e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fharvard-study-claims-right-blogs-more-elitist-than-counterparts-on-left%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

Right wing blogs are no better than mass media elites because they fail to provide space for, or promote access to, user-generated content, claims a recently released Harvard study. The work of a trio of researchers, the study—the most detailed to date regarding political blogs—correlated data collected from the top 155 political blogs and concluded that left blogs tended to provide more avenues for non-core contributors to have their voices heard, as well as more egalitarian ways of promoting secondary content to readers.

Until now, most academics found that no significant differences existed across the digital DMZ in the battle of ideas, that the roles left and right blogs perform in our democracy are similar even if their viewpoints are not. The Harvard group, from the onset, set out to shake the ground under those assumptions.

The report published last month by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University contains the quantitative results of a careful and innovative analysis of the top 155 political blogs conducted over a two-week period in August 2008. While previous research in this area has focused on rudimentary link analysis (How many links to others sites are made from a blog? Do links cross partisan lines?) this most recent study gathered a more detailed set of data in order to provide a foundation for discussing what effect, if any, the political blogosphere is having on democracy in practice.

The Harvard group aimed to address attributes of blogs they deemed most important in a thriving democracy: “who is enabled to speak, who can be heard, and to what ends.” These questions are important as we begin to continue to evolve our understanding of Nicholas Negroponte’s vision that automated access to all information would coalesce in what he called the “Daily Me.” Increasingly, our reality is that blogs and other media compete for the right to define the Daily Us and the Daily Them in ways that can have enduring political effect.

With those grand issues present, the researchers evaluated each site not as an entity, but as an organic society in miniature. Characteristics such as the number of primary authors, the accessibility to secondary content, the pathways available for non-core users to contribute to a dialogue, and the style of primary content were cataloged and correlated with the blog’s ideological perspective. Using this new approach, the scholars isolated disparities between left and right blogs.

First, a larger percentage of right blogs were authored by a solo writer. The data also indicated that methods for users to participate beyond submitting comments to posts (for example, user diaries, bulletin boards, or forums) were absent from an almost equal percentage of right and left blogs, 87 percent of blogs on the right were found to use simple publishing platforms (think Blogger, or stripped-down WordPress) compared to only 57 percent of left blogs. The Harvard team appear to have extrapolated from this a conclusion that enhanced platforms were a technological means indicating equalized access to content from both core and non-core users. Their conclusion, if it can be called one, was made without benefit of any supportive data. Gathering that additional level of information might be the basis for further study but would rely on greater participation by blog administrators, a factor that would potentially poison any data gathered.

The new method constructed by the Harvard group produced a more detailed set of statistical data than prior efforts to quantify blogosphere activity and should therefore be regarded as a huge step forward in the study of how blogs are affecting American political communications. How the team used their data to support a cascading set of successively weaker conclusions, however, suggests that using only quantitative analysis may not be a useful in evaluating political communications in any meaningful sociological or political context.

For example, cited frequently in the report as a shining example of democratic participation is the left’s megablog DailyKos.com, which, despite its status as the high diving platform into the shallow end of the left-wing pool, has to be recognized for its monumental success in attracting users and promoting a form of political discourse. Nevertheless, applying the logic in the report’s conclusions, a site like DailyKos, because it gives almost equal status to both primary and secondary content and offers a variety of ways for user to generate content and for users to access same, has greater value as a participatory engine in the free marketplace of ideas than an information fountain like Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit. In this way, the Harvard study comes to some shaky secondary conclusions because it cannot evaluate the quality of the content.

By stretching the argument contained in the study’s conclusions to the extreme, by off-loading a bus of mental patients at the Capitol and giving them the right to engage in floor debate we would have a richer and more valuable dialogue for our democratic society. Although some might cynically argue that the great lunatic surge on Congress has either a) already occurred or b) that the net effect would, in fact, be positive, to most the illogic of thinking that giving all voices equal weight produces a better democracy is self-evident.

The New York Times isn’t going to give Paul Krugman’s inches to a truck driver from Skokie, Illinois. Nor will the Washington Post invite a fry cook to sit in for Charles Krauthammer. That isn’t elitism, it’s common sense, and this principle of providing top-notch, well-written, informed and informative commentary and analysis should be an editorial value of all blogs. Most of the user diaries at right-side sites such as TownHall tend to fall into the same bucket as DailyKos’—heavy on talking points, sloganeering, and personal opinion; light on facts, analysis, and writing ability. The difference is that TownHall makes a clear distinction between content it is willing to stand beside and that which readers should ingest with a spirit of caveat lector, or reader beware.

By adopting corollaries that tend to promote a favorable interpretation of the data as it applies to left blogs, the study has to be viewed as an extremely useful but biased academic exercise. For example, although solo authorship is deemed by the researchers to be a squelching factor on the diversity of conversation, by ignoring the quality of communications it begins by assuming that all posts are equal, a fallacy of which all blog owners are acutely aware. It also ignores the significant disincentives right bloggers have to allow unadulterated and unmoderated posting by users. The sometimes subtle (and often not) implication that speech from the right instigates violent action has been aggressively challenged in public statements from most right-wing bloggers and yet most large sites moderate comments to eliminate speech that crosses the line protected by the First Amendment. The left has never truly been scrutinized regarding its own sins in this area, which could account for the appearance that a lush egalitarian meadow of dialectic freedom flourishes on the left hemisphere of the political blog world.

