Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Seattle Times Editorial Board: Shameless Fucking Hypocrites

Posted by on Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Last week, when Governor Chris Gregoire announced plans to bypass the AG's office, and petition the courts for a ruling on the constitutionality of I-1053's two-thirds supermajority provision, the first thought that popped into my head was:

Oh man, I can't wait to see the Seattle Times editorial board twist itself into knots over this one...

Well, today's the day:

GOV. Chris Gregoire should reconsider her ill-chosen decision to push the Washington Supreme Court to decide on the two-thirds rule for raising taxes.

Time and again over the past 20 years, the voters of Washington have approved the rule that the Legislature needs a two-thirds vote of both houses or a vote of the people to raise taxes. Legislators resent this limit on their power and have suspended it several times. Voters keep re-enacting it.

Honestly, what a bunch of shameless fucking hypocrites.

Their argument, of course, is that because voters have repeatedly approved I-1053's provisions, it should be left unchallenged, regardless of its constitutionality. That's an irresponsible argument on the surface, one that shows a blatant disregard for the rule of law. The constitution is the supreme law of the state, and as such is difficult to amend for a reason. If you could just override it on a simple majority vote of the legislature or the people, then it's just another law.

But it's also a shameless fucking hypocritical argument coming from an editorial board that consistently fights to undermine the "will of the people" when it comes to the twice-approved provisions of labor-sponsored I-1163:

THE voters approved Initiative 1163, to require more training for home-health-care workers and have the state pay for the training for workers in state programs. Legislators are wondering whether they have the moral authority to suspend this measure, which requires a two-thirds vote. They do and they should.

I-1053's two-thirds provisions have been approved twice over the past four years, with 63.75 percent of the vote in 2010, and a bare 51.24 percent in 2007. I-1163's training and certification provisions have also been approved twice over the past three years, with 65.02 percent of the vote in 2011, and an eye-popping 72.53 percent in 2008. And, unlike I-1053, I-1163 is unquestionably constitutional.

Yet the Seattle Times urges lawmakers to honor the will of the people on the former, while fucking them on the latter. Why? Because they're shameless fucking hypocrites, of course.

If the editors had the brains or the balls to defend I-1053 on policy—to cogently explain to readers why a one-third minority of legislators should be granted veto power over the rest of their democratically elected colleagues—that would be one thing. But they don't. Instead, showing zero respect for their readers or themselves, they lazily fall back on an argument of convenience... a line of reasoning they'll happily cross from one editorial to another, if it suits their rhetorical needs.

Shameless. Fucking. Hypocrites.

 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Geraldo Riviera 1
Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. Fucky fuck. Fuck fuck fuck.
Posted by Geraldo Riviera on January 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM · Report this
2
You've got an 'I-1063' in there that I assume should be an 'I-1053'.
Posted by Ben on January 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 3
Goldy calling people hypocrites. This is rich.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on January 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
Goldy 4
@3: Well, I laid out the case for call the Times editors hypocrites: how they argue to the respect the will of the people when it comes to an initiative they like, but urge lawmakers to ignore the will of the people when it comes to an initiative they don't. Hard to argue with that being a hypocritical line of reasoning.

So if you're going to imply that I'm a hypocrite, why not support the implication with equal detail?
Posted by Goldy on January 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM · Report this
5
wow. more incredibly hard hitting journalism --against another paper. what a joke the stranger is.
Posted by thestrangerisstrange on January 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM · Report this
Posted by TheMisanthrope on January 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 7
Shameless hypocrites, like people who preach the pro-environment line, yet idle in rush hour traffic twice a day or live in single-dwelling homes?
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
Goldy 8
@6: Gosh, you're lazy. Now try to explain how that post makes me a hypocrite.

Of course, you can't, because there's nothing hypocritical about that post. I complain about how personally irritating/costly I find the new tolling regime to be, and then restate my support of it. As I wrote, I don't have to like a policy to accept it as a public good.

The fact that you can't wrap your little mind around that concept, says more about you than me.
Posted by Goldy on January 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM · Report this
JF 9
I just think you protest too much. You and the ST should just make out and get it over with.
Posted by JF on January 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM · Report this
Kinison 10
SLOG suffers from the same level of hypocrisy.

Tolls for the Viaduct tunnel = GRIDLOCK CARMOGEDON!

Tolls for the 520 bridge = Makes sense, its clearly needed to fund the bridge.

Try again Toby,
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on January 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 11
Times editorial board workflow:

Will theoretically cost Frank or Ryan any money (YES/NO)

If no, the people have called for it / ENDORSE

If yes, the people are opposed to it / OPPOSE
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on January 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 12
What @11 said. You can't expect a business that benefits from the following statute to be coherent when it comes to tax policy.

RCW 82.08.0253
Exemptions — Sale and distribution of newspapers.

(1) The [retail sales] tax does not apply to:

(a) The distribution and newsstand sale of printed newspapers; and

(b) The sale of newspapers transferred electronically, provided that the electronic version of a printed newspaper:

(i) Shares content with the printed newspaper; and

(ii) Is prominently identified by the same name as the printed newspaper or otherwise conspicuously indicates that it is a complement to the printed newspaper.

(2) For purposes of this section, "printed newspaper" means a publication issued regularly at stated intervals at least twice a month and printed on newsprint in tabloid or broadsheet format folded loosely together without stapling, glue, or any other binding of any kind, including any supplement of a printed newspaper.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM · Report this
13
Uh, oh. Goldylocks is hyperventilating again. Calm down and then march over to the Seattle Times and hit them with your purse, pussy.
Posted by BetarayBilly2 on January 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 14
Meanwhile, IRL, the Western Approach of 520 is still unfunded and so is most of the Deeply Borrowed Tunnel.

I smell taxes. Taxes paid by poor people, while the tax giveaways to the Rich and Corporations grow bigger and bigger and bigger and ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 10, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
15
Well, folks, you'll have nail down an official confirmation, but the scuttlebutt from an insider at a recent Occupy Healthcare meeting is that the measly $250,000 per year that the state spends to provide malpractice insurance to volunteer doctors at community health clinics is on the chopping block. This in turn is going to cost community health clinics lots of volunteer physicians and millions of dollars worth of their services. And this will in turn make health care even less accessible to Washington's bottom quintile (who of course bear the heaviest state and local tax burden under our hyper-regressive tax system).

Why is this relevant, you ask? I just thought it was a good opportunity to remind everyone how grateful we should all be to the sociopathic, solipsistic pigs who shilled for I-1053 (two-thirds legislative supermajority for tax hikes) and who shilled against I-1098 (income tax on the rich + property tax cut for everyone + B&O tax exemption for more small businesses). In all probability, some people will actually die because of Washington millionaires' greed. I hope the self-serving Blethen family and their fellow advocates of regressive taxation will step forward and take due credit when the cases start rolling in.
Posted by PCM on January 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this
16
Regardless of other issues, this is a clear and egregious instance of substantial hypocrisy, and the sea times absolutely should be slammed for it.
Posted by Xtoph on January 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM · Report this
17
Goldy,
Putting in a lot of swear words into your posts won't make you any younger or hipper. The rest of The Stranger staff will still think you're an ageing twit, as will Slog readers.
Posted by Stan Boreson on January 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this

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