mattp

Good bet there, Mr. Cobra. I highly doubt Obama will initiate a substantial gun control program.

These are the best crack cleaning tools out there. I'd buy one too if someone wants to sell (Patterson?) but for a garden rake I'm not willing to pay $200.

Yup. But this latest heist is only part of it. It is the part they actually acknowledged.

Bill, I don't think I dispute the premise of either of your last two posts except that I'd say Democracy here in America is not quite running as well as you may suggest. But you are right: we did just have an election that looks as if it was not decided by fraud or vote suppression and the Chinese suck. Do we bitch about things? Of course. So do you. You complain that some liberal do-gooders want to take away your guns and I complain that some crooks have invaded our treasury and are getting away with it.

That's his point, Alkatete. "They" have made a politics out of exploiting American's obsession with terrorists and gay rights and in fact it HAS threatened our way of life in small but real ways. And, as you point out, armed resistance does not seem to be the appropriate response.

Bill and Alkahete may not help much but I think Bug's given you the answer. Bush and his buddies have sent your 401K into the toilet and sent your job to India while laughing all the way tot he bank. They've let our infrastructure fall apart so pretty soon you won't be able to drive to your favorite climbs, and they've got you thinking that you WANT them to be listening to your telephone calls. They've weakened our military to the point where we better hope Canada doesnt want to invade. And they've done it all right in front of your eyes while calling it "trickle on economics" and "fighting terrorism."

I was watching election returns with some friends in a Capitol Hill apartment when a parade went by on Pike Street outside. We went out and joined in a march to the Pike Place Market with a couple hundred of our best friends. It was quite an exciting scene with jubilation and spontaneous chants "yes we can" and high fives from drivers stuck in the swarm. I didn't think Seattle had that kind of excitement in us. Seattle police did well to try to contain it but not to intervene.

I certainly do not want the government to control the message and for that reason I'm not sure I'd want "more government control over the media" unless I was somehow convinced that there could be adequate safeguard to prevent any political censuring of the free press. But I'd like to see wider and real discussion of the issue and, at least, some kind of public acknowledgement that it IS an issue. Mostly what we see now is B.S. rhetorical argument from the righties that the liberal media is unfair and a relatively small number of folks on the left complaining about blatant lies and deception mostly coming from the right.

I don't see much likely to change unless somebody like probably a very popular politician takes it upon themself to make a big issue out of it and that doesn't seem likely to me. A grass-roots cry for fairness and accuracy in the media sounds great, but most people want news that confirms their political beliefs, I'm afraid. Do you think FOX is any less popular or less believed by those who were inclined to believe their BS six years ago? I doubt it. My impression is that they are still very successful.

It still looks OK to this guy. 538.com

I too can only hope that we're going to come out of this Iraq war debacle more vigilante about government lying to us, but as long as we accept that because our politics are so divided there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the media to point it out and I don't have much hope that most Americans are going to figure these things out on their own. Meanwhile, as long as our news sources are going to continue lying to us in order to distort our politics I don't think that most people will ever know when future lies are told. Think about it: during the run-up to the Iraq war there were plenty of references to the fact that the hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia and not Iraq, or that the only people who had any current information about Saddam's weapons (UN inspectors) said he didn't have the nukes, yet half of all Americans still believed the opposite. Are you thinking that maybe there will develop some alternate news source - the blogosphere maybe - and the American public will not stand for increased military posturing or bombing if a President McCain dishonestly accuses Mr. Dinnerjacket of manufacturing a nuclear weapon and his story is told by a mass media that doesn't want to get shut out of the press room?

You sure you don't want to indulge Fairweather with his tutu fantasy? Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

Fairweather referred here to one thread where, after the "road to 911" docuumentary I said I was disgusted by the lies presented therein and that those responsible should be held accountable. So in a sense I too have then and still now believe that we need some mechanism to curb lies in the news media. I'm not sure how we'd go about this. In the case of a situation where there is an out and out false news story - like recent FOX stuff about Obama - is it sufficient remedy if the "liberal" media would run headlines saying "Fox news lied?" Maybe, but doesn't this just confuse everybody even more - further render our public discourse more meaningless than it already is? One thing tried in the past was an FCC rule requiring balanced reporting on controversial issues. The "Fairness Doctrine" approach has been criticized by folks like FW because it is a restriction on free speech, but in my opinion rightly criticized on other grounds. As Arianna Huffington put it, it amounts to providing equal time for lies. Look at the global warming "debate." Every story in the news presented both sides for years after there was essentially no debate left. I don't know if I would go very far to stand by my prior musing that maybe the individuals responsible for the lie should be fined or something, because we will have difficulty doing this in anything like a fair manner. However, something should be done about it if, for example, the New York Times were to run a headline that completely misrepresented what happened in Iraq today. My sense is that we are seeing an increasing trend toward lies being passed off as news and I think it is mostly happening on the conservative side but I don't harbor any illusions that avid partisanship or bias on the left can and sometimes does produce similar misrepresentation.