Why is this study important? Only for the reason that when legislators and bureaucrats want to take action they typically do so by grabbing an ivy-draped academic study that justifies the action they wish to take. In so much as this report could be used to rationalize a form of fairness doctrine regulations upon publishers of online political content in a near future when all such content could fall under the regulatory auspices of the Federal Communications Commission, keeping an eye on what’s happening within our institutions of higher learning is worthwhile.

###

Find other articles on this topic:

• Huffington Post | New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online
• The Progressive Pulse | The Progressive Pulse – Harvard study: Left blogs more “participatory”
• techPresident | New Study: Left More Likely to Make Blogging a Group Affair
• The Nation | The Sociology of Political Blogs: An Interview with Yochai Benkler
• Crooked Timber | A fresh look at the left and right political blogospheres

###

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fevangelical-explorers-claim-discovery-of-noahs-ark-remains%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

Via our friends at Orbusmax.com, comes a story that is still light on details but high on intrigue.

Hong Kong correspondents of Agence France Presse reported Tuesday that a Chinese-Turkish expedition to Turkey’s Mount Ararat claims to have found the legendary ark that biblical stories claim carried a man, his family, and two of every animal to safety when God sent a flood to destroy mankind because it had become corrupted by sin and depravity.

The group of evangelical explorers claim the remains of what they believe is Noah’s ark are located above the 12,000-foot mark on the Turkish mountain, and they have released a number of photographs depicting the interior of a wooden structure. If the structure does exist at that high altitude and can be authenticated as the result of ancient construction it almost certainly rules out the possibility that it is the remains of a primitive human settlement. From the AFP article:

The team said it had recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.

…

The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, which were believed to house animals, he said.

The team has cited a need to maintain secrecy about the site as their reason for not releasing additional footage from their trek, including exterior photos from the area that could be used to pinpoint the location of the find. The Chinese-Turkish group plans asked the government in Ankara – Mount Ararat sits within the border of modern-day Turkey – to request World Heritage Site status from the United Nations so that the area can be protected during a future dig.

Many expeditions over the centuries have been launched to locate the fabled landbound vessel. I can still remember, as a child, listening to the stoic narration of Leonard Nimoy on an episode of the sensationalistic 1970s In Search Of television show as he chronicled the search for Noah’s ark. Nimoy’s script was chockfull of omissions and half-truths and did not expose a number of hoaxes for what they were, but some of the tales from visitors to Mount Ararat have resisted debunking.

Therefore, although the team of evangelical archaeologists state with “99.9 percent” certainty that they have found the fabled ark of Noah, doubting their claims is wise until they can produce additional details and have their find scientifically examined and assessed. Because the exploration team included a documentary filmmaker, demands for visual evidence of the group’s claims should be easily fulfilled. If not, or if a profit motive begins to take shape, we can throw this one in the bin with Geraldo’s opening of Al Capone’s “vault” and Fox Television’s alien autopsy video.

Although many Americans may consider any discussion of an ark on Mount Ararat to be a Christian fantasy, the story of a massive flood is not exclusive to Judeo-Christianity. The telling of stories in which a massive deluge destroys humanity save for a small chosen group is, aside from myths about the creation of the planet and the universe, the most universal narrative in all of human history. A find of this magnitude would have relevance in nearly every culture and civilization on the planet and to all major religions.

While many may mock the quest for this artifact by equating it to searching for Santa Claus’ workshop at the North Pole, for centuries historians and scholars doubted that the places described by the Greek poet Homer in Iliad and Odyssey were real. When the legendary city of Troy was found (also in Turkey (where do these Turks get off hogging the fun)) and subsequent evidence that other places in Homer’s epics were actual places, Homer’s epics were no longer only read students of literature, but by historians looking for clues.

For now, the accusations of a small team of explorers who have chosen not to release even a single still photograph should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.

Lastly, a note to Steven Spielberg, if he’s reading. If this spurs interest in making Indiana Jones and the Ark of Salvation, please, this time, no aliens.

###

Related Articles:

Daily Mail | ‘Noah’s Ark’ remains discovered on a Turkish mountain, evangelical archaelogists claim

Big Hollywood | Evangelists claim ‘Noah’s Ark’ discovery on Turkish mountain

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fbawdy-cabaret-sign-near-ballpark-angers-fans-but-is-porn-passe-anyway%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County]

Less than one year after KUOW Radio’s Conversation program had me on the air to discuss the controversy over the siting of the DreamGirls strip club within line drive distance of Safeco Field’s home plate entrance, the nude dancing club has already failed to make a good faith effort to adhere to compromise agreements made between the club’s owners and the Mariners’ front office.

Although DreamGirls installed monument-sized video screen above its street side entrance where it displays a rotating selection of images of scantily-clad models, often in sports-themed costumes, the adult-oriented spot agreed to only display text on the sign on kids’ days. The first Mariners Kids’ Day was Sunday, April 18^th, but the sign continued to display the sexually-charged images for all ages to see as they walked from southern parking spots to the ball field.

KIRO Radio’s Brian Shapiro reported on some of the public reaction:

Middle School teacher Christine Amend said she was "disgusted" by what she saw on the massive video signs when she went to the ballpark on Sunday with her sister on a Mariners’ advertised kids’ day.

"There are parents there with the strollers and they’re going ‘oh my God I can’t believe this is up.’ It’s kind of gross and just low class to be right outside of Safeco Field."

A photograph of the sign on the kids’ day can be seen in the article on MyNorthwest.com, linked above. DreamGirls defended their failure to honor the agreement by laying the blame at the Mariners’ cleats on the grounds that they had not been properly notified.

