
Over at Weibo, the Chinese equivalent to Twitter, a rumor is currently running rampant that newly minted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un has been assassinated at the North Korean embassy in Beijing. Which is not nearly as interesting as the fact that Western news outlets are widely reporting a rumor from the Chinese equivalent to Twitter.
I mean, the likes of Gawker and HuffPo, I can understand. They're pretty much in the business of reprinting rumors. But "reputable" outlets like MSNBC, Reuters, and Forbes? Really? I mean, maybe Kim Jong-un is dead. Who knows? But some guy on Weibo isn't exactly a source.
[Slogtip Joe]
As Towleroad writes, "In a salvo meant to hit Newt Gingrich before his Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) address tomorrow, Truth Wins Out, the non-profit organization that fights anti-LGBT religious extremism, has taken out a full-page ad in D.C.'s Roll Call publication calling Newt out on his marriage hypocrisy."

your picture on the front page of the local section of the times nice work
This was the text message from a friend that I received at 7:25 this morning. I loved this text message, because my picture in the paper is just the sort of thing that makes my Mom happy, and I love every single thing that makes my Mom happy.
The picture in the Times is by the great photojournalist Alan Berner. He caught me unwittingly mirroring the early/mid-19th-century cadaverous male figure on display at Seattle Art Museum. He is the first piece of Polynesian art you see in the big new show Gauguin & Polynesia: An Elusive Paradise, and he bends you down to him—at which point his shocking visage smacks you, and keeps you riveted there. He is seriously fierce.
He's carved out of wood, and the gaping pupils of his eyes are made of obsidian. His irises are formed from shark bone. He was found on Rapa Nui (later called Easter Island), and taken into the British Museum in London, where he still resides. Back on the island, he would have been carried around rather than standing on any kind of pedestal; hunched, he can't stand on his own.
This is the picture I was taking while Alan Berner was taking his picture of me.
Last week, I slogged about the push by the American Family Association offshoot One Million Moms to get JC Penney to fire Ellen Degeneres as its spokesmodel due to her open homosexuality, and how JC Penney told the bigot moms to shove it.
During a show taping today, Ellen addressed the kerfuffle (along with the reconfirmed unconstitutionality of Prop 8) and won by a million. Enjoy.
UPDATE: The original video's been yanked, but you may see it here.
Thank you, Towleroad.

Tonight at Town Hall, journalist Dorothy Parvaz and author Wael Ghonim will be talking about the Arab Spring and its consequences.
I did a long interview with Parvaz last May—after she disappeared for 19 days while reporting on the Syrian uprising—and ahead of tonight's discussion we had a very short follow up conversation:
Eli Sanders: When I last talked to you, you were in Vancouver recovering from being taken into custody in Syria and then held captive in Iran. What's your life been like since then?
Dorothy Parvaz: My life has been, in most ways, the same. So I've been quite lucky.
What do you make of the deteriorating situation in Syria right now, and the calls for foreign intervention to stop the bloodshed?
Of course, as a human being, I'm horrified and furious at the violence and loss of life that has consumed the country. As a journalist, I'm frustrated that the Syrian government is still preventing proper coverage of events on the ground. As for foreign intervention...that could mean a lot of things. I'm unclear as to what such intervention can achieve—if it'll just be symbolic as in, "Yes, we the international community aren't happy with what the Syrian government is doing", or something more substantial, such as the end to violence. Both have dire consequences in how effective/ineffective they might be.
And the current situation in Iran?
Syria and Iran are entirely different. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but other than the most simplistic comparison (some people in each country seem to want regime change, etc.) they have little in common. Witness the scenes unfolding in Syria (well, as much as you can, given the limited media coverage) versus what you see going on in in Iran.
Ideologically, if the U.S. declares war on Iran, then it can declare war on North Korea and other countries. Although, one could argue that by selling massive quantities of weapons to Saudi Arabia and maintaining bases in the Gulf region, the U.S. is preparing for such possibility—that is, bracing for some sort of battle royale in Iran.
War should always be the last resort, and in this case, it's almost as though diplomacy—real diplomacy—was abandoned more than 30 years ago.
Info on tonight's event right here.
Hey look! Lindy West reviews this year's batch of Superbowl commercials over at MSNBC!
Penn "& Teller" Jillette is not pleased:

I can't wait till an African-American writes something Penn Jillette doesn't like and he lets that nigger have it.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually enjoy fisking Seattle Times editorials any more than I enjoy reading them, but sometimes they are just so stupid or hypocritical or dishonest that I feel I have no other choice. But today's editorial, warning "Voters Beware," really takes the cake:
Democratic opponents of Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna mashed up and misquoted reporting in The Seattle Times.
Democratic operatives are entitled to their own opinions, but not the distortion of reporting by The Times. Party Chairman Dwight Pelz and spokeswoman Reesa Kossoff took McKenna to task, and out of context, on gay marriage.
Oy. We've been over this before. The Seattle Times itself reported that McKenna raised the specter of incest and polygamy within the context of gay marriage, a right-wing dog whistle if I've ever heard one. Read the quotes and judge for yourself.
But it's the editors' closing admonishment that really pisses me off:
Playing fast and loose with the facts is revealing in its own right.
Oh, really, Seattle Times editorial board? "Playing fast and loose with the facts"...? You mean like when you recently shilled for charter schools by claiming that "about 20 percent of charter schools have been found to do a better job of educating students than public schools," without telling your readers that the Stanford University study you cite actually found that only 17 percent of charters do better, while a whopping 37 percent "deliver learning results that are significantly worse"...?
Or the time you shamelessly pimped for estate tax repeal by writing that even Sweden "abolished its death tax," without revealing to readers that they replaced it with a 1.5 percent annual wealth tax that hit Sweden's wealthy even harder?
Earlier this week, the American Family Association group One Million Moms lashed out against JC Penney's new choice of spokesmodel:
Recently JC Penney announced that comedian Ellen Degeneres will be the company's new spokesperson. Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly. Unless JC Penney decides to be neutral in the culture war then their brand transformation will be unsuccessful.
The good news: JC Penney doesn't give a shit, and has reiterated its support of Ellen as the company's new spokesperson. Read the full Yahoo! story on the aborted brouhaha here. (You'll notice that the Yahoo! story has over 10,000 comments, and the majority of them seem to be about how unappealing Penney's new TV ad is.
Or are they pretty much cool with being annually called out on their racism? Or do they just do it for the free publicity? (If that's the case, sorry for contributing.)
Once again, Vanity Fair's big ol' "The Newest/Coolest/Freshest/Hottest People You Should Look At Right Now" cover, which is almost always a fold-out, puts all the people of color on the folded part that you can't see on newsstands. AGAIN. Jezebel breaks down their history of it, with photographic evidence:
In 2008, it was Zoë Saldana and America Ferrera.
...
2005: Rosario Dawson, Ziyi Zhang and Kerry Washington, on the right and not the left.
2004: Salma Hayek and Lucy Liu, on the right and not the left power panel.
...
In 2001, no black ladies were pushed aside because no black ladies were photographed!
But it's so, so worth the outrage to see those 1995 and 1996 covers, right? (No, seriously, go look.)

Ahead of the 2012 election, the Seattle Times has apparently restarted its "Truth Needle" series, in which it allegedly fact-checks political ads and claims. And in its first installment, it declares as totally "false" an assertion by state Dems that Republican gubernatorial wannabe Rob McKenna has equated gay marriage with polygamy and incest.
Okay. So here's what Washington State Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz wrote in an email:
"Rob McKenna believes that same-sex couples don't deserve equal rights. In fact, he has fought to preserve discrimination in state law and has even gone so far as to equate marriage equality to polygamy and incest."
And here's what the Seattle Times itself reported McKenna saying back in 2004:
King County Councilman Rob McKenna, criticized the ruling's wording as too broad and said its argument that there is no compelling state interest to deny marriage to two people in a committed relationship could leave marriage open to blood relatives or those practicing polygamy.
"It threatens to destroy all standards we apply to the right of marriage," he said.
If you have not heard about it yet, Eric Bolling of Fox Business recently described the new Muppets movie as "dangerous" and filled with "liberal messages." Miss Piggy's response to Fox:

According to the innuendo of this ad, the answer is TOTALLY! But the truth of where that salacious banner ad leads is much more boring.
P.S. My razor-sharp political analysis will be on full display tonight when I take part in the Florida Republican Debate Live-Slog.

