Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Seattle Times Angry That McGinn Ignores Them

Posted by on Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM

The Seattle Times ran an editorial today taking aim at Mayor Mike McGinn for his "boneheaded" move to veto a controversial bill on aggressive panhandling. (Backers of the bill were found to be misrepresenting information, the bill itself likely violated the Constitution, and in the end it would do nothing to help public safety.) But the Seattle Times says, "Every individual aggressively panhandled in the months ahead should blame McGinn." And then the editors beat McGinn up for being—um—exactly who he said he was, for doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign:

When Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn is not trying to block the planned deep-bore tunnel to replace the viaduct, or attempting to torpedo a hard-fought deal on a new Highway 520 bridge, the mayoral dust storm is working not to make city streets safer and more welcoming for businesses and customers.

What were we thinking, Seattle, when we elected McGinn as the city's chief executive officer? In four months, he has demonstrated a lack of listening skills and a political compass to guide him.

First: We? Who's this "we" that the Seattle Times is trotting out? The Seattle Times didn't elect McGinn. The Seattle Times didn't endorse McGinn. The Seattle Times actively campaigned against McGinn.

"We" don't have amnesia, Seattle Times. The "we" who voted for McGinn elected him in the hopes that he would veto bone-headed bills like this one. And just who is out of touch with Seattle voters? McGinn? Or the "we" at the Seattle Times who opposed expanding light rail—not once, not twice, but three times—the same light rail expansion that McGinn and the voters who elected him support. And the "we" at the Seattle Times hardly reported on the 520 bridge until Seattle progressives made it an issue, and the "hard-fought deal" is one that the state imposed, while previous folks the Seattle Times endorsed (like Greg Nickels) were asleep at the wheel when the nuts and bolts of the 520 deal really went down. The "we" that supported Mike McGinn—like his job performance or not—elected him, not any of "you" at the Seattle Times. During the campaign "you" were busy running editorials gushing about how vapid phone-company exec Joe Mallahan could "lead Seattle forward."

Second, the Seattle Times says that McGinn has "demonstrated a lack of listening skills" and doesn't have "a political compass to guide him." Uh, no. The mayor listens. He just isn't listening to you, he refuses to be guided by you. And why should he?

The Seattle Times is lying. They're claiming to have been taken for a ride when they were never onboard with McGinn in the first place. They're concern trolling. "The mayor missteps dramatically by planning to veto useful legislation," the Seattle Times writes. Uh huh. They're so concerned about his widdow missteps! This is a strategy of pretending to care about someone's success while spreading doubts about their strategy. It's a typical tactic employed by conservatives (think of all the Republicans offering advice to Democrats).

We should expect as much from the conservative Seattle Times, the paper that endorsed Dino Rossi, the paper that swooned for Susan Hutchison, the paper that fawned over George Bush, the paper that fought health-care reform. (On health care last month the Seattle Times simply claimed the public "have other priorities right now—the economy, mainly—and their wishes should be respected.")

The Seattle Times has always hated McGinn and always will. They hate that the city of Seattle—voters and elected officials—refuse to listen to their boneheaded editorials. But why should they?

Seattle Times editorials are reliably vacuous. They told us to vote for Hutchison because she was a "political outsider and brings a host of fresh ideas" when any idiot could see her empty (bright yellow) suit coughing up hackneyed conservative talking points. She lost by a landslide. The Seattle Times told us that a controversial Christmas ornament sent to the Bush White House was "embarrassing" and caused us "holiday discomfort" without explaining what, exactly, was so offensive other than the ornament being the subject of a controversy ginned up by desperate conservative yakkers. Mallahan won the endorsement of the Seattle Times because "he is the practical player" and is "solution-oriented" and spouted a bunch of other buzz-words that mean nothing. Seattle voters refuse to be guided by the Seattle Times' "political compass"—vote for Mike McGavick!—and it's driving them nuts.

