Blogs Sep 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm


Don't worry Mr. Carr, no one with half a brain thinks The Stranger produces 'journalism'. Seriously, Humpfest is the Pulitzers for these guys.
Carr = (martinet + bully)**2
I stopped caring about this about 18 posts ago.
@3, may you never be in the crosshairs of overzealous officialdom.
Okay, Tom, here's a question for you: does the fact that you don't think you caved to political pressure make it less true that Osgood stated that you did?

The condition for a quote being accurate is that the quoted person actually said the words being quoted. The fact that the words being quoted represent a debatable position is immaterial.
Hey Tom-
Welcome to Slog-
heh heh heh
For Carr to go on a powertrip and basically stymie a business in tough economic times is absolutely unconscionable. This combined with his complicity in Nickels' war against GLBT nightlife is writing a pretty convincing last chapter for his career.

See you at the polls, buddy.
eh, i'm not fond of some of carr's other tactics... but he seems pretty by-the-book and non-vindictive in this case. i would certainly vote for someone else i thought could do a better job, but not because of the handling of this case.

like the monkey noises.
Standards? We don't need no stinking Standards!
Yeah, the monkey noises cracked my shit up.
So, let me see if I've got this straight. Dominic makes three attempts to contact Carr to get his side of the story. Carr and his minions fail to respond. Dominic prints story with one side speculating about the reasons Carr may have decided not to pursue an appeal of the WSLCB's adjudication, because that's the only side of the story he's been given, because Carr et al have failed to respond (implying, rather implausibly, that despite three separate contacts to his upper level staff and to officials directly involved in the case, he somehow failed to get Dominic's request for a response). Carr then gets his eyepatch panties in a bunch and feigns "outrage" because he feels his position has been somehow mis-characterized, and ends by attacking Dominic for his failure to get the straight story.

I believe this is what is known in political parlance as "sandbagging".
@12: Ooooo, early adopter of the "eyepatch panty" meme! Well done.
WTF is Tom Carr doing trying to horn in on the Liquor Board's span of control AGAIN???

You would think he would have learned that lesson with Operation Sobering Thought.

Enforcement of liquor laws is the job of the Liquor Board - not the City Attorney's office.

Maybe there's some real criminals that Tom can go prosecute and leave the policital hay-making and ill-convieved photo ops alone. Let the liquor board do it's job and get back to doing YOUR job, Tom!

Nay, nay, my friend.

Carr's outrage is real, not fake.

Only problem is: Tom's outrage is ALWAYS real because he's a hot-head. Can't seem to be gracious or lawyerly in any context.
Typical Dominic: "Yes, I'll post a followup to give your side of the story. And then I'll twist everything you're saying, insert snarky and one-sided remarks along the way and once again display just how low our standards are."

Clearly Carr, has a "thing" about alcohol. He can't stop horning in on the liquor control board.

Just read his campaign postcard and you'll get a good idea why he feels this way.

@16: If that were the case, then there is no way that Tom Carr should have left Dominic that voicemail, or had that conversation with him. What we have here is evidence that Tom Carr cares about Dominic Holden's opinion. Probably more than you do.

"I didn’t hear back—Carr’s office rarely returns our calls, and blogs move quickly—so I went ahead and posted it."

That sentence is pretty pitiful on a number of levels.

1) that you feel your ATTEMPT to report the other side of a story (the most BASIC aspect of fair reporting), is good enough to go ahead with a story that is completely one sided. Hey don't you give out Incredulous Hack awards to people who do the same thing (one sided "reporting") with no quotes or interviews from opposing parties when unfavorable press goes against your cause? Like the marijuana busts that you and Dan rail against? OH RITE... that must be different.

2) that this blogging bullshit is all the licence you need to post the story. You needed to be fast? You needed to get the story posted? Why? At what cost must fair reporting take to win the internet race?

You probably can't and won't answer any of these questions.

The art of informing weeps.

It's sad and big time amateur. But pretty typical for a guy who never stepped foot into a journalism class nor onto a college campus for that matter.

Your clenched fists do not and should not entitle you to the bully pulpit.
And I know you aren't at all interested in fair reporting, so it is only those of us who wish for that on a broad level who get incensed. But even at the bottom of the barrel of the profession, where you reside, it would still be nice to acknowledge the basics.

Or go ahead having the word "Newspaper" in your masthead while hiding behind yellow journalism everywhere else. whatever.
@19: I require a high resolution JPEG replica of your college diploma, as well as several clippings from stories that you have written for media outlets with a circulation over 5000/week.

