it's okay for her to continue to be this big, fat whale of a woman, and her boyfriend just better accept that, then tell "The Biggest Gainer" that her man is wrong for being overweight and should lose the pounds? Yeah, FAT's boyfriend met her when she was fat. SO WHAT? Her boyfriend is a complete and total asshole and she should break up with him and go with someone who will accept her in every way. But that same advice goes for "The Biggest Gainer." She should stop being so goddamned shallow, realize that the hardest thing in the world to do is find someone who will HONESTLY love, let alone tolerate, her smug ass as she isn't perfect either, and see the man for who he is and what he means to her.

But no, not you. You would rather prepetuate the notion that there should be a double-standard for men and a few weeks ago, you gave the same advice to some other uptight, money-grabbing cunt. Why? Is it that you yourself wish you were a woman, so you pretend to be the angry man-hating, Oprah soldier bitch to appease persons who posess a vagina? And who the hell made you an authority on beauty? I've seen your pictures and frankly, I'd rather have a V8 and a good night's sleep. You epitomize a stereotype yourself: thin, white, rich, flamming, and apparently useless. "Tell him that committing to you means commiting to maintaining his body out of consideration for the pleasure you're expected to provide to it/take from it." What a load of shit! My advice to her is to take a modern, gentle laxative to ease those brains right out of her bushwah, "I'm so perfect" ass, and for you, GO GET HELP FOR YOUR PROBLEMS, YOU NEED IT BAD! SNAP YOUR FINGERS TO THAT!

John C.

Did you call me thin? Oh man, John, you made my day—thanks!

As for my qualifications: We've been over this a hundred million zillion times already, but once more for you new readers. Look up advice in the dictionary and it says "opinion about what could or should be done." The only qualification you need to offer someone your opinion, John, is having been asked for it. Since I'm not swiping Prudence's emails, or Ms. Hax's, but answering only letters that are sent to me by people seeking my advice, John, I am supremely qualified to write an advice column. It's not binding arbitration, of course, so no one is under any obligation to take my advice. Indeed, I often advise people against doing that.

Getting to the meat of the matter: FAT was fat when her boyfriend met and moved in with her. That's germane; she was big when her boyfriend romanced her, and she's big now. If the boyfriend wasn't attracted to big girls, John, why was he dating FAT in the first place? If big was a problem for him, that was something he needed to bring up earlier in the relationship, back when it would've been easier—emotionally and financially—for FAT to end things. (And as I told FAT: "A man who dates, claims to have fallen in love with, and moves in with someone who he's not attracted to, or someone who disgusts him, expressly so he can belittle that person and make that person feel awful, well, that man is a complete asshole....") TBG, on the other hand, accepted her boyfriend's proposal when he had the body of a Greek god; now he's got the body of the husband in some lame sitcom. He's changed, he's radically altered his appearance, and TBG has a right to object. If TBG wanted to be with a big guy, she wouldn't have been dating him in the first place.

FAT didn't change. TBG's boyfriend did. I think people have a right to expect some consistency from their partners, i.e., if you're attracted to me in the condition that you found me, you'll stay attracted to me (FAT's case); if you found me attractive in the condition in which you found me, I'll do what I can to remain in that condition (TBG's case).

So there's no double standard here: FAT's boyfriend signed up for big and shouldn't be bitching—of course FAT should probably lose some weight; we should all probably lose some weight. (Except for me, of course, because I'm skinny, bitches! And rich!) TBG signed up for Greek god and can bitch now that her boyfriend's packed on the pounds. And, come on, I've caught hell for giving men with once-skinny-now-lardy girlfriends and wives the exact same advice I gave TBG. (Take this infamous column, for example, and its even more infamous followup column. The outrage starts here.)