Likewise, today's editorial in the Seattle Times and one on Monday by Joni Balter are equally empty. The Seattle Times wants to be the New York Times, a paper that denounces policies and politicians with some authority. But the New York Times also runs 4,000 word stories, usually in the same edition, that examine every facet of an issue and then the editorial page weighs in. New York Times editorials are based on facts, which the editorials also cite. The Seattle Times political editorials rarely reference any real reporting to back up its statements. They're not editorials. They're tantrums.

Take the aggressive panhandling bill: Editorial writer Joni Balter called it "solid, rational piece of legislation" despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. The Seattle Times did a little reporting on the proposal, but spilled most of its ink on a blow job called "Councilmember Tim Burgess crafts a deliberate style," a piece that focused on process and players and ignored the proposed policy and its likely impact (and suspect legality!). The Seattle Times said nothing in that piece about the Seattle Human Rights Commission vote four days earlier, when commissioners found that the bill was based on misrepresented information, created major problems for due process, and essentially found the government could make no compelling case for the bill. The Seattle Times coverage took Burgess's crime stats at face value, ignoring how the crime spike (thefts) were not related to the street disorder it claimed to solve (assaults and robberies). So audacious ledes that make sweeping claims that the "mayoral dust storm is working not to make city streets safer and more welcoming for businesses and customers" isn't supported by facts. And Balter's grandiose statements like "The council missed a huge chance to boost downtown and neighborhood business districts" should be ignored when when all the data proves this bill would have no effect whatsoever on public safety.

McGinn's not fooled—nobody is fooled—by your concern trolling, Seattle Times. No one believes you supported him and are now dismayed, when, from the outset, you were campaigning against him during the election and continue to campaign against him now. You want a tunnel at any cost; he's trying to protect the city from cost overruns. You campaigned against light rail; he wants to speed it up and build more. He listened to an avalanche of opposition to the aggressive solicitation bill (208 calls to 8); you listened to downtown interests that provided you with unsupported anecdotal data. You don't like the mayor and you're running a campaign against him. And no, the people who voted for him aren't going to listen to you, and he's not going to listen to you.

Nor should he. You're wrong more than you're right and your political compass sucks.

 

Comments (63) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
well put
Posted by fffffff on April 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM · Report this
2
More "after the jump" please.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM · Report this
3
The "conservative" Times also endorsed Barack Obama, Al Gore, Patty Murray and nearly every Democratic member of Congress and the Legislature. Just sayin'.

Posted by Tony the Tiger on April 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM · Report this
Vince 4
I wish I could say it as eloquently as you do. But let me add I canceled The Times and wish I could cancel it again.
Posted by Vince on April 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM · Report this
5

I'm surprised the editors of the Seattle Times can take time from their busy schedule of cramming Bill Gates' income tax scheme down our throats to bother with someone as trivial as a "Mayor".

I mean, seriously, as long as they can continue to fund their lifestyle by taxing professional people who work hard and securing their assets from any form of tax, why care about a mere Mayor?

Or, but then we all know the tunnel, bridge and whatever are pure and simply...yet another tax.
Posted by Flo-Thru Flavor on April 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM · Report this
6
@3 Add to that their endorsements of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, George W. Bush, ...
Posted by kurisu on April 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM · Report this
7
Tuck the Seattle Fimes.

Posted by Mr. X on April 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM · Report this
Space Funk Guru 8
"Every individual aggressively panhandled in the months ahead should blame McGinn." --Seattle Times

BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!!!

So we shouldn't blame the economic meltdown, or the people in high places responsible for it, for aggressive panhandling in Seattle. We should blame Mike McGinn instead.

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!!!!!
Posted by Space Funk Guru on April 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM · Report this
9
I miss Nickles.
Posted by Westside forever on April 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM · Report this
I'm 85 Years Old 10
Yeah!