Pete Buck, the attorney who represents DreamGirls, says its [sic] not the club’s responsibility, "the agreement, not surprisingly, puts the burden on the Mariners to let the (Dream Girls) club know that there’s going to be a kids’ day."

Buck says the Mariners never informed the club that last Sunday was a kids’ day.

Of course, this all ignores the idea that every day at Safeco Field – a monument to the important values of hard work, perseverance, and teamwork – should be kids’ day. It also ignores the fact that Little Leagues organize outings to games on non-kids’ days, as do boys and girls clubs, school groups, church groups, etc. There used to be a crime on the books called contributing to the delinquency of a minor that was broadly applied to protect children from prurient interests. C’est passé, I suppose.

The cabaret’s position also presupposes that publishing a schedule available on the Seattle Mariners website and in wallet-sized print does not constitute notification. There should be a reasonable expectation that as a party to the agreement DreamGirls must take some responsibility to perform. Lord knows they’re committed to all manner of performance inside the walls of the club.

Even though an “I told you so” paces in my mind’s on-deck circle, despite the appearance that DreamGirls has won out over family-friendly activities such as baseball the glitzy and strategically-placed fleshpot may be the last toehold of a shrinking live adult entertainment industry in Seattle.

Rumors spin like dancers on the proverbial pole that the infamous Colacurcios and their business partners will take a plea deal to shut down their four area strip clubs in exchange for reducing or avoiding jail time in the racketeering case against their organization. Downtown Seattle’s Lusty Lady gained widespread attention in recent weeks after the announcement that the well-known peep show – known best for a streetside marquee that featured admittedly witty sexed-up puns – has made plans to close by the summer.

Listening to last week’s requiem for the Lusty Lady on National Public Radio’s eclectic All Things Considered program, one might have assumed that the First Avenue club held a cherished spot in the cultural fabric of the Emerald City. Yet, the Lusty Lady was not done in by pressure from advocacy groups, nor was their life as a business made more difficult because of any bad relationship with City Hall. It was not saved by the community the NPR programmers may want us to believe esteem its place in Seattle; business fail because they don’t generate enough income to sustain themselves.

Therefore, is the Colacurcio’s deal to escape lock-up not so much a punishment as an easy way to shed a business that may not be the cash cow it once was? Vice enterprises are almost universally privately-held companies, so there are no publicly available stockholder’s reports to go to for evidence. Looking for the presence of a black hole that may be siphoning the greed imperative out of the porn industry relies on clues when facts are unavailable.

The larger question to consider is whether the retirement of nefarious smut merchants or witty punsters on First Avenue in Seattle represents a shift in local attitudes about the place of sex in society. Is the decline of the porn industry a reflection of the economy in general, or is it a sign of a larger shift in American values?

A slew of media reports have been produced during this economic recession on the financial woes of the porn industry. Almost universally the analysis concludes that a variety of factors are depressing porn profits. Articles by the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Beast, and a CNBC cable television special blamed the poor performance of porn on the accessibility of no-cost pirated content and the poor economy in general. Missing from the analysis was any investigation of whether society may have begun to push back against a 30-year campaign to mainstream pornography into the culture and hedonize our attitudes about sexuality.

It is worth pondering whether at a time when Americans are dealing with financial anxieties that connect with basic needs of food and shelter an impulse to protect family structures might also kick in. The evidence of pornography as a corrosive element in society is abundant and the disincentives for infidelity – even the sort of virtual infidelity that former president Jimmy Carter confessed to/excused as committing “adultery in [his] heart” – may have begun moving society to find the point of diminishing returns on the cost/benefit curve for porn use.

For now, those wishing to eschew looking at the sign – on kids’ day or any other – should avoid walking up First Avenue S. and use Occidental Avenue to the east when parking south of the ballpark. The vendors who use to benefit from the walk-by traffic on First will just have to take up the issue of their losses with DreamGirls and Mayor McGinn.

###

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Finitial-poll-on-i-1077-state-income-tax-measure-misleads-voters%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County.]

Janus-Vatican

With a scrutinizing eye, I peeked at the results of the recent King 5/SurveyUSA poll that purports to find 66 percent support for the I-1077 state income tax initiative. After reading the question, I will concur that respondents did register support for an initiative, but in a police line-up I don’t think anyone could be able to positively identify the proposal defined in the survey’s question with I-1077.

The question asked by SurveyUSA callers was: “A proposed initiative would create an income tax in Washington state on people making $200,000 per year and couples making twice that. It would also cut the state’s portion of the property tax by 20 percent, and end the business and occupation tax on small businesses. Do you support? Or do you oppose? This proposed initiative?”

The first clause is factual; I-1077 really does initially impose an income tax on high earners (aka, “productive people”). Once the question saunters into cutting property taxes it begins to unleash from baseline facts and wander into opinion-shaping in a slow metamorphosis into something more like a push poll.

Assuming that an average person even receives pollster’s calls anymore, the process of listening is not, for most people, a precise one. The words “cut,” “20 percent,” and “property taxes” connect with the cortex and crowd out qualifying phrases such as “state’s portion.” As the Evergreen Freedom Foundation Liberty Live blog wrote, beyond the rhetorical skullduggery the property tax cut is less appealing once it has been merged with real numbers.

The property tax reduction isn’t nearly as posh as it sounds. It represents a mere four percent reduction for the average taxpayer. This is because the state portion of the property tax makes up only 21 percent of a taxpayer’s total property tax bill on average. 20 percent of 20 percent is four percent.