First, Carr clearly has a hostile relationship with the Stranger, and Dominic in particular. His voice mail makes that clear. When he was interviewed on KUOW a week or so back, his distain of the Stranger was clear. Carr hates the marijuana deprioritizing law that Dominic and the Stranger heavily pushed.

So it is not the least bit surprising that he frequently doesn't return calls for comment from the Stranger staff, and Dominic in particular.

Given that history, Dominic shouldn't be held hostage and prevented from publishing an article because Carr (or his staff) refuse to return a phone call.

Second, the Stranger has never claimed to be an unbiased purveyor of neutral news. They have been advocacy journalists since the very first issue. They have never hidden this fact, and are unflinchingly honest in their bias.

So, in fact, it IS different when the Stranger rails against the Seattle Times or other news organizations for being biased hacks, when the news organization claims to be neutral and unbiased.
@22: Nicely said.
Carr is a bully. The Stranger and Dom are now his target.

If there was a way for him to bully voters, he would.

Parker Todd, you are a shill. Of course Domenic goes with his story after calling and getting no responses. Silly bird.... novice critic.

In this day and age, no call mead give shit. Oh, I forgot, Lilly Tomlin from Mother Bell didn't place the calls correctly.

Carr and all the others have cell phones and are on line. Any communication they wish to respond to is done in minutes, if not seconds.

Parker, get a life.

Vote for the other guy. I know not a single person who will vote for Carr. And in this clique, the Stranger is just for fun.

Signed - Tom Car Nemeses
@19: You spend a lot of time unpacking and destroying your own shtick here, crying yellow journalism and impugning Dom's approach to this story because, well, he didn't present a viewpoint you hold and since it's easy to hide behind the strawman of "you say you're unbiased".

This is all ignoring the following quote, of course:
I waited, I didn’t hear back—Carr’s office rarely returns our calls, and blogs move quickly—so I went ahead and posted it.

Most news outlets use blogs in the exact same manner, reporting on things in-process or that are still being assembled as full stories. It should be obvious from the word go that stories like this most likely lack fully fleshed out viewpoints or rebuttals. Most people get it. This sort of in-process thing used to be hidden, you know? Read what he's written again-- doesn't that sound like what the news editor gets handed or told when they ask for the status on a story?

But you knew that, right?
@25: Despite your being a cat made of bacon, you sure do have a point there.
A few questions since you brought up your reporting process.

I'm interested to know how long you waited for him, his press person or his assistant to return your call. Reporters have a bad habit (or would you call it a "technique"?) of calling the subject of a potentially negative or inflammatory article moments before going to press to give them little time to respond appropriately or to not allow them to respond while still able to say, "eh, I called. But blogs move quickly so..."

I'm also wondering if you've ever held a blog post because you were waiting on a comment/piece of info?

And what's preventing you from updating the first post with the comments now that you got him to call you back?

Thanks. I'll await your response.

@27: Hm, Dom's better at this than you are.
My, my what professional decorum - something about "your crap" - whoa. Was that on city time?

Shit folks, this guy is a toad. He sounds like a stressed drama queen, not that I don't like queens, I am as queer as the 12 dollar bill.

Still, queer aside, stressed non professional queens are not cool.

Throw him out, out, out. Republicans somewhere will hire with his story how the fags at the Stranger did him wrong ...

Yuk, potty mouth to boot. Mr. Carr should try that when talking to a judge. Maybe he has?

Double yuk.
I'm missing something. The original post was factually correct, and to the extent that there was speculation on the part of those quoted, his poor communication skills appear to have warranted it. So to call the post "crap" (ooooo), and rant about journalistic standards confuses me. Which parts didn't "remotely resemble the truth"? Which parts are "just so absolutely ridiculous"?

What was "outrageous"? I'm new to city politics, so I'm not so familiar with the fella, but -- with this rude rant, and with his issues with the little gallery -- my impression is that he has an serious problem with proportion. How did he get this job? How does he feel about REAL problems?

Dom, you didn't deserve it. Your standards are not so bad.
@22: Advocacy journalism doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean you ignore facts that don't support your point of view. It doesn't mean you don't give people who have a different point of view a chance to give said view. And it doesn't mean you can have no critical thinking skills, no journalism training and not so much as a community college diploma and call yourself a fucking journalist.
Funny thing is, while getting on your case for bringing the paper down and the paper's standards dropping isn't necessarily wrong in general... he did it for totally the wrong reasons because you were right to post that and all you said about him was true.

So he's acting like a douche and you were right here, but you're still a pox on this paper's credibility.
@31: And yet it seems like you couldn't hack your way out of a credulous paper bag, so I guess Dom wins this one by default. Even Gomez gives Dom plaudits (in a typical backhanded way).