As for saying whatever those angry, man-hating, Oprah-soldier-bitches wanna hear: I regularly tell straight women that porn isn't a big deal; that their husbands have a right to cheat on 'em if they don't put out (and wives have a right to cheat on their husbands for the same reason); that love means you might refrain from sleeping with other people—if that's the kind of vow you've taken—but it doesn't mean you don't wanna sleep with other people, that oral comes standard, that fantasies are for fulfilling, etc. And the one and only time a producer from the Oprah show called and pre-interviewed me about coming on the show—for a segment about how women can "adultery-proof" their marriages—I told the producer that the audience would lynch me and Oprah would fire her if they had me on. Why? Because Oprah was helping to create unrealistic expectations of what multi-decade relationships are about by even suggesting that a woman could—or should—"adultery-proof" her marriage. And why was it her responsibility solely? And by suggesting that adultery is always a relationship-ending event, Oprah and the author she was having on contribute to our sky-high divorce rate be encouraging people to be utterly unrealistic about adultery. We certainly shouldn't fill people with false hopes about "adultery-proofing" their marriages, not if we want to bring down the divorce-and-misery rates. Because there's no such thing as an "adultery-proof" marriage.

"You really gonna have me on to say that Oprah—unmarried Oprah—is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution?" I asked the producer.

The answer, obviously, was "no."

It's in the P-I

Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM

This morning the Seattle Post-Intelligencer took employees up to the roof of its Elliott Avenue headquarters for a "Last Tour" of the iconic globe. Will tomorrow—or Wednesday, or even today—bring the newspaper's last print edition?

115a/1236630646-roofsouvenier1.jpg

0960/1236630668-roofsouvenier2.jpg

810f/1236630690-roofsouvenier3.jpg

Photos by Claude Souvenir.

Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw

Posted by Bethany Jean Clement on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM

61b6/1236635090-2728768506_b8509187cd.jpg

A chimp in a Swedish jail zoo has been throwing rocks at people. ON PURPOSE. (Is that really, actually surprising?)

Zoo Chimp Plots Stone Throwing Attacks
New study found his cleverly orchestrated attacks were premeditated

Anger-chimp was stockpiling rocks to throw across a moat at zoo visitors; he would break off and store piece of concrete to hurl as well. "The discovery...provides evidence that chimpanzees can plan for a future, rather than a current, mental state." The researchers also concluded that the chimp's behavior "appears to somewhat mirror primate dominance displays in the wild." Perhaps it also somewhat indicates that living on Chimpanzee Island is infuriating?

Thank you, Slog tipper Reggie. Photo by celerrimus from flickr. UPDATE! There's the photo.

Today's Weird Assembly of Facts

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM

According to this post by Stephen's Lighthouse, "more than half of humanity use cell phones" but "Internet usage still hasn't quite reached a quarter of the world's population." I can't help but think that the world would be better off if those numbers were reversed. But still: How far we've come in 10 years.

Also in futuristic technology: Thought-controlled wheelchairs!

Slog Happy? YES! Slog Happy!

Posted by Megan Seling on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM

It's been a hectic day and week and weekend and in the midst of it all I forgot to let everyone know that SLOG HAPPY IS THIS THURSDAY! You knew that already, though, right? Because it's always the second Thursday of the month.

This month's Slog Happy is a very special Slog Happy—Miss Scary Tyler Moore won a party at Cafe Metropolitain (1701 E Olive Way) via Strangercrombie and she's sharing it with all of us for a fancy birthday edition! Her birthday is this month, along with Mr. Matt "Fuckin'" Hickey's (and maybe yours too?). So come to Cafe Metropolitan on Thursday at 6 pm for food, drinks, and general debauchery. We'll be in the VIP red room and there will be a special Slog Happy bartender just for us (along with drink specials, and cheap PBRs and well drinks).

Woo hoo!

See you Thursday.

Hey, Wal-Mart, Want to Move to Seattle?

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM

8ebc/1236623789-1st_and_stewart_building.jpgAs the DJC reports today, owners of the 12-story 1st and Stewart Building are placing the property up for sale at the same time two new downtown office buildings are staking real-estate signs. In addition, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Building and Seattle Tower were recently put on the market.

Meanwhile, other office buildings, like the WaMu Center, are clearing out their tenants. Companies that had planned to expand into new downtown spaces, including Microsoft and Starbucks, are retreating to their headquarters. And more lanky office towers are in the works downtown. In short, the inventory of commercial office space grossly exceeds the demand for offices. We’ve probably got 10 years of inventory that will sit empty.