Using the statewide average of $1.98 per $1,000 in assessed for the state portion of property taxes, the 20 percent cut would amount to 39.6 cents per $1,000. We could even let the pro-I-1077 lobby round up to 40 cents, in the interest of fairness.

The last portion of the SurveyUSA question dealing with the business and occupation tax on small businesses is flatly misleading. The tax doesn’t go away; the initiative simply gives all businesses a $4,800 credit to use against their tax liability to the state. Even the claim that the effect would be tax amnesty for small businesses needs to be studied further, but the poll question could lead many voters to assume that small businesses are being exempted and this is simply not the case.

Most service businesses fall under a tax rate of 1.5% per dollar of gross receipts. Doing the math, the $4,800 credit only provides “tax-free” status to businesses of that sort generating $320,000 or less in annual gross receipts. Of course, those figures won’t apply to businesses taxed at a higher rate, or to businesses that already use credits to offset B&O taxes, but it’s a useful baseline that shatters to whole façade of “fairness” I-1077’s supporters are attempting to sell to Washington voters.

In conclusion, a more accurate phrasing of the poll’s question should have been:

A proposed initiative would create an income tax in Washington state on people making $200,000 per year and couples making twice that. It would also cut annual property taxes by an average of 40 cents per $1,000 in assessed value, and businesses will receive a tax credit of $4,800 to offset business and operating taxes. Do you support or do you oppose this proposed initiative?

A follow-up question might ask respondents whether they feel comfortable making other people pay the taxes to support the government services and facilities they enjoy use of. Do you feel comfortable, really comfortable, or downright revolutionary about the idea? Maybe that’s snarky, but truth is truth no matter how it’s packaged.

Another question about polling being conducted recently may be that it cannot accurately predict changes in how party voter turnout on Election Day.

###

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fis-it-time-to-call-it-panthergate%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

Hearing Scheduled for Friday Morning Regarding Dismissal of Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is scheduled to convene its hearing at Friday (9:30 a.m. Eastern) on the matter of the Department of Justice’s dismissal last year of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members. The order to drop the charges came after prosecuting attorneys had drafted a motion of default judgment to secure a conviction.

A pattern of meetings between White House officials and key political attorneys leading up the actual decision to spike the case and a code of secrecy within Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department concerning any details has left a trail of questions. Rigid stonewalling by Department officials has been successful in quarantining all information, leading some to believe that the Obama administration may have a toxic issue they are working very hard to hide.

The Civil Rights Commission hearings come after months of unfulfilled requests to gain access to case documents and Justice Department attorneys and staff who worked on the prosecution of an alleged polling place incident in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008 in which the defendants were accused of having used racial slurs and brandished a weapon, purportedly to harass and scare off targeted voters.

Despite being aware of the charges and having legal representation, the defendants elected not to respond or appear at court proceedings and yet, after a flurry of meetings involving Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli and White House officials – some as-yet unnamed – the command was given to raise the white flag when a conviction had all but been won.

Videotape from the scene clearly shows the two Black Panthers standing at the entrance to a voting location, each dressed in paramilitary garb and combat boots. One of the men carries a nightstick in full view.

In a sworn affidavit, Bartle Bull, an eyewitness at the polling place and a notable civil rights lawyer who campaigned for Bobby Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, declared that aggressive language was used by the New Black Panthers including racially-charged incitations such as “cracker.” Bull also gave his account to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly in a televised interview. The videotaped evidence of one citizen journalist’s encounter with the Philadelphia Panthers is part of the Bull interview segment:

Among other eyewitnesses, Bull is slated to appear at the Commission hearing, as are U.S Congressman Wolf, who has been active in the House in urging for full transparency about the case, and Acting Associate Attorney General Gregory Katsas.

At issue for the Civil Rights Commission is whether the decision by political appointees in the Justice Department to drop three of four criminal charges against the men and the NBPP (the fourth was pled out with minimal impact to the defendant), at a time when career attorneys handling the case were poised to deliver a motion for default judgment, was politically motivated. Because the case was filed not only against the individual defendants who were present at the scene, but against the national New Black Panther Party, Commissioners have also been interested to learn if prosecutors found evidence of similar incidents.

Still unknown is the identity of an unnamed White House official with whom Perrelli met on two occasions just prior to the decision to spike the case was made and handed down to the prosecuting team.

We know from forty years of grading Presidential scandals that it is not the deed that does in the chief executive, it is the cover-up. We can only hope that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have sent their representative to the Commission to supply what the American public deserves — the unvarnished truth.

###

Previous Articles

• The Obama Administration and The Black Panthers: Postcards From Post-Racial America
• Sources: Black Panther voter intimidation case hearing rescheduled

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fi-1077-assisted-economic-suicide%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County.]

449px-Millais_-_Ophelia_(detail)

Initiative 1077 is the poisoned blade du jour, and its intent and full negative effect will both be hidden by supporters in their attempt to give the hand of government a new right-of-way into your wallet.

The I-1077 campaign is being fronted by retired Seattle attorney and father to the second-most wealthy man in the world, William H. Gates, Sr. The measure is being advertised in typical populist terms — a swap to exchange taxes paid by the middle class for a new tax on the wealthy. The appeal echoes the key notes in Oregon’s successful ballot measure from earlier this year to raise income tax rates on the highest income bracket, demonstrating that the initiative’s sponsor, Lonnie Lopez, at least knows how to imitate a winning formula.

Lopez, self-described on his MySpace profile as “a 34 yo guy who lives in Capitol Hill in Seattle” and “a socialist and literary theorist and critic,” filed the initiative in March. His claims of being a literary critic are technically true, and the reader review posted on Amazon.com for Ahmed Shakwi’s “Black Liberation and Socialism” provide good evidence that his self-identification as a socialist isn’t just a whim either.

