Apr 12
Relling commented on Where Is the Branch Rickey for Gay Athletes?.
No new Branch Rickey will emerge because the payoff doesn't exist. Rickey was first and foremost a talent scout. He was also a cheapskate.
He saw the immense virtue of an untapped reservoir of talent and recognized he could probably tap it cheaply. The social barriers made it harder, but the risk from his standpoint was minimal.
Gay athletes are different. They're already here, just closeted for the most part, and entirely visible in some sports. No ban prevents them from playing, though stigma prevents them from talking. That wasn't the case in 1940s-era baseball. You couldn't be a closeted black man.
Those factors change the dynamic. A Branch Rickey for this era would have no motive other than decency, which would be great, but that's the only payoff. You couldn't point to an ocean of great players waiting to be discovered and turn teams into contenders.
He saw the immense virtue of an untapped reservoir of talent and recognized he could probably tap it cheaply. The social barriers made it harder, but the risk from his standpoint was minimal.
Gay athletes are different. They're already here, just closeted for the most part, and entirely visible in some sports. No ban prevents them from playing, though stigma prevents them from talking. That wasn't the case in 1940s-era baseball. You couldn't be a closeted black man.
Those factors change the dynamic. A Branch Rickey for this era would have no motive other than decency, which would be great, but that's the only payoff. You couldn't point to an ocean of great players waiting to be discovered and turn teams into contenders.
Feb 25
Relling commented on Will You Pay $4 a Week to Read the Seattle Times Website?.
The best part of living in an echo chamber is the music: one mediocre hit covered by 38 artists at the same self-congratulatory pitch.
Here's what the Times gave us lately while the Stranger jerked off:
The Times exposed Rob Holland's serial abuse of public trust and money. The Stranger said nothing. Both publications endorsed Holland. One had the guts to call out the ethical breach.
The Times followed and broadened Publicola's breaker that uncovered a thief pissing away political contributions intended for progressive causes. The Stranger, which theoretically supports progressive causes, said nothing. It's so uncool to embarrass progressive leaders with hard truths.
Here's what the Times gave us lately while the Stranger jerked off:
The Times exposed Rob Holland's serial abuse of public trust and money. The Stranger said nothing. Both publications endorsed Holland. One had the guts to call out the ethical breach.
The Times followed and broadened Publicola's breaker that uncovered a thief pissing away political contributions intended for progressive causes. The Stranger, which theoretically supports progressive causes, said nothing. It's so uncool to embarrass progressive leaders with hard truths.
Jan 23
Relling commented on Debunking the So-Called Bike Backlash.
@31, I think you misread the two posts. I'm not talking about the poll results.
Jan 23
Relling commented on Debunking the So-Called Bike Backlash.
@27 - Fair enough. Where are the examples? Don't generalize. If the slant runs as deep as you suggest, shouldn't they be easier, not harder to find?
The point is that Dominic uses cheap and distorted snips to draw lazy conclusions. You're blaming me for a quick web search, but you excuse Dominic for greater indolence as long as his rhetoric suits your worldview.
My quick search found Times writers debunking the war-on-cars myth. I see no evidence that Dominic even tried that hard. Just the opposite. He characterizes one writer's column as the work of "writers," while conveniently leaving out the context of the discussion (overall budget issues) and omitting the writer's self-penned caveat. Do you suggest that's honest? If so, tell me why.
The point is that Dominic uses cheap and distorted snips to draw lazy conclusions. You're blaming me for a quick web search, but you excuse Dominic for greater indolence as long as his rhetoric suits your worldview.
My quick search found Times writers debunking the war-on-cars myth. I see no evidence that Dominic even tried that hard. Just the opposite. He characterizes one writer's column as the work of "writers," while conveniently leaving out the context of the discussion (overall budget issues) and omitting the writer's self-penned caveat. Do you suggest that's honest? If so, tell me why.
Jan 23
Relling commented on Debunking the So-Called Bike Backlash.
Intellectual honesty isn't your strength, Dominic. In your zeal to rag on the Times, you make all sorts of cheap leaps.
Your quotes from the Times, which you attribute to "editorial writers," come from a single 2010 Joni Balter column. That would be writer-singular, in case you're counting. You also leave out this quote from said column, which talked about budget priorities:
"As an avid runner, and occasional biker, I bear no deep-seated opposition to more recreational or commuter space for each and every group. At least theoretically. As a taxpayer, I say hold your spandex bike tights on a minute."