Unless. That is, unless the glut of inventory and declining rents make Seattle irresistibly appealing to a major tenant. “I would guess we will be surprised,” says Kevin Daniels, principal of the development firm Nitze Stagen, referring to the potential for a major company moving its headquarters to Seattle. Maybe Daniels is being a bit optimistic; he's planning a 43-story office tower on 5th Avenue and Columbia Street. “It will be a very large user who we didn’t think we would see or we thought were going somewhere else,” he speculates.

On the P-I Deathwatch

Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

2bd3/1236628453-globetour1.jpgThis morning, at 9 a.m., the Seattle Post-Intelligencer offered its employees a "Last Visit to the Globe"—a trip to the roof of the newspaper's headquarters on Elliott Avenue to see the giant, spinning, neon planet with "It's in the P-I" written around the equator. To pose for pictures with the icon of a 146-year-old Seattle institution. And to maybe circle it, as if it were the Kaaba—which, for P-I journalists who see their profession as a somewhat sacred calling, and their newspaper as an embodiment of a noble effort that makes for a better culture, the globe, in a way, is.

In truth, this morning's tour was the second-to-last visit. Another "Last Visit," pictured at left, happened around noon. Later, around 3 p.m., there will be a P-I staff photo. Reporters believe it is likely to run in the last edition of the paper.

But still, the question remains: When is the last day for the P-I's print edition?

The reporters and editors working inside the newspaper's headquarters seem to believe it's today, tomorrow, or the next day—and today the money seems to be on Tuesday as the last normal workday, with Wednesday as the day that the last printed P-I ever rolls off the presses. In newspaper-speak, that's a "Tuesday / Wednesday" deadline. (As in, "I'm writing my last P-I story ever, due Tuesday for the Wednesday paper.") Last night, I received this e-mail from a P-I reporter who's been right on a lot of things so far:

EVERYBODY now expects that the last day will be Tuesday / Wednesday. So, if for some reason it's not Tuesday / Wednesday, it's going to be a big letdown. And what will we do at work for the next week? I mean I've cleared up my calendar beyond then.

This reporter, who has not only cleared his calendar but also readied his brain and emotions to depart the Seattle Post-Intelligencer this week, is, as they say in the journalistic cliche, "not alone." Many other reporters spent the weekend cleaning out their desks. On Sunday, the P-I newsroom was far busier than normal, with employees pulling years of accumulated documents and notes out of file cabinets and desk drawers, packing up books, and stuffing all this detritus of newsgathering into boxes, bags, and, eventually, the trunks and back seats of cars parked in the P-I garage. Around them, the recycle bins in the newsroom were full of manila file folders, old newspapers, and magazines that had been kept around for various reasons (most likely the usual: reference, inspiration, or neglect) but were apparently not worth keeping past the end.

Amid all this clatter of departure, those who were assigned to work the Sunday shift went about it with little fanfare, just doing their job, just trying to report the facts, as usual.

3cbd/1236632386-globetour2.jpgWhy are the reporters so certain the end is very, very near? A confluence of events and signs: Tomorrow, by most counts, is the end of Hearst Corporation's 60-day period for trying to sell the P-I. Assuming there is no buyer—and really, who would buy a money-losing newspaper right now?—Hearst will presumably go ahead with its stated plans to close down the P-I's print edition and launch an online-only paper. When Denver's Rocky Mountain News closed recently, employees were given only one-day's notice of the closing, so if one assumes that one-day's notice is now the industry standard, one gets quickly to the idea of a Tuesday / Wednesday end for the printed P-I.

In addition, Ken Riddick, Hearst's vice president for digital media, told a P-I employee on Thursday that tomorrow, March 10, is the day Hearst will launch its online-only venture (assuming no buyer arrives before then with a suitcase full of cash). It's hard to imagine an online-only venture launching with a print edition still printing. On top of that, deadlines for stories that are being specially-prepared for the P-I's last print edition were recently moved up to last Friday. Editors and reporters spent the weekend readying those pieces to run on a moment's notice. And, finally, last week Hearst made "provisional" offers to a number of P-I employees it wants for its online-only project, and although some prominent reporters rejected those offers, word is that Hearst has found enough eager and/or willing bodies to go forward. The union that represents P-I employees claims that Hearst can't legally shut the place down until March 18, for reasons having to do with the federal WARN Act. But, if that's true, it's still not hard to imagine Hearst shutting down the print edition and simply paying employees through the 18th.