Lopez, who reviews on Amazon.com under the username “The Red Reader” wrote, “I just finished this book and it is amazing. In the wake of the ruling class’s racist response to the survivors of hurricane Katrina, this book is an essential tool for not only understanding how capitalism and racism are intimately linked, but provides clear ways to end both.”

Whether I-1077 is an insidious way of killing capitalism and the racism Lopez perceives to be toxic and fused is unclear, but if those aims are the end goal it is unlikely that they will be front and center as its supporters work hard to beat the signature-gathering deadline of July 2. Outside of the grocery stores and ballparks, signature gatherers will likely steer toward the “candy” in the initiative, the proposed law’s lowering of property taxes and business and operating taxes for small businesses.

Although the union’s army of petition hawkers may take a fall back on selling I-1077 to voters as a swap, trading in some of the taxes middle class property owner’s pay for a tariff on the money those filthy rich folk pay, the truth is that it isn’t a swap, and the middle class will not be getting much of a break. The glitzy packaging touts a 20 percent property tax cut, but fine print is important, as an attorney with Gates, Sr.’s standing will surely attest. The cut is made to only the state portion of property tax demands which generally make up 10 to 15 percent of the total assessment, meaning that in real terms that net reduction to the average homeowner is closer to three or four percent of their total property tax bill. Maybe burdening the state economy with sales taxes, business excise taxes, and income taxes still sounds like a good idea even knowing that, but voters should be aware of the facts before putting their signature on the petition forms.

Perhaps more important are the possible outcomes from creating negative incentives for high income earners in our state economy. Of the rock and hard place California finds itself between, the hard place is almost certainly its punishing income tax. The state is not only hemorrhaging revenues, it is shedding residents who are fleeing to less burdensome states. It has been suggested that California’s loss of population will result in the state losing at least one representative to the Congress after the 2010 Census is tabulated. The economic effect is that previous projections for revenues in the state continue to fall precariously short, exacerbating budget gaps. The governor of Idaho has already put out the welcome mat for Washington residents and business to come on over. The lakes are clear, the mountains high, and the taxes low. Meanwhile, I-1077 will make it harder for Washingtonians to stay in Washington.

Nevertheless, when confronted by difficult facts, supporters will speak persuasively on the subject of fairness, of shifting the tax burden onto those who have gained the most from the system for which our taxes pay. Put aside for a moment the notion that any of us want to be absolved of making our own investment in society, for many of the opponents of this measure consider taxes a responsibility worth fulfilling and quarrel mainly with the amount taken and the irresponsible manner with which the takings are spent. Before we even begin to discuss the abstract concept of “fairness” in our tax policies, we need to approach the issue of trust.

Without trust there can be no guarantee of fairness. If I play chess with a partner who moves the pieces around when I’m not looking, I can’t expect fairness to be an outcome of the game. So, when I-1077 supporters claim that the definition of what high income is cannot be altered without going to a vote of the people, remember the Murder on the Olympia Express that was committed by Democrats in the State Legislature to get rid of the pesky impediment of having to have voters approve tax hikes that were embodied in Initiative 960.

When I-1077 supporters make the case that any similar move by legislators to reset the income thresholds and ensnare more Washington workers in the government net would be met by fierce opposition, remind them that fierce public opposition to the Legislature’s actions earlier this year and it didn’t stop them then. We should have no illusions that it will stop them in the future, and electing Republicans has not been an inoculation against fiscal mismanagement and top-down thinking in Olympia.

The only way to ensure that the government doesn’t eventually come to our door demanding more of what we earn is to lock the front-gate, metaphorically. Reject measures like I-1077 before they reach the ballot to send a clear message to Olympia that you’re paying attention and make sure to continue that message when casting your ballot in November of this year.

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fdscc-attack-campaign-on-rossi-nets-new-victims-sen-murray-still-silent%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County.]

murray%20patty%202

In the absence of any intraparty challenger to her bid for re-election, the hit squad at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been engaging in an intimidation campaign not against any of the declared Republican candidates in the race but against highly-popular former GOP candidate for governor, Dino Rossi.

Important point of fact: Rossi has publicly affirmed that he is not a candidate in the race to unseat Sen. Murray. Yet his decision thus far to remain a private citizen and entrepreneur has not deterred the Democratic political machine from engaging in a drive-by campaign to smear his reputation.

Most readers are already aware of the DSCC’s fake Dirty Deals Dino website, a poorly researched and hastily assembled collection of half-truths and misrepresentations such as the allegation that Rossi is a “close business associate” of alleged real estate swindler Mike Mastro. Although persons close to the U.S Attorney’s investigation of Mastro, and who have no allegiance to Rossi, have declared that no evidence exists to back up the malicious claim, the charge still remains in bold type for all to see.

This week a new two-pronged campaign emerged to smear the Washington Policy Center, a nonpartisan policy group, and fuse Rossi to what the DSCC hope will be a radioactive organization when they are through. The DSCC’s unilateral designation of the whole of society as a political free-fire zone has begun to raise eyebrows.

Sen. Murray has yet to own or disavow the vicious nature of her party’s maneuvers, perhaps to preserve the theoretical defense of plausible deniability. Any politician would expeditiously choose to sustain an image of being out-of-touch and on the leash of the political machine before being seen as vicious and Machiavellian as the DSCC’s smear campaign make Sen. Murray appear. But even political neophytes know that because Sen. Murray knows that she holds the kill switch on party-level campaign ops in her state and these activities continue, it is reasonable to hold her accountable.