The rest of your blather is equally overstated. A search for "war on cars" in the Times archives yields 18 hits. Some are duplicates. Four are letters to the editor. One is a guest opinion by a developer, which prompted some letter-writing pushback.
One hit is a column by Westneat, debunking the war-on-cars myth. Another is a post by the Times librarian, also debunking the myth and tracing the origin of the term to a conservative think tank.
Two actual news stories pop up. One quotes Councilman O'Brien dismissing war on cars talk. The other examines the influence of the Cascade Bicycle Club in the wake of McGinn's election - a perfectly legitimate topic.
As for the Times deriding the mayor with the McSchwinn label, you could stand to be more accurate. Most of the time, the nickname comes from columnist Ron Judd, the outdoorsy guy who used to write for Outside Magazine - you know, a real bike-hater.
More...
Your quotes from the Times, which you attribute to "editorial writers," come from a single 2010 Joni Balter column. That would be writer-singular, in case you're counting. You also leave out this quote from said column, which talked about budget priorities:
"As an avid runner, and occasional biker, I bear no deep-seated opposition to more recreational or commuter space for each and every group. At least theoretically. As a taxpayer, I say hold your spandex bike tights on a minute."
The rest of your blather is equally overstated. A search for "war on cars" in the Times archives yields 18 hits. Some are duplicates. Four are letters to the editor. One is a guest opinion by a developer, which prompted some letter-writing pushback.
One hit is a column by Westneat, debunking the war-on-cars myth. Another is a post by the Times librarian, also debunking the myth and tracing the origin of the term to a conservative think tank.
Two actual news stories pop up. One quotes Councilman O'Brien dismissing war on cars talk. The other examines the influence of the Cascade Bicycle Club in the wake of McGinn's election - a perfectly legitimate topic.
As for the Times deriding the mayor with the McSchwinn label, you could stand to be more accurate. Most of the time, the nickname comes from columnist Ron Judd, the outdoorsy guy who used to write for Outside Magazine - you know, a real bike-hater.
Dec 4, 2012
Relling commented on Schools Are Teaching Less Fiction Because Fiction Isn't Helpful for Shitty Business Jobs.
@8 - Absolutely right. And @6 - push back against your daughter's teacher, who is simply parroting a playbook (see what the wrong kind of reading does? It breeds and perpetuates the wrong kind of thinking.)
Back to @8: Yes, it's the teaching that sucks, or perhaps the teaching prescription adopted without thought by the rule-followers of the world, who can't cope with ambiguity. When you train juveniles to approach works of fiction as juvenile critics disassembling a gadget, you're likely to produce juvenile criticism.
Back to @8: Yes, it's the teaching that sucks, or perhaps the teaching prescription adopted without thought by the rule-followers of the world, who can't cope with ambiguity. When you train juveniles to approach works of fiction as juvenile critics disassembling a gadget, you're likely to produce juvenile criticism.
Nov 21, 2012
Relling commented on On Audiobooks vs Regular-Type Books.
Driving is the only way I can do it, and even then I'm very picky. I don't look for subjects as much as good readers, good voices. A guy named Frank Muller was the best audiobook reader I've ever heard.
Nov 4, 2012
Relling commented on Tarleton Claims "Suspicious Robocalls" Are Harassing Voters in Her Name.
Unfortunately, the perps of this little screw job probably won't be revealed until after the election. The damage is done.
I don't know who's going to win this thing. I have my guesses. But the sad part is The Stranger's meek surrender of its independence with respect to coverage of this race. That happened a long time ago. The corpse is rotten.
I don't expect scruples from political consultants. I'm not a fool. But I'm still sentimental enough to expect a vestige of integrity from news organizations. Whether they style themselves as impartial refs or informed advocates, the duty remains.
That duty includes a willingness to be fearless, even with people you're inclined to like. It means risking disapproval from friends by asking a hard question now and then - not because you're working against them (or anyone), but because it's what you're supposed to do.
On that front, The Stranger has failed miserably. The absence of any reporting on the independent money dumped on Tarleton until this late date is only one piece, though an outrageous one (and this post barely tries - other outlets at least give the numbers and the sponsors).