There's also an emotional and group-think element that's making people agree that this week will bring the last-ever print P-I—or, at least, should. First of all, what kind of employer tells a group of 170 competitive journalists that they're about to lose their jobs, then picks about 20 of them to stay employed in an online-only project (including, apparently, David Horsey), then throws the chosen back into the general population, and then lets that stew of jealousy and resentment simmer for a week or so? Not a good idea. As one reporter put it last week, the current vibe in the newsroom is: "Put us out of our misery already."

I'm not sure it's safe to assume that Hearst cares about any of this emotional stuff, and it's quite possible that the way the minds of P-I employees have latched on to an imminent end is more the expression of a wish than anything else. Certainly, it is not an expression of anything that's known for sure. "The people editing the farewell stories don't know when they will run," a P-I reporter told me yesterday. "The guy editing the 'What we'll miss about the P-I' video doesn't know when it will run... I gotta say, with the current office dynamics, this is going to be a weird party."

4d39/1236116053-pi_shirt.jpgMeaning, if I understood the reporter correctly, the employee goodbye party, now scheduled for a safely-far-off date, March 27, at the Ballard Elks lodge—and paid for by... the employees. From the invite: "Since Hearst/P-I is not paying for anything (some things never change), a $10 donation per person is suggested to help cover the costs of the event. If we have extra money, it'll go to laid off employees in need."

Come on. Doesn't the managing editor, David McCumber, know when the end is coming? No, he does not.

“Everyone is guessing based on no facts," he told me recently. “I think Hearst is trying to figure this out and get the decisions made as soon as they can, and I just think that people need to chill and let this thing get worked out.”

Chilling out is a tall order for employees facing the loss of their jobs, though, and he knows it. “It’s brutal," he said. "It’s really a nightmare for everybody... I think the atmosphere is as bad is could get."

So. When? "Give us a little time," McCumber said.

Illustration by Andrew Saeger. Photos by Anonymous.

James Donaldson (Probably) Running for Mayor

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM

UPDATE: Just got hold of a note from Donaldson confirming that he's forming an exploratory committee to "publically [sic] announce my interest in running for Mayor and do my due diligence, polling and seeing what kind of support I do have out there."

So reports Publicola, which notes the following evidence:

A) Blair Butterworth, a local consultant, says Donaldson is setting up an exploratory committee today to "test the waters." (Before you get too excited, remember the last time that happened?)

B) Butterworth appears to have displaced Christian Sinderman, Donaldson's original consultant. Sinderman also works for Nickels, so he obviously couldn't work for Donaldson too if Donaldson ran for mayor.

Two cautionary notes. First, the last person to form an exploratory committee was Tim Burgess—who bowed out before the week was through upon discovering that no one would give him money. Second, Donaldson actually dumped Sinderman several months ago—since November, he's had consultant McKenna Hartman on the payroll, and before that, it was Laura Ruderman. That makes him look fickle, not focused.

Today in Pie

Posted by Bethany Jean Clement on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM

7cf9/1236464253-barshot.jpg

Pies & Pints on 65th celebrates its fifth birthday today with $5 savory pies, $5 imperial pints of Guinness (that's a proper 20 ounces), and $5 Guinness chocolate cake. Stranger reader-reviewers nearly universally love this place as a hangout and for its pies (which are handmade daily and involve fresh/local ingredients as much as possible—the beef is from Misty Isle Farms on Vashon, yum).

And the High 5 Pie people kindly sent over some of their "Flipsides," individual-sized foldover fruit pies (available at Fuel Coffee). While they are not quite as earth-shatteringly great as the pie from Shoofly Pie in West Seattle, they're quite good. The cherry filling was noteworthy: nice and tart, and some had leaked out and caramelized on the bottom of the crust. (Dan Savage was asked to consume/opine, but shockingly Mr. Sweet Tooth does not like pie. Truly, he is un-American.)

Photo from piesandpints.com

The Green Recession

Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM

We must really try our best not to see the collapse of global capitalism entirely in bleak terms. Such a view is paralyzing and also obscures or undervalues the many good things that are emerging from the ruins of the 30-year neoliberal project. For one, the crisis is clearing the air.