Sen. Murray’s silence on the issue could be self-defensive in nature. Her own associations with convicted felon Jack Abramoff are well-documented in sharp contrast to the ancillary connections Rossi has to the shady characters the DSCC has tried to put him in bed with.

Despite being void of any newsworthy attributes, Glenn Thrush at Politico and the National Journal online quickly picked up the raw meat tossed out by the DSCC about the WPC’s recommendations for Washington State’s economic policies and Rossi’s support for the group’s work. Thrush, in particular, on April 15 wrote under the poorly-written and misleading headline “Rossi-backed group would cut unemployment benefits,” characterized the WPC as an “anti-tax group advocated slashing unemployment benefits — and suggested scrapping paid family leave programs to save money.”

In fact, the WPC is an organization that has received a lot of support from politicians and government leaders on both sides of the aisle. To my knowledge the group has never advocated that there shouldl be no taxes and my research into their policy recommendation about eliminating a proposed paid family leave entitlement was due to the fact that the costs had not been funded by the state. Under a controlling Democratic majority in the State Legislature, the plan was mothballed, signalling to me that the WPC’s position wasn’t extreme or partisan, just rational. That’s hardly something to be ashamed of, and perhaps should give Rossi reason to hug the WPC like a long-lost sibling instead of running for the hills like the DSCC desires.

Sadly, the current Democratic distortion strategy is one that has produced results. Current King County Executive Dow Constantine’s 2008 campaign was marginally effective in its attempt to redefine nonpartisan research groups like the WPC and the ideologically-eccentric Discovery Institute as married to conservative interests. Before those misleading claims could be countered, Constantine operatives and left-wing blogs and media were busily fusing his opponent, Susan Hutchison, to them with McCarthyesque vigor.

In the current climate of growing disinterest in tax-and-spend answers to economic problems that plague the people of Washington state, it is possible this tack will backfire on Sen. Murray. As her approval numbers fall in poll after poll, Rossi’s standing as a potential candidate climbs possibly due to buyer’s remorse for those who voted for Washington Governor Christine Gregoire in the 2008 race. Gov. Gregoire’s broken promises on taxes and her ineffectiveness in dealing with spending-crazed Democrats controlling the state Legislature have driven her approval among voters to record lows.

Note: The DSCC has also been conducting keyword searches for “washington policy candidate endorsements” perhaps in a misguided attempt to paint the nonpartisan research and education organization as (gasp) a laboratory for the conservative policy agenda. Although high-school level skills in research would have shown the DSCC that the WPC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and thus required to refrain from endorsing candidates or lobbying on particular issues, their search for dirt gives every reason to believe their window-breaking campaign will continue.

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fthe-spin-on-goodwin-liu-is-dizzying-in-its-irrationality%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County.]

Roulette_-_detail

Since the Obama administration tapped Liu to fill the open seat on the outlier appellate court, the choice has been controversial. Even before diving into his views on the role of the judiciary, Liu’s applied work with constitutional law is simply non-existent. Proceeding further than the basic elements of his biography and resume has been a process made more difficult by the nominee’s failure to provide complete records of his writings, appearances, and other notable events relating to his work as an attorney or legal scholar.

The ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), issued a tersely-worded statement last week affirming that Republican members would continue to press on Sen. Leahy for time to ingest the stack of new material citing his impressions from a quick skim of the contents as sufficient cause. Sen. Leahy offered an equally brusque rebuke, asserting that there would be no postponement in essence rewarding either ineptness or cleverness by Liu while also punishing the American public by reducing the transparency of the confirmation process.

Sen. Sessions wrote that Liu’s omissions were "particularly severe because many of them shed greater light on Liu’s most controversial and troubling views—such as his support for racial quotas and his belief that government welfare is a constitutional right."

Within the totality of the materials Liu has provided, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans have found that the nominee has expressed views to support the right of citizens to receive welfare and government assistance, arguing for an even broader interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment than has been established in current case law. The documents also reveal the reiteration of positive and negative liberties that became a stumbling point for President Obama during the presidential campaign.

“[C]ontrary to the conventional wisdom that ‘the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties,’ the social citizenship tradition assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty.”

Republicans have also caught Liu offering a rationale for using foreign law as a basis for interpreting the Constitution. In Liu’s words:

“[T]he use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited foreign authority in cases limiting the death penalty and invalidating criminal laws against homosexual sodomy, among others. The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.”

Ed Whelan of the National Review online’s Bench Memos blog has written meticulously about the substance in the ever-increasing stack of paper on Liu. Whelan’s perspective as a former Department of Justice staffer and Harvard Law grad to deconstructing the extremely liberal judicial philosophy espoused by Liu, has made him the favorite target of two sycophantic websites spawned to combat his serious and substantive discussion of Liu’s unsuitability for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court.

The response from Liu’s supporters has been weak and sycophantic. In the guise of fact checking, the Support Goodwin Liu and Confirm Goodwin Liu blogs have resorted to throwing sand in the face of Whelan’s legitimate criticism and analysis of Liu’s extreme comments pertaining to case law and constitutional theory. Both blogs borrow heavily from each other, squelch direct rebuttal of their ineffective campaign to debunk Whelan by having a no comment policy, and most recently use the nifty trick of enlisting among Liu’s supporters people who have not actually endorsed the nominee.

