Thursday, March 3, 2005

Stupid Letters

Hmmm, the lefty revisionists are already working to erase some of their more embarrassing moments. Too bad the internet has some persistence. From today's Seattle Times:

State Sen. Bob Morton's proposal to divide Washington into two states is a new low in partisan politics ("Some GOP senators want Eastern Washington as a state unto itself," Local News, Feb. 23).

Apparently, Republicans now think they're entitled to whole regions where everyone agrees with them. In his words, "it's common sense" that "people who think alike should be united. " Says who?

The whole point of democracy is the exchange of different viewpoints with the goal of trying to harmonize those viewpoints as much as possible. Implicit within this idea is acceptance of less-than-ideal outcomes from time to time, not the formation of new states.

Morton's claim that his proposal isn't sour grapes is hollow and disingenuous, and yet he's clearly not alone, as Republicans have been making fools of themselves over a lost gubernatorial election for several months now.

They would do well to remember the 2000 presidential "election." I don't recall Democrats suggesting the formation of a new country composed only of blue states that allegedly "think alike. " They dealt with it and moved on, as now Morton and the Washington state Republicans should do.

This writer doesn't like the idea of dividing a state that has two distinctly different ideological leanings. (It is notable that he is from the conservative eastern half of the state, which would likely elect Republicans if it were not tied to Seattle. His views would probably differ if he lived in Seattle or Olympia.) While I actually agree with him, it's not for the same reasons he cites; I have to live with Seattle regardless of whether or not the state would be split. I feel that once a state is established, there is no justification to further subdivide it, or combine it with parts of other states. This means that I dislike the idea of West Virginia, but I don't advocate forcibly returning it to Virginia. (It doesn't apply to the District of Columbia, which is not a state.) I also oppose the proposal to split California into two (or three) new states, although California's 53 electoral votes make a better argument for division than the three or four electoral votes that would come from "East Washington".

He says the Republicans have been making fools of themselves over a "lost" gubernatorial election. The correct word is "stolen", and unlike the moronic bleating over Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, factual evidence exists to support the positioin that the vote was altered by fraud.

He finishes up with some revisionism, selective memory, or severe head-in-the-sand denial, since secession was all the rage amongst lefties, although it was in 2004, not 2000. Remember "Jesusland" and the "United States of Canada"? Here's a link to Matt Yglesias, and here's a link to alleged musician moby, who was all about secession too. Lawrence O'Donnell discussed it on The McLaughlin Group; the Washington Times noted his statements, and those of other Democratic leaders and opinion-shapers. Here's a diary entry from Moonbat HQ, discussing New England secession. But remember, it's only Republicans who advocate secession. At least when the right advocates something, they follow through and try to do it via legislation, rather than by judicial fiat.

And the left has never "moved on", as he asserts; the constant refrain of lefties sniveling about "voter suppression" in Florida has almost suceeding in making perception into truth, as many people buy into the myth that Florida was the locus of massive voter fraud on the part of Republicans, when all evidence points to any fraud that was committed benefitted the Democratic Party.

(Tellingly, a google search on the letter writer's name revealed that he is an assistant professor of Political Science at Eastern Washington University. An academic who hates the right—who would believe that?)

posted at 08:51 PM | permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, February 28, 2005

Fallout from Lebanon

Bill Quick has a post up at Daily Pundit about the fall of the Lebanese government, and what it will mean in the larger scheme of things. (He's quite optimistic.) He also tosses in a link to a site that discusses the collapse of the Warsaw Pact (and the democratization of Eastern Europe) without mentioning Ronald Reagan, without whom it would not have occurred for decades, if ever. Toss in an active comments thread, with several very insightful comments from Steven Den Beste and Lastango, and you have the ingredients for a must-read post. RTWT.

posted at 06:57 PM | permalink | Comments (1)

The incredible shrinking op/eds

In another example of the declining value of the Joint Operating Agreement between the two major papers here in Seattle, in the Sunday paper (produced by the Seattle Times, with sections produced by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) the formerly seperate editorial sections for each paper (with a total of eight pages), have been condensed into a single six-page section, the front from the Times, and the back from the P-I. There was seldom much worth reading in either of the sections, but the smaller format ensures that there is even less of any worth in the Sunday paper. The TV guide is now a 24-page tabloid insert, instead of a handy 8x11 booklet, and it appears that the NEXT forum (for high school and college journalists) has been jettisoned. Both the NEXTopia blog (no posts since January) and the STOP blog (which has turned into the Bruce Ramsey blog, since he's the only one who posts there with any regularity) are underutilized, and it's rumored that the powers that be are looking for further cuts in order to return to profitablility. (The price of both papers in King and Pierce counties was just hiked to 50 cents, as well.) The issue is still in court, with Hearst (which owns the P-I) suing to prevent the dissolution of the JOA, which the Times contends is bleeding it dry.

Here's a series of recent articles in the Times on the subject. I've also blogged on it several times, most recently in this post.

My take on this is that until the JOA is dissolved, we're going to have two sub-par papers. The Times is salvageable, from both a fiscal and an editorial standpoint; the P-I is a millstone that is dragging down its competition. Kill the P-I and let a reinvigorated Times flourish.

posted at 05:08 PM | permalink | Comments (0)