It is no coincidence that some of the dirtiest industrial operations are falling victim to the global recession. Over the past two decades, much of the world's manufacturing moved to where pollution standards are little more than mild suggestions. Since small, corner-cutting, inefficient facilities tend to both flout pollution laws and be most vulnerable to a sudden drop in demand, the global recession has hit such operations especially hard. Thousands of factories in China's Pearl River Delta have shut their doors since late last year, for instance; output of autos, electronics and other goods from factories in Mexico's Ciudad Juárez, Monterrey and Toluca has fallen so sharply that the amount of cargo trucked across the U.S. border has dropped 40 percent. In India, enough small steel-rolling mills around Delhi have closed that levels of sulfur dioxide (which forms acid rain) fell 85 percent in October 2008 compared with a year earlier. The recession is bringing a green dividend in the developed world, too. Reduced economic activity is projected to cut Europe's emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief man-made greenhouse gas, by 100 million tons in 2009, and the United States' by about the same amount.

It's also creating an opportunity to reverse and rethink production paths:

Recession is not exactly a long-term environmental strategy, obviously. The challenge is to use the downturn to deemphasize manufacturing in favor of cleaner economic activity, and to reengineer what survives so that when the economy revs up it's not at the environment's expense. Even world-class polluters get it. In China, as factories seek lines of credit to see them through the downturn, local governments are "less likely to help companies that are considered major polluters," says economist Deng Yupeng of Dongguan University.

We have been to the end of the world (three decades of neoliberal domination) and seen that it's not a pretty place. Let's hope we never go there again.

Department of Calm Down

Posted by Lindy West on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM

6de7/1236623635-goz.jpgOut of nowhere, there is a tiny flurry of angry comments on some stupid movie review about Ryan Gosling that I wrote three years ago:

So kids, don't do drugs or something. Or do. I forget. The important thing here is that the Goz is hottest when moving and talking, and in Half Nelson he does both. Double score!

Comments:

This review is so old, but it provides proof that Lindy West is a complete waste of time.

Lindy ignores the film while childishly rambling about Gosling as if she were a 13 year-old boy with her dick hanging out of the zipper.

Lindy, it's seriously embarrassing.

I must admit, this is an especially pathetic review.

Yes!!! Exactly why Lindy West should not be allowed to review movies.

Okay, whatever. But I'd just like to say that if I had a nickel for every time I saw a 13-year-old boy with his dick hanging out of the zipper rambling about Ryan Gosling, I WOULD HAVE ZERO NICKELS. AND IF I DID HAVE ANY NICKELS I WOULD USE THEM TO TELEPHONE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BECAUSE SERIOUSLY WHAT THE FUCK.


(Puffy, puffy Ryan Gosling photo from Wikipedia.)

Amazon ≠ Charity

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Slate ran a story on Friday that follows up on my story about how Amazon.com does just about nothing for the Seattle arts community.

It turns out, Amazon does just about nothing for any charities at all:

8930/1236623782-amazonhq.jpg...Paul Constant, books editor at the Seattle alt-weekly the Stranger...hit a stone wall: "[Amazon.com] has refused to return repeated e-mails and calls from The Stranger about the company's seemingly nonexistent contributions to the Seattle arts scene," he wrote at the time. "Internet searches for any sign of philanthropy on behalf of the company prove fruitless."

Wait … no corporate giving at all? None?

Amazon.com's own account hardly inspires confidence. True, their Giving page cites employee efforts, and the Bezos family maintains its own comparatively modest foundation. The company has also allowed other people's donation money—and page views—to course through its site. But the only listed donations by Amazon.com itself are a single Nonprofit Innovation Award that has not been given since 2005, and the delivery after "recent flooding in Southeast Kansas, [of] more than 10 pallets of household goods ... to local Red Cross shelters in Coffeyville, Kansas." What they don't note is that "recent" is July 2007—and, as Amazon.com is the largest employer in Coffeyville, that their own employees may have been among those benefiting from the goods.

It's a great article that explains exactly why Amazon should be a little more benevolent—basically, because it's managed to thrive on the benevolence of the government holding back state taxes—and it also points out lemonade stands that give more to charity than Amazon. You should read it.

@SEAshows

The Stranger's Twitter Feed of Seattle Shows
  • Loading Tweets
    loading

Follow @SEAshows
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use