Former Republican congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr was featured in a post at SupportGoodwinLiu.com under the bold headline "Barr on Board." The post featured an excerpt from a Barr’s blog at the Atlanta Journal Constitution online where he called for a more reasonable analysis of a piece Liu wrote about the death penalty. Although Support Goodwin Liu clearly meant to imply that Barr had jumped into the pool to back Liu, Barr affirmed by email that he is not taking any position on the Liu nomination and was only attempting to keep the debate “principled and honest ” and “without distortions.”

What are the stakes of Liu’s confirmation? A campaign is already underway to promote Liu as a future candidate to sit on the Supreme Court, but a short-term objective must certainly bethe incremental drive to advance the Obama agenda. Taken as a whole, President Barack Obama’s domestic and foreign policies are the New Parochialism, a dangerous fusion of big government liberalism at home and a deliberate contraction of American power abroad during a highly unstable period in terms of our national security. Nominating liberal judges to key positions on the courts is a critical piece of the overall strategy.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a unique position of being a mandatory waypoint for judicial appointees en route to lifetime seats on our highest courts; it is the natural strategic target of those who seek to realign the behavior of government with a set of values unlike those most Americans have taken for granted.

In that sense, the Committee occupies the crucial position on the road President Obama must travel on his crusade to transform America into something more like the European model admired by so many on the left.  A president able to control this valuable political territory defines not only the current political direction of the government, but can alter the overarching rubric for how government behaves in ways that extend far beyond the time when their influence can be directly applied.

The battle Republicans are waging over the Liu nomination is a prelude to the upcoming clash over President Obama’s soon-to-be-named replacement for retiring Supreme Court justice John P. Stevens.

Professor Liu’s nomination hearing is scheduled for Friday, April 16 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings time.

###

[This article first appeared at Red County.]

Related Articles

New York Times | Appeals Court Nominee Sparks a Partisan Battle

Michelle Malkin | Goodwin Liu’s sins of omissions

Hot Air | Liu nomination “in jeopardy” after “dozens” of omissions from questionnaire

Ace of Spades | Goodwin Liu "Forgets" To Include His Most Controversial Work on Senate Questionaire

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fnew-threats-of-disinformation-and-disruption-from-tea-party-crashers%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

Success breeds contempt, and the Tea Party movement now has its pockets full of both. In that the Tea Parties appear to be a response to an overreaching federal government, it was certainly predictable that their sudden influence on the body politic would be challenged with an equal or greater intensity by the forces seeking an expansion of big government authority. Heeding the clarion call emanating from the organized Left for demonizing, dishonesty, and disinformation about the Tea Party, a deliberate and desperate attempt to disperse the citizen-led grassroots movement, all of the minions of chaos have obediently begun to converge.

Last week, I reported about one anarchist website firing up its organizing machine to stage counterdemonstrations during the Tea Party’s April 15^th rallies. My region of the country is well acquainted with the anarchists work, having witnessed the embarrassing display of lawlessness and destruction they unleashed on the beautiful Emerald City of Seattle during the World Trade Organization ministerial conference in 1999.

Now, joining the anarchists in the effort to derail a diverse and legitimate Tea Party movement is a timid little group, “Crash the Tea Party.” The group claims to represent a phantom majority that has yet to show up in public opinion polls, and may have ancillary ties to the notorious pan-Northwest conclave of anarchists in Oregon and Washington state.

What is the goal of “Crash the Tea Party?” It’s front and center on the relatively Spartan home page of their website. Aside from a donation button, their misleading manifesto of misinformation is there for all to see:

WHO WE ARE: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement that calls itself “The Tea Party.”

WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.

HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in the meetings and observed their rallies.

Whenever possible we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.

“Nationwide network?” Really? As of this post, the site had generated a membership of 32. Far from being a national association of wannabe radicals, that’s not even enough leeching undergrads to make an undersized flash mob.

Of course, the very premise of the current smear strategy against the Tea Party is an example of why we should reinstitute logic course requirements in our high school curriculums. If Tea Parties are so outrageously extreme, exhibiting hatred toward so many different groups, why would it even be necessary to spoof that behavior? When I want to take a picture of a gorilla, I can reliably find one at the zoo, I don’t have to send a stooge in with a furry suit to jump in the enclosure. If Tea Parties are akin to Klan rallies or meetings of the John Birch Society then there’s no need for the elaborate frame-up, just bring a video camera and let it roll. But even subpar agent provocateurs such as these are artists of deception, not exaggeration; they manufacture negative impressions that would not otherwise be made if it were not for their presence.

These merchants of confusion were also present during the early days of the Tea Parties, when the Northwest’s own Liberty Belle – who many believe to be the originator of Tea Party sentiment – began organizing rallies at Seattle’s Westlake Square to protest the failed stimulus spending package. In most cases their bark was worse than their bite. After talking tough for days on their personal blogs in preparation for last year’s April 15^th rallies, they implemented their ingenious infiltration strategy. From my position at the edge of the crowd I witnessed a trio of would-be sleeper agents milling about timidly.

One of the two males among them carried a sign covered with a black garbage sack, and after the three of them had traded whispered remarks and snide gestures for an embarrassing period of time, he pulled off the bag. Although my memory is too foggy to recall what the sign said, only that it fell into the category of extreme right-wing hate. He waded into the crowd, holding his handmade propaganda tool high above the heads of the audience around him.

What is crystal clear from my recollection was the response by the crowd. There was no pushing, shoving, yelling, or tearing apart of the agitator or his signage, and yet the Tea Partiers around him were acutely aware of the intent of this young man and how to deal with it effectively. Slowly, the men near him who also had signs closed in around him. Without even overtly acknowledging the stray element in their midst, the group positioned their own signs to shield the offensive placard from view, sealing him off from the rest of the crowd as antibodies might circle the source of bodily infection.