But the trail is longer. It stretches back to the spring.
Look back through The Stranger's coverage. Try to find one tough question - just one - directed to Noel Frame. You won't find it.
I'm looking at a Paul Constant post just a few clicks above this one that says endorsements don't matter. The Stranger dutifully reported every endorsement Noel received, sometimes more than once.
Other candidates in the 36th primary (Brett Phillips, Evan Clifthorne, Tarleton) took smacks from The Stranger. Often, Noel was given the whip hand to deliver them.
Yet Noel never felt that sting. She was never asked to account for herself. It wouldn't have been hard to do, and it didn't have to be nasty. Something simple, like asking her to name the board members of Progressive Majority - you know, her employer - would have shown a little nerve.
The Stranger set its coverage ground rules early on:
1) Talk only to Noel's backers.
2) Talk only to Tarleton's critics.
3) Repeat.
That's heads-I-win-tails-you-lose journalism. Nothing to be proud of.
More...
I don't know who's going to win this thing. I have my guesses. But the sad part is The Stranger's meek surrender of its independence with respect to coverage of this race. That happened a long time ago. The corpse is rotten.
I don't expect scruples from political consultants. I'm not a fool. But I'm still sentimental enough to expect a vestige of integrity from news organizations. Whether they style themselves as impartial refs or informed advocates, the duty remains.
That duty includes a willingness to be fearless, even with people you're inclined to like. It means risking disapproval from friends by asking a hard question now and then - not because you're working against them (or anyone), but because it's what you're supposed to do.
On that front, The Stranger has failed miserably. The absence of any reporting on the independent money dumped on Tarleton until this late date is only one piece, though an outrageous one (and this post barely tries - other outlets at least give the numbers and the sponsors).
But the trail is longer. It stretches back to the spring.
Look back through The Stranger's coverage. Try to find one tough question - just one - directed to Noel Frame. You won't find it.
I'm looking at a Paul Constant post just a few clicks above this one that says endorsements don't matter. The Stranger dutifully reported every endorsement Noel received, sometimes more than once.
Other candidates in the 36th primary (Brett Phillips, Evan Clifthorne, Tarleton) took smacks from The Stranger. Often, Noel was given the whip hand to deliver them.
Yet Noel never felt that sting. She was never asked to account for herself. It wouldn't have been hard to do, and it didn't have to be nasty. Something simple, like asking her to name the board members of Progressive Majority - you know, her employer - would have shown a little nerve.
The Stranger set its coverage ground rules early on:
1) Talk only to Noel's backers.
2) Talk only to Tarleton's critics.
3) Repeat.
That's heads-I-win-tails-you-lose journalism. Nothing to be proud of.
Nov 4, 2012
Relling commented on Tarleton Claims "Suspicious Robocalls" Are Harassing Voters in Her Name.
Heroic. Two days before the election, The Stranger finally mentions the giant fungal 100K tumor of shadow money dropped on this race by Noel Frame's puppeteers. Even now, Brendan won't add up the number. He touches the subject under duress; this putrid phone ploy makes it impossible to avoid.
Gorn perceives correctly. These weren't robocalls. They weren't phone bankers, either. Not even the dumbest campaign would pull something like this as a supportive move. But it works beautifully as opposition.
@7, if you think it's so unlikely, think back two years. By remarkable coincidence, one campaigner in this race has a record of such crap, including bogus robocalls she recorded herself in 2010. She sounds suspiciously like the commenter at position 3 in this thread.
Gorn perceives correctly. These weren't robocalls. They weren't phone bankers, either. Not even the dumbest campaign would pull something like this as a supportive move. But it works beautifully as opposition.
@7, if you think it's so unlikely, think back two years. By remarkable coincidence, one campaigner in this race has a record of such crap, including bogus robocalls she recorded herself in 2010. She sounds suspiciously like the commenter at position 3 in this thread.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Footnote: This is NOT a free-speech issue. The florist's free-speech rights are fully intact. She can say whatever she wants. She can take the money for the flowers and condemn the couple in the same breath, though a) her interpretation of Christian values is woeful, and b) her free-speech right in no way grants immunity from well-deserved criticism for said speech.
The issue isn't what she can say. It's what she can DO. Refusal of service is action, not speech.