Note that one is the "official commemorative issue" and the other is the "official collector's edition."
Hot on the heels of the mindbending 1969 ad for IHOP comes another acid-soaked ad, this one from 1968 and for the Ice Capades (courtesy of the Redundant Variety Hour).
And now, a quiz:
I suppose the Seattle Times editorial board had no choice but to oppose the proposed construction jobs bond, as it's supported by unions, and the editors are contractually obligated to gainsay organized labor, no matter the issue. Or something. I just wish, in making their arguments, that they'd be a little more forthright with their readers:
Public debt should be for big, expensive things that are needed and that last a long time, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Building bridges does create jobs, but creating jobs is not the right reason for building bridges. If that is the reason, it is likely to be a bridge the world can do without.
Yeah, but, the so-called "jobs bond" does not actually propose any new construction projects. It would merely speed up construction of projects—roads, bridges, schools, waste water treatment, etc.—that are already on the books, but for which we don't currently have the money to finance. These aren't bridges to nowhere, as the editors imply. These are infrastructure and maintenance projects that will all be built eventually, though at an ever higher cost, the longer we put them off.
Whether it's $1 billion or $2 billion, the jobs bond is all about timing, taking advantage of low interest rates and construction costs, while creating thousands of jobs at a time of high unemployment.
Yes, the state would be taking on more debt, and if the editors want to argue in favor of fiscal austerity, no matter the circumstances, have at it. But please don't mislead readers about what this debt would buy.
I myself found President Obama's State of the Union line about withholding federal funds from colleges and universities that raise tuition too quickly, to be both odd and misguided. So I don't disagree with the Seattle Times editorial board, that much of the blame for dramatically rising college tuition falls on state legislatures that have slashed funding for public university systems, forcing more of the cost onto students.
But, um, where do the editors think these legislatures get their money?
Yes, Washington's legislators have consistently failed to adequately fund both K-12 and higher education, to the tune of arguably billions of dollars of a year. But they've done so at the same time our state's daily newspapers have relentlessly editorialized against any and all proposals to raise substantial new tax revenues.
So if the Seattle Times really wants to find the root causes of our collective failure to pony up the cash necessary to educate future generations, they should follow the money (or lack thereof)... a trail that will surely lead back to their own op/ed pages.
On SOPA/PIPA, what Atrios said:
Not a particularly deep or original thought, but if not for the internet I doubt I would have purchased a CD or gone to a newish music concert since about 2004....
The internet provides an immense amount of free marketing. That's really sad for the people who earned lots of money based on their supposed ability to market things, but generally it's a feature, not a bug.
The fact aside that it stifles Internet freedom and innovation, while not stopping online piracy, the truth about SOPA/PIPA is that it is less about protecting the people who create intellectual property, and more about protecting the people who broker it. The Internet is a boon to the vast majority of intellectual property creators because it allows them to go around the traditional gatekeepers—the record labels, movie studios, publishers, software companies, etc.—and market and sell directly to consumers. Yes, it could cost the biggest stars a little money—they profit handsomely under the old system—but most artists are not stars.
Rather than adapting to this new medium (I mean, if Redbox can make money renting new release DVDs for a buck, you'd think the studios could make money streaming them for two), Hollywood is seeking to prop up their antiquated business model by crushing online competition. These bills are wrong, not just because they harm the Internet as a whole, but because in the long run, they can't work, and as such just get in the way of Hollywood making the changes necessary to survive.
The 1996 instructional guide for upstart reporters called The News Formula: A Concise Guide to News Writing and Reporting by Catherine C. Mitchell and Mark D. West is about how to be a real journalist, the sort we should all aspire to be:
Any display of bias, any interjection of the news writer's feelings or opinions into a news story, hurts the contract between a newspaper and its readers. When an author expresses any sort of opinion, no matter how mild or insignificant, it becomes extremely difficult to trust the fairness of the story.
No exceptions:
What, then, are reporters supposed to do when a public official tells a lie or gives our misleading facts? ... The newspaper should report the statement, without any hint of the reporter's feelings about truth or falsehood. If the statement libels someone, of course, the newspaper must be cautious, but in the vast majority of cases in which the reporter disagrees with something a source says, he or she should simply report the statement and let readers decide about its truth for themselves.
Yesterday afternoon, KING-5's Meg Coyle was reporting live from the base of Queen Anne hill, where sledders were joyfully careening down the hill, and she suggested they be careful and wear a helmet. All of a sudden, a woman bursts into the frame, blaming Coyle for cops shutting down the hill to sledders and being a "total killjoy." Then the anchor responds with a pithy "Wah wah wah."
Which raises the question:
As Mike Hale writes at NYT's Arts Beat.