Wow, I should have gone to Slog Happy yesterday. I would loved to meet the person willing to post... wait, was there an actual purpose to that comment, BC?
@34: Plaudits means praise! There's a brand new word for you to use, yippee! :)

The rest, of course, is a snotty way to say "your opinions don't diminish that an activist has had a pretty solid body of success and is now working at a paper that caters to this sort of activist crowd, so he wins". It's about doing what you want and what makes you happy, so, er, poor Dom?
As a new resident of this city, I have two questions:

1) how was this vicious, self-aggrandizing fanatic ever allowed near the reigns of power, and
2) will I at least be able to enjoy the satisfaction of voting against him at some point?
As a former resident, and I was a pretty big alcoholic when I lived in Seattle. Faire was ok, pretty straight up art gallery, not a boozy joint. But I like art, so I drank and talked art, they served me two drinks in the afternoon, before I moved. I don't miss Seattle, or Tom Carr.
@28, I know. Writers who spend their time critiquing the actions of others but then get high and mighty when someone DARES question the way they do THEIR job really do hold serve over the rest of us, don't they? Man, how do they do that thing they do?

Dom lost all credibility on saying he TRIED to give him a say in the matter when, instead of updating the original post with the comments eventually got from Carr, he wrote a whiny post about a testy voicemail. The fact that he didn't even add a sentence to the original post saying, "UPDATED: Carr's response and my crying about him being mad at me can be found over here." with a link to this post shows he wasn't really interested in having Carr in the story. But blogs move pretty fast and that post is too far gone for added, relevant context I guess.

And I don't even know what it is that Carr and Dom are fighting about. I haven't followed this story and I really don't care. But the "reporter as martyr when criticized by subjects of his stories" act is really, really pathetic.
Journalist who know what they are doing manage not to become part of the stories they write.

Um, @38, you DID notice those highlighted words in the very FIRST SENTENCE of this post, you know the ones that LINK BACK to the original post Dom wrote earlier today? The link that pretty much does exactly what you're whining about Dom not doing?

Yeah, thought so.

And since it's quite obvious from your last paragraph that: A of all) you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to this story anyway, and; B of All) you have absolutely no idea what has actually occurred, and C of All) you nevertheless feel compelled to spout an opinion about it regardless of your obvious ignorance - I can only respond by kindly asking you to please STFU already.

If you want to criticize Dom, nobody has a problem with that, probably least of all him. But next time at least try to pretend like you know what the fuck you're talking about, m'kay?
Jeez Baconcat, you sure seem to have a lot of Stranger cock up your ass. They're all grown ups and can defend themselves...have you yapping in the front yard like some attack corgi isn't helping your cred much.

FWIW, I think PA Native's questions/points @27 are fair and would be interesting to see the response.

Carr's a dick and hooray for Faire, but how this post happened and how it's playing out are interesting to me. But then, I was one of seven subscribers to Brill's Content way back when...
re: "We Have Standards?"

not cute, as assholery goes...
way too close to the truth.
just awkward
@33: Which Stranger writer's cock are you sucking (and not just metaphorically)? Are you their designated pit bull?
What a royal ass, no way would I ever vote for a guy who talks down to people like that. What a condescending pos. I love Faire and one of my good girlfriends works there. For him to get up on his teetotaling, homophobic soapbox and claim he is the one who is outraged is ridiculous.
@40. One of us is struggling with reading comprehension here and it isn't me. I'll try to simplify it for you. Feel free to read it slowly or perhaps read it a few times so you catch my drift. Take as much time as you need. Here goes (again):

The ORIGINAL post, the one that STILL says Carr didn't comment, should be updated to link to THIS post if Dom really cared about including Carr's opinion in the story. He doesn't and thus it still hasn't updated as of the writing of this comment.

Blogs move fast but they are also frequently updated when new, relevant information becomes available.

My knowledge or interest in the original post's issue isn't relevant. If I wanted to comment about that, I'd do it over there. This post is about is about process and that's what I'm commenting on.
@46: Oh for fuck's sake. COMTE is absolutely correct about you. You're nitpicking. "Andrew Sullivan would have put a new line in the old post!" The update is on the front page of Slog (still! after half a day has gone by!), where anyone who cares the tiniest bit about this tiff can easily find it. And he quoted Carr extensively, so the charge that Dom or the Stranger weren't willing to give Carr a chance to reply is absurd.

All you are doing is whining about the specific manner in which these things were accomplished, and you have not given an adequate reason for believing that the way you would have done things is superior. If Dom had updated the original post instead of writing a new one, you would be over there, reminding us all that he doesn't have a high school diploma.