"Spilled most of its ink on a blow job called "Councilmember Tim Burgess crafts a deliberate style,"

Really paints a descriptive picture.
Posted by I'm 85 Years Old on April 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM · Report this
11
@10 not so much that you can spell his name, jackass.
Posted by fucknuts on April 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM · Report this
elenchos 12
I don't know. Isn't doing nothing about either street harassment or the needs of the poor and substance abusers McGinn's signature issue now?

And they were right to point out the vacuousness of Harrell's protestation that he -- a powerfully built ex-UW footballer -- was never panhandled at ATMs. That's great for guys like you, Bruce. Now talk to your constituents.

For me, personally, I was never bothered by panhandlers, being a young and healthy looking man with, believe it or not, no problem asserting myself. But then that all changed when I found myself always carrying a baby when on the street. Suddenly the drunks and addicts and crazies were all over me. They didn't push me hard before, but as soon as they could see I couldn't run, couldn't fight, and probably wasn't in the mood for a confrontation, they took advantage.

Shannon Harps was murdered by one of these crazies we let run loose every day. Remember the guy throwing lighter fluid on people and igniting it in the streets just this year? It makes me think I could be next, once I realize I've been marked as an easy target since I'm carrying this kid with me now.

Most panhandlers aren't like this but there are enough of these predators out there that something needs to be done. If we have laws on the books now to deal with it, then where are the cops to enforce that law? Who is going to pay for these cops? Is there a plan on the table? McGinn, at this rate, is going to be running for re-election as Mr. Do Nothing Status Quo. I'm concerned.
Posted by elenchos on April 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM · Report this
13
that should read @9, fucknuts. fuck!
Posted by fucknuts on April 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 14
It's kind of fun watching the "Seattle" Times so out of it, that even their endorsements no longer carry any weight in Seattle.

I chart that back to the debacle when they endorsed Bush for President.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM · Report this
15
So what precisely is McGinn's plan to get the thickets of beggars off the street, and what steps has he taken to implement that plan?
Posted by Reader1 on April 21, 2010 at 4:08 PM · Report this
16
Bravo Dom, I bet that felt good to get off your chest!
@7 I hope to see that phrase on a t-shirt soon.
Posted by elaineinballard on April 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 17
@15 - we're shipping them on light rail back to Bellevue and Mercer Island.

See what you miss when you skip a Sound Transit meeting?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM · Report this
18
@Dominic, it must be hard to breathe with McGinn's dick so far down your throat. I mean, I voted for him, but the energy and time used to write this pointless blow job could have been used to any number of more productive ends.
Posted by meks on April 21, 2010 at 4:17 PM · Report this
michaelp 19
Wow...although there are typos reminiscent of another...place...very well put.
Posted by michaelp on April 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM · Report this
20
elenchos--were any of the people set on fire by the crazy guy carrying a child? Were any of them not? Should you really feel more threatened by the next flamethrowing crazy (when's he due?)?
Posted by tiktok on April 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM · Report this
21
@12 Elenchos…do you really want that post of your dismantled by others, or can you do it yourself?
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on April 21, 2010 at 4:23 PM · Report this
22
Well said Dominic.

I wonder how many members of the ST editorial board are actually residents of Seattle. Somehow I'm guessing that most of them aren't part of the "we" who actually live in the city.
Posted by gnossos on April 21, 2010 at 4:23 PM · Report this
elenchos 23
In other words you got nothing and you're bluffing. Nice try.
Posted by elenchos on April 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Heather 24
The poor Seattle Times must miss the days when they called the shots in Seattle. Now days they bearly have influnce.
Posted by Heather on April 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM · Report this
25
"See what you miss when you skip a Sound Transit meeting?"

the ST meeting in my neighborhood isn't until tonight, hope it's true:)
Posted by Reader1 on April 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM · Report this
Soupytwist 26
elenchos - Gee, if we had socialized medicine, those "crazies" would have places to stay and regular access to medication and care.