Monday’s episode of “Hawaii Five-0″ on CBS, was particularly egregious—the most jarring, disruptive and insulting example [of product placement] I’ve seen. For nearly a minute, the unfortunate actors (Alex O’Loughlin, Grace Park and the former sumo wrestler Taylor Wily) stepped completely out of the story in order to plug Subway sandwiches, as the food-truck vendor Kamekona (Mr. Wily) is found eating five subs as part of his new diet. “Trying to eat smarter, brother,” he says. “These Subways sandwiches? So ono” (Hawaiian slang for “delicious,” though it’s also the name of a fish popular in island restaurants and presumably more healthy than a Subway sandwich). The spot — it’s a 50-second commercial, pure and simple — also works in references to the Subway pitchman Jared and several specific menu items.
See video of the incident here.
Jesus... how many more credulous headlines do I have to read about the Mt. Rainier snowshoer who kept himself warm by burning money: "$6 fire kept lost hiker going during Mount Rainier ordeal."
It's a somewhat amazing survival story and all that, but a "$6 fire" is what kept him going? Really? It wasn't even six ones, but rather a one and a five. What's that... ten seconds or so of warmth? I mean, a 66-year-old man is lost in a blizzard on the side of a mountain for two days—and survives—and all the headline writers can focus on is: Ohmigod... he burned money!
So writes Metafilter about this from-the-vaults IHOP commercial (which might make you want to revisit acid, but not revisit IHOP.)
Honestly... have they no shame?
Yesterday I pointed out the Seattle Times editorial board's embarrassing record of hypocrisy when it comes to embracing or dissing the notion of "the will of the people," depending on whether the editors agree or disagree with that will as expressed at the polls—this time in regards to charter schools.
But that same pro-charter schools editorial contains a stunningly brazen bit of dishonesty:
Nationally, about 20 percent of charter schools have been found to do a better job of educating students than public schools.
The editors don't cite their source, but there is only one large scale evaluation of the relative performance of charter schools—"Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States"—conducted by Stanford University in 2009, and that is the study from which this "about 20 percent" figure is widely drawn in the media. And yes, the study does show that "about 20 percent" of charter schools do better... if by "about" you mean rounding up 3 points in your favor.
But...
"The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide (46 percent) have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools."
Get that? It's a net loss! 17 percent of charter schools do better, 46 percent about the same, and 37 percent do "significantly worse." But the Seattle Times doesn't bother giving their readers that latter number, because that would counter their own advocacy for privatizing public schools. It's a lie of omission, but a lie nonetheless.
To be clear, I could have headlined this post "About 40 Percent of Charter Schools Do Worse than Public Schools," and been just as accurate as the Seattle Times.
And allegedly, I'm the partisan hack.
Just last week the wizened old sages on the Seattle Times editorial board stridently argued that "time and again over the past 20 years, the voters of Washington have approved" the two-thirds supermajority rule. Governor Gregoire should refrain from challenging I-1053's constitutionality, the editors urged, because "voters keep re-enacting it."
But this week, when it comes to charter schools, a measure the editors like and unions oppose, well, fuck the will of the people:
Expect contentious debate. In particular, the teachers union sees charter schools as a threat. Yes, Washington state voters rejected charter-school proposals three times. But we know a lot more about these innovative public schools since the last failed measure in 2004.
I suppose there's an argument to make for charter schools—a naive, simplistic, or disingenuous argument, but an argument nonetheless. But the Seattle Times relentlessly shameless hypocrisy when it comes to honoring—or not—the so-called "will of the people", has long since crossed the line to the realm of the absurd.
So here's a friendly suggestion to my colleagues at the Seattle Times: Support your arguments based on facts, policy, and an honest embrace of ideology. But leave the people out of it. Because your embrace of their will to when you agree with it, and your total disregard for it when you do not, just makes you look stupid.
I don't want to make too much hay out of what I believe is an honest mistake. A sloppy mistake and the sort of mistake that is literally the job of editors to avoid, admittedly, but an honest one. However, folks keep complaining about the News Tribune's combination of front page headlines today, one about "gay marriage" immediately above "child porn as evidence":
"Some people interpreted it as trying to connect the two stories sexually, when it was our intent to connect them legislatively," explains Jim Kresse, head of the Tribune's copy editors, who had nothing to do with the layout. The paper had simply tried to bundle legislative matters of the day: gay marriage and child porn. The page was actually laid out under on the watch of David Montesino, the deputy managing editor for visuals, but he's out of the office today at an editorial retreat.
Last night, Sean Hannity chastised Rick Perry for attacking Mitt Romney for engaging in "vulture capitalism." Hannity said Perry sounded "like something from Occupy Wall Street." Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh attacked Newt Gingrich for attacking Romney's Bain record, too:
“Capitalism is under assault here in the Republican Party,” said Limbaugh. “I’m telling you, I don’t care how much you love Newt, that is not good. Capitalism being under assault in the Republican Party is not gonna help us at all. It’s what Michael Moore does.”
The party's not entirely aligned yet—Limbaugh's got a lot of backpedaling to do on his teeny, tiny little bicycle before he can get past his "Romney is not a conservative" rant of a few months back—but you can see it happening. I'm willing to bet that by the end of the month, the conservative media machine will be claiming that Mitt Romney is now, and has always been, the conservative messiah.
Welcome to the 21st Century, gentlemen*:
*Hamster sold separately.
Curtsies to Slog tipper Tim.
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.

Good... to... know. GET IT RIGHT, NEW YORK TIMES!!
via