I don't have the list of items to be funded but the levy funds a large list of things and if you look at all of it I am pretty sure you'll find things you don't like, either concluding that it is too much to spend right now or because an "improved" facility means development of current open space or the creation of a special interest facility like the skateboard facility in Ballard's only park. My wife, who has been active in trying to limit the size of the sportsfield project at Magnuson Park, attended meetings regarding this levy. At her request they added to the list some improvements to the waterfront at Magnuson Park and a sidewalk or bike path offering better bike/pedestrian access from Sand Point Way to the waterfront. She and her friends think that, on balance, it is worth voting for and I think it may well be better than voting no now and then seeing another proposal next year or the year after.

Don't worry: You'll still be able to watch non-stop right wing propaganda on FOX news. As much has I don't think they should be allowed to broadcast out and out lies as news stories, I have no idea what can be done about it.

I realize you find it absolutely incredible but I believe there is such a things as historical truth. I once posted, after the path to 911 broadcast, that I thought TV executives who were responsible for a "news" documentary that deliberately misrepresented recent history should be held accountable. You keep harping on this, I assume because you thought that particular documentary was pretty good. How else can I reconcile your outrage over my statement on this point with your diatribes about NPR and the liberal media over the years? Bottom line: I bet you and I both agree that certain standards apply, although you would limit "anti-American hate speech" or stories that "undermine the troops" while I would focus more on other issues like deliberately spreading lies to take us into a war or influence an election. As to enforcing those standards I'm not quite sure how it would could or should be done. Should The Stranger have published the address of somebody with yard signs? I'm honestly not sure it matters much. Maybe this would lead somebody to drive over there and steal a sign or something but I doubt that the guy was really much threatened by somebody's attention being drawn to his yard or he probably wouldn't have posted all those signs in the first place. I have never been a fan of the Stranger's "edgy" journalsim and trash talking style, and I suspect it may have been that aspect of the story that drew your attention to the dangerous incitement of crime.

The idea of the welfare queen is a myth.

You guys may have a point about welfare, but do you actually know what welfare is or how it works? I sit in DSHS hearings one or two days a week and I gotta say: I have seen people who could be working and who are not for a variety of good and bad reasons but I have not seen many people who don't work because they receive welfare benefits. Here is a bit of information I can assemble with 15 minutes using Google: There are a lot of welfare programs, but the traditional welfare is what used to be known as Aid For Dependent Children (now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) The applicant can have no more than $1,000 in assets and a $5,000 car. They are ineligible if they can work. The benefits are available for a maximum of five years in a lifetime (aggregate total). They must participate in work search and training programs. The program is not available to felons, and the State will recoup the benefits from an absent parent (deadebeat dad) if that parent has assets or income. Some information here: https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/f2ws03esaapps/onlinecso/tanf_support_services.asp The benefits are hardly what I would call lavish. I don’t know current levels, but in 2003, the Internet says the maximum benefit for a family of three (a parent with two children) was $170 per month in Mississippi and $923 in Alaska. http://www.urban.org/publications/308019.html On top of the cash grant, you medical coupons and food stamps may be available. Food Stamps: Under new rules, may be available for a family of 4 with income of $3,534.00. The maximum benefit for a family of 4 is $588.00. What do you want to bet, they can't have the $3500 income and receive $588 in food stamps. Medical Coupons: I’m not sure how these work. I doubt this is a lavish benefit or that it is available to people who don't need it.

Oprah Winfrey used an electronic voting machine that didn't register her vote for Obama until she went back and re-did it. godlikeproductions.com My question is this: how many of you folks have used the self-checkout machines at the grocery store checkout? Do you EVER have any problem having your touching the screen misread? How can it be that they can't make a voting machine that is fool-proof in this way? This reminds me of Diebold saying four years ago that they couldn't make a voting machine that could produce a paper receipt because paper and printers may jam, at a time when they'd been making bank machines that do exactly that for years.

Maybe. I don't know what The STranger is trying to do. Maybe just printing a story about the election and being flippant as usual? One thing, though, Palin is certainly trying to dampen media when she says this: Media Criticism of My Criticism = First Amendment Violation.

I'm still confused: Do you think somebody is going to torch the guy's house for having yard signs endorsing Republicans? Or do you honestly think calling Dino Rossi a vampire and asking if the reader can drive a stake through his heart is going to lead to someone trying to do it?

The resident's address is blurred here, but was not in the recent publication. Is this what you have in mind when you discuss a free press, Matt? The incitement of violence toward "non-believers"? What are you saying here: That pictures of yard signs endorsing republicans are inciting balance?