The only difference between the "crazies" and you is a traumatic brain injury.
Posted by Soupytwist http://twitter.com/katherinesmith on April 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM · Report this
Baconcat 27
@12:
Most panhandlers aren't like this but there are enough of these predators out there that something needs to be done. If we have laws on the books now to deal with it, then where are the cops to enforce that law? Who is going to pay for these cops? Is there a plan on the table?


Who's going to enforce the new ordinance? Where's the plan? How many will we devote to answering these calls to issue a citation?
Posted by Baconcat on April 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM · Report this
28
@12 There have been literally hundreds of people who have commented here and other online blogs about living/working downtown and that have never been aggresively panhandled there. I would bet all or almost all of them are not former Husky football players. Harrell's arguement was a lot deeper than whether he had been panhandled. He was the no vote who probably took the biggest political risk, but he showed his independence and spoke very forcefully about the entrappment in the criminal justice system that could arise from the bill's due process flaws as well its other inefficiences.

Posted by elmo fan on April 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM · Report this
elenchos 29
Yes socialized medicine would be fantastic. I think we will have a decent system in place in a few more years.

It's funny how this groupthink works -- everyone who doesn't go along with the program must believe all sorts of horrible things. Because you are sooooo right and everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

Bye, Soupytwist.
Posted by elenchos on April 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 30
@12 - Between doing nothing and doing something incredibly stupid, I'll vote for doing nothing every time. But the fact is, McGinn hasn't done nothing. He and Diaz have increased foot/bike patrols in the affected areas. Are you opposed to that?
Posted by Free Lunch on April 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM · Report this
Baconcat 31
And let's point out something: we don't have infrastructure for treatment or longterm supportive housing, so our second largest treatment center in this entire state is the King County Jail. Anyone saying "we need them treated" is basically saying "just throw them in jail".

elenchos makes this long obfuscated argument about status quo, but "treatment" IS status quo. We keep them in jail for about 140 days longer than most (which is what treatment ACTUALLY entails) and then release them for a while until they get sent back again (for doing things like, I dunno, murdering people). We are NOT treating these people. We do not spend money for treatment like we should, even though it costs $300 a night in this county to keep them housed.

Cities elsewhere have learned you need to stop bullshitting and start doing; San Diego and Miami have more than halved their homeless population and cut back panhandling extremely. San Antonio, where the homeless will literally line up on the periphery of the Alamo grounds to beg, has devoted $100,000,000 to supportive housing, directing panhandlers to the center which houses hundreds a night and has a treatment apparatus that allows folks to sober up, get back on their feet and get a job. AND IT WORKS.

There's a marked improvement in San Antonio already, in fact, with the downtown campus of the University of Texas and adjacent areas like El Mercado and the Smithsonian suddenly devoid of panhandlers. That's unheard of, but it's real. Even the day laborer meeting point outside the China Star lacks a crowd of guys in the morning, it's down to only a few people at this point.

Some folks downtown do need longterm assistance and segregation from the general public, but a vast majority don't. We can help them and help ourselves by making a concerted effort. If necessary, we can get those that advance far enough to sweep the streets downtown and maintain landscaping, in order to make their pay. It would save on cleaning contracts.

I propose a levy.
More...
Posted by Baconcat on April 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM · Report this
32
@12 Elenchos.

1) Nobody is proposing "doing nothing" about crime on the streets, the plight of the poor, or substance abuse. There are many laws that already cover street harassment. It is a willful misreading of events to conclude that those who didn't support this particular legislation are doing nothing regarding these issues. Can you back up your claim?

2) Did you actually listen to Harrell's testimony or are you merely relying the Time's characterization here. I found his reasoning to be rather solid, and the point him not being panhandled was not central to his arguments.

3) In what way were you "taken advantage of" by panhandlers? Did it arise to the level of aggressive as defined in this specific legislation? Can you give us some examples? Or, were you merely panhandled more frequently?