Of course, “Crash the Tea Party,” and its creator who goes by the handle “MadHatter” and whose avatar if the Guy Fawkes mask popularized by the celluloid epic of violent anarchy, V for Vendetta, are a nuisance just like the meek example I cited. Their Romper Room-variety chaos is just the kind of situation real domestic terrorists seek, an environment teeming with confrontation that provides a useful veil of confusion in which evildoers can operate.

###

Related articles:

Michelle Malkin | Crash course: Your illustrated guide to the Tea Party saboteurs

Hot Air | Too dumb to check: Lefties publicly advertising plans to frame tea partiers as racist

e.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fcontroversial-ninth-circuit-nominee-goodwin-liu-makes-fourth-revision-to-questionnaire%2F&source=bryanmyrick&style=compact&service=bit.ly

[Article first appeared at Red County.]

In a twist of fate tailored for headline writers at the New York Post, nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, has once again been caught trying to sneak his homework into the teacher’s grading stack well beyond the due date.

On Monday, Liu delivered another supplement to his initial questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The delivery marks the fourth such amendment since the first installment on February 24. The newly submitted pages include 117 items missing from his third revision that was delivered on March 20, well after legitimate concerns about Liu’s qualifications and ideology had begun to spark debate about the Liu nomination by bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum.

In Liu’s cover letter to Monday’s document dump, the current darling of the Left offered his "sincere and humblest apology" to the Committee for his earlier omissions. He also submitted a detailed set of reasons for not having included such a large number of pertinent items in the first place. Liu did not, however, extend to the Committee any offer to postpone the hearing currently scheduled for April 16 in order to give them time to review the substantial docket of new information.

(The entire collection of Liu’s nomination materials can be viewed here. The cover letter begins on page 84, and a list of new materials begins on page 112.)

Among a litany of excuses for his lapses, Liu wrote, "I did not think to include various occasions when I spoke at informal seminars, brown bag lunches, or student or alumni gatherings on campus or elsewhere because I viewed those occasions as part of my day-to-day work as a faculty member, akin to teaching class or meeting with students. I now understand that those should have been included as well."

That explanation plus a sappy-eyed little puppy on a greeting card might get Liu out of a kindergarten teacher’s dog house, but it didn’t pass muster with ranking Republican on the Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Along with other Republicans on the Committee, Sessions sent a sternly worded letter to committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on Tuesday.

"At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence,” they wrote. “[A]t worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee."

"These are not minor omissions," they wrote. "[Liu’s] participation in and comments during each [event] are crucial to this Committee’s review of his nomination."

Leahy responded to the Republicans’ concerns by stating that he saw “no reason to further delay [Liu’s] opportunity to appear before the Committee.”

On Wednesday, Sessions continued to press on Leahy for a postponement of next week’s hearing. Sessions stated in an official release, “Given the alarming nature of Liu’s writings and speeches, and the fact that he withheld them from our Committee, it is critical that we have sufficient time to study the newly uncovered material and determine what else may be missing.”

In the honeymooning bliss of the Obama administration’s early days, incompetence of this variety was carelessly swallowed with a grain of salt; a freshman White House team frequently gets graded on a pass/fail basis against a very shallow curve when it comes to getting the feel for the bureaucratic machine under their control. Now that the champagne-soaked halcyon first 100 days have given way to a 300-plus day hangover, the even Democratic apologists need to consider abandoning support for the Liu nomination.

A network of blogs including Red County (here, here, and here) have vigorously pursued Liu’s background since his nomination was quietly offered by the White House earlier this year. Although endorsements from traditional media — the Los Angeles Times has been a particularly proud bell-ringer for Liu — and groups advocating liberal judicial principles continue to patch holes in Liu’s foundering boat, the bilge is filling faster than it can be pumped.

Evidence of Liu’s support for racial reparations (even if only in concept), his extremely flexible standard for interpreting the Constitution, and his support for using social justice – not the written law – as a basis for passing judgment have been positively documented, and should be reason enough to put the Liu nomination in the shredder. Even reasonable Democrats averse to waded into troubling ideological waters should have little trouble explaining a vote to reject a candidate who, by his own account, has never written a judicial opinion, and whose practical experience as an attorney was brief by standards previously set for appointments to the top appellate court bench. As details of Liu’s speaking engagements and panel participation continue bubbling to the surface, his curriculum vitae as a left-wing legal ideologue expands, but his nuts and bolts skill set for being a judge remains static and unsatisfactory.

The reaction of Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to Liu’s exclusions may be less than charitable due to the emergence of pattern among many of President Obama’s nominees of withholding vital information during the confirmation process. A response has yet to be received from a March 8 request to Second Circuit Court nominee Judge Robert Chatigny for details germane to his nomination. Questions about Attorney General Eric Holder’s serious omissions with regard to legal work done on behalf of terror suspects comprises an implicit allegation of a serious conflict of interest in the chief lawman’s oversight of cases involving terror suspects.

The Committee’s function — to advise and consent — is critically impaired when it is prevented from fully exercising due diligence. Circuit court judges and attorneys general are obviously not low-grade posts, and in many cases preside over decisions in which life and death are potential outcomes. The standard for complete disclosure is one that one would have assumed would not need clarification, particularly for someone who has achieved as much academically as Liu.

###

Related articles

Michelle Malkin ¦ Goodwin Liu’s sins of omissions