4) Shannon Harps? You're seriously going to trot out Shannon Harps and the guy with lighter fluid in order to support this specific piece of legislation? Are you suggesting that the guy who was using lighter fluid should be fined $50 and sent on his way, as this specific legislation would do, or do you think he should be arrested, as existing law would prescribe? Either way, your delusional if you think this specific legislation covers anything having to do with the murder of Shannon Harps or other violent acts.

5) How would passing this specific legislation done anything at all to add more cops? How would the specific legislation solved any of the problems that you're referencing? You seem to have pinned a lot of hope onto this specific legislation that it would do things that quite simply, it would not do, not even close.

In short, your rant about the do-nothing Mayor proves only that you don't really know what you're talking about in relation to this legislation.
More...
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on April 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM · Report this
33
Uh, umm, Will @14? Sorry, but ST was one of the first papers in the country to endorse Obama.
Selective memory, eh?
Posted by Mrs. Obama on April 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM · Report this
34

Years in the future, Mike McGinn's obituary in the Seattle Times will carry this heading: "Mike McGinn, former Seattle Mayor who denied pre-inauguration interview with Joni Balter, dies."
Posted by edmund burke on April 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 35
@33 - Bush served two terms.

He wasn't eligible to run against Obama, that was Comrade McCain from Panama and his Russian running mate Sarah Palin.

Again, that's when it started. And it just keeps getting more and more so, to the point that most Seattle citizens make fun of the Suburban Times.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM · Report this
36
This isn't even advocacy journalism. I'ts just name calling. "The Seattle Times lies." Really? Is this how we argue with editorial opinion these days?

Honestly, this post just makes me a little queasy. I'm sorry, Dom, I just can't take the Stranger local politics beat seriously anymore. Publicola wins.
Posted by Michael Wells on April 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM · Report this
Baconcat 37
@36: Dominic has an opinion on the opinion of someone else, oh no, stop the presses.
Posted by Baconcat on April 21, 2010 at 5:41 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 38
@ 36) Michael, seriously. No one is saying the Seattle Times is a liar, or a paper that always lies. A lot of their reporting--transit, crime, city hall--is really good. But the two points I'd written about before that sentence just weren't true. The Seattle Times is claiming that we--they and everyone else--elected McGinn. They were against him. The Seattle Times also says he's not listening. But he is listening, just not to them.
Posted by Dominic Holden on April 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 39
3) In what way were you "taken advantage of" by panhandlers? Did it arise to the level of aggressive as defined in this specific legislation? Can you give us some examples? Or, were you merely panhandled more frequently?


I love how the number one argument against doing anything about aggressive begging is that the people complaining about it are weak, stupid, crazy, or just making shit up. Go fuck yourself, Timothy.
Posted by keshmeshi on April 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM · Report this
40
I think I'm quoting you directly, here, Dominic; "The Seattle Times is lying." I maintain that it's difficult to lie when stating opinion. You disagree with their opinion. That does not make them liars.

The level of hyperbole in this particular policy discussion has erased any sense of accurate reporting by the Stranger. I expect it from the commentors. I expect more from the reporters.
Posted by Michael Wells on April 21, 2010 at 6:04 PM · Report this
41
When the Seattle Times says "we" it is similarly offensive as when Will in Seattle says "we".
Posted by I'm not your we on April 21, 2010 at 6:07 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 42

@ 40) I was referring to two points made in the the Seattle Times' editorial. I said it in the post and in the comment above. Your beef seems misplaced.

Posted by Dominic Holden on April 21, 2010 at 6:10 PM · Report this
43
I think your weight on their "we" statement is misplaced. As a reader I read "we" as the citizens of Seattle, not the Times. Your parsing serves your purpose but I don't think it's accurate. But the parsing is the problem. The Times is an easy target, the Stranger's core readership will mock them in a heartbeat.

My beef is the lack of depth and nuance in the local politics beat. Its been reduced to axe-gringing and name-calling (remember "Mike O'Brien is a pushover"?). It's playground politics. I prefer reporting. I'm beginning to feel that that isn't an option anymore.
Posted by Michael Wells on April 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM · Report this
Baconcat 44
An opinion about an opinion about an opinion in a blog post on a blog rife with opinions, jesus, get me the fainting couch! Le SWOON!
Posted by Baconcat on April 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM · Report this
45
Great post! Watching you guys make fun of The Blethen Daily Butt Trumpet never gets old!
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on April 21, 2010 at 6:52 PM · Report this
46
@39 Keshmeshi…I'm not dismissing anyone's claims or calling them weak or stupid, etc. But, the specifics of what people are claiming is and isn't aggressive begging matters. There were whole litanies of testimonies from people complaining about things that the legislation didn't cover.

What's more, I actually believe that if the behavior is as egregious as many people claim, then those so-called panhandlers should be arrested, not merely fined. I'm fine with treating aggressive and violent behavior with tough measures.

As for your suggestions on how I should treat myself, I'll take it under advisement.
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on April 21, 2010 at 8:32 PM · Report this
MrBaker 47
I am against the proposed law. I am also against McSandbag in general. He creates opposition to him, making harder to agree with him.

He will get less done for you because of his conflict driven style.

3 and a half more years until I can vote for somebody else.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on April 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM · Report this
MrBaker 48
Let's also remember that his accomplishment was a veto. You can train a pet chicken to do that.
I guess I should not expect too much from the mayor's office in the way of creating policy and making it happen. He is playing defense, and being offensive while doing it.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on April 21, 2010 at 8:37 PM · Report this
MrBaker 49
@46, I agree, some people are panhandling, some or mugging, calling robbery that does not involve a gun or knife is still a mugging, and still a crime.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on April 21, 2010 at 8:41 PM · Report this
50
I am so glad that McGinn does ignore the Seattle Times. Based on their editorials and sentiments concerning the panhandler bill, what a rag!
Posted by Kam on April 21, 2010 at 9:16 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 51
Ha! Elenchos, the dumb fucker, didn't answer Timothy @ 32 because either a) HE is the one with nothing, or b) he reflexively blocked Timothy because elenchos didn't get the answer he believed he deserved right away.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 21, 2010 at 9:40 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 52
BTW keshmeshi, you really overreacted and owe Timothy an apology. You probably realize that after his response to you, but it's something you should be told outright.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 21, 2010 at 9:42 PM · Report this
elenchos 53
Timothy, one of the reasons it's so difficult to have an intelligent discussion is that Holden and others have worked so hard to demonize everybody who disagrees with them. So you find it easy to believe that I was suggesting the lighter fluid attacker should be fined $50. That would be stupid. You find it easy to believe I'm that stupid because you've been lead to think that everyone on the other side is idiotic and evil. Look at all the personal attacks in these comments: this has been whipped up in to an ideological jihad, untethered from reason.

The extremes of violence we've seen, like the Harps murder and the lighter fluid attack, are clear examples of why the public doesn't just want to shrug it off when a nutter in the street starts yelling obscenities at them. It's not just harmless crazies out there, and that's why nobody wants to be near them. It's why the public wants the mess cleaned up.

Harrell's statements were of a piece with Dominic Holden's and many others on this issue: that those who are sick of the harassment should suck it up and stop imagining things. It's insulting, and that attitude will not serve Harrell, or the Stranger well. McGinn would do well to distance himself from such people.

The $50 civil infraction was one small effort to do something -- because existing law was doing nothing. Existing law was too difficult to enforce. There was also a lot of fluff about more foot patrols that everyone agrees with but nobody has the balls to say how we're going to pay for.

Maybe McGinn or somebody has a plan to do something real, but why is it being kept a secret? As far as I can suss out, there are no new ordinances in the offing, and no funding for police or services. McGinn is asking the city council for more nice stuff, but he has dodged the tough choices of what to cut to pay for it, or what taxes to raise. He is expecting the council to do all the heavy lifting, and take the heat.
More...
Posted by elenchos on April 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM · Report this
Lose-Lose 54
Wow. It's still 4/20 for you Dominic, ain't it?
I thought about spouting off at the Times in their comments section of that editorial, but I thought, why bother? They do it for the thrills. You haven't even begun listing ALL the positions they've advocated for that are in direct opposition to the opinions of the majority of Seattleites. And you forgot the main conflict of their editorial: the Seattle Times didn't vote for McGinn because no one on the editorial board of the Times lives in Seattle!
Posted by Lose-Lose on April 21, 2010 at 10:56 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 55
@41 - at least I actually live here and vote here.

Them ... mostly not.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 22, 2010 at 1:49 AM · Report this
56
Thanks Dominic. I just want to give you a big old hug or buy you a big old beer after reading this one.

PS to the Seattle Times, for the four hundred millionth time, no I do not want to 'support' you by subscribing to fireplace kindling material.
Posted by sammielu on April 22, 2010 at 8:00 AM · Report this
57
The Times portrayal of Harrell's reasoning is way off. Maybe he has not been harassed. I have never been either. His argument was deep and you could tell that his opposition is something he truly believed in. One of the earlier commenters stated that Harrell's opposition was a risk for him. I bet he comes out of this stronger because it shows that he is an independent thinker that will go against the grain. Too bad there not more people on the Council like that.
Posted by Newby112 on April 22, 2010 at 8:01 AM · Report this
58
@53 elenchos...

Sure, I get that there can be reasoned discussion, but you're the one who jumped in with accusations of the Mayor being a do-nothing, and drawing parallels between this specific legislation and the Harps murder, etc.

Many oppossed the legislation specifically because we felt that it IS a "do nothing but give the appearance of doing something" measure. Hence, my questions to you to tease out how, specifically, you think it would have accomplished anything related to the specific issues you were raising.

And, the fact that Burgess pushed this NOW does not make it fair game to then claim that those who opposed this specific measure don't care about the issues raised. As you acknowledge, funding is an issue, and working to increase cops and services requires strong planning and execution; doing that on Burgess' imposed time table is not appropriate.

I could rehash all the ways in which I actually believe that doing this measure would be more hurtful to what you're after, but that's old news at this point, and Dom has outlined much of it here in the past couple of weeks.

I wasn't saying you are stupid, and if you want to go "reason" on this topic, then perhaps tone down your own rhetoric about Mayoral failures and do-nothings; there are principled reasons to oppose this measure, and many people believe that this issue was primarily being used as a powerplay unrelated to the specifics in the legislation itself.

So yes, let's reason together.
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on April 22, 2010 at 10:17 AM · Report this
elenchos 59
First I would remind everyone what broad consensus there is for more foot patrols. If we can ignore all the bad blood created by attacking each other over an imaginary left/right ideological divide (Thanks, Dominic! Now stop it.) then we can work together to actually fund hiring the cops and putting the foot patrols in place.

Now is a golden opportunity for the mayor to make a bold, substantive proposal. He could announce something on Friday when he vetoes the bill and all eyes are on him.
Posted by elenchos on April 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM · Report this
JonSM99 60
The Times' "we" is like John McCain's "my friends".
Posted by JonSM99 on April 22, 2010 at 7:14 PM · Report this
JonSM99 61
Wait--what's with all these journalist blow jobs for married men?? Where's the love for us single folk?
Posted by JonSM99 on April 22, 2010 at 7:28 PM · Report this
mrbombit 62
How cute. But no matter how much Stranger writers rail against the Times, the Times is a REAL paper. The Stranger's envy is quit apparent. Why doesnt the stranger just come out and say it, "oh we picked and endorsed and believe we got McMayor elected. Give me a break. The Stranger is just some small time hipster sounding board. But it is still cute to watch you guys attack a battleship with spitballs.
Posted by mrbombit on April 23, 2010 at 2:05 PM · Report this
63 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


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