Give it a rest.
@ 7 - "Nickels' war against GLBT nightlife"

The war against GLBT bars and clubs is TOM CARR's war, not Nickels'. Carr and his minions like the Law Department's East Precinct liason that Dominic mentions, are the ones trying to "clean up" capitol hill. This "cleaning up" means making it a lot less gay. It will continue as long as Carr is in office. And expect a LOT more of it if he's reelected.

Seems like the music community is organizing to support Carr's opponent Pete Holmes. It would be nice to see the GLBT community do the same. Typical of Seattle's GLBT community that they are just bending over and taking it from car.
Of course your knowledge or interest (or abject lack thereof) is relevant - when you insist on spewing an opinion based on the self-admitted fact that you haven't the slightest idea as to what the story is about in the first place.

You're like the like the lazy sod in pre-TIVO days, who finally has to get up to piss in the middle of the big game, then curses the TV because the winning touchdown happened while he was sitting on the can.

Those of us who HAVE been paying attention, who have been reading the posts KNOW the story, know that Carr is sandbagging his way through this, know that he's in a defensive spin-mode, and also know that your picking nits about whether a follow-up post on a blog site does or does not adhere to some arbitrary standards from your personal journalistic style-sheet IS irrelevant. "The issue isn't about pussy,", as a former astronaut would no doubt colorfully put it, "it's about MONKEY." And in this case, Carr is the monkey in question.

And in case you've been misinformed, this is SLOG: an online BLOG that updates with a new post on average of about once every half-hour. It's not the goddamned New York Times. It's designed specifically to push the raw information out in more-or-less real-time, instead of waiting hours or days for that same raw information to be collated, formatted, edited, proofed, vetted and what not (which, incidentally, is why the print version still exists). That's PRECISELY what has occurred in this instance: Dom has the basic story, he's solicited comments from both sides, receiving a response from only one, and thrown the information up. When the other side, seeing they're being shut out of the story by their own refusal to comment, FINALLY deigns to respond, he's that thrown up too. Why would anyone who's actually READ the previous posts on the subject NEED to have the entire schmear re-written, when we already know the sequence of events, and how the parties involved have - or haven't - responded?

In other words, everybody else here except you seems to be able to quite easily connect the first post to the second and to the ones prior to that, even without benefit of the proffered link; it's only your abject laziness that has prevented you from clicking it to take you to the previous post, thereby providing you with the related information you seem to demand be re-written solely for your benefit, because apparently you lack the mental acuity to connect the dots in your own head.

But, that really isn't our problem, now is it?

now replaces
"I'm a bad bad man"?

like the lady said-
not so cute,
as assholery goes...
and way too close
to the truth to be funny.

Adult Free Zone.
What? Me Worry?!

it's just awkward
@38/41/43: So when I point out why they aren't going to play by your rules, your response is "OMG YOU SHILL"? Right. And you wonder why, again, Dom has this job and you're just scrounging for scraps in the comments.

So much anger.

So little ability to grasp a simple concept.

Go outside and enjoy the sun guys.
@52: Oh, poor PA Native. Everyone gets what you're saying. No one agrees with you. Don't assume that people are angry just because their words make you feel dumb.
Is Carr from PA?

Carr is often an angry guy and in this case stupid to put it on VM.

The Stranger employs and empowers you, someone who lacks as much as a high school diploma, to write/frame/ and disseminate to 90,000 individuals (according to your print circulation, let alone your blogging).

I\\\'d confirm that no, you don\\\'t have standards at all, even for the minimal thresholds of employability like a hs diploma.
I don't think Carr, or anyone, would ever think that a voicemail would be subject to public consumption like this. Regardless of whether he's a jerk, it is not a professional thing to do Dominic. If you keep these tactics, you'll torpedo your reputation.

The fact remains that you are unprofessional and highly unethical. From the beginning, you have painted this story wrong as a chance to make a name for yourself. Do you even KNOW what a city attorney does? The fact that your uneducated ass even has a job is a reflection of the opportunities in this country. I think one day of law school would make your pot-infested brain explode. Just like Dan Savage who tries to put on his lawyer hat (Look Ma! I can read an opinion! I must be an expert!), what you do isn't "Advocacy Journalism". It is straight up MASTUBATORY JOURNALISM. Seriously dude, get a fucking degree. You sorely need a Journalism 101 Class.
This is all so funny to read!
Red Red Wine.
Why didn't you dub in Jackass Braying over the cell phone number?
@59: They made comments, Dan, you better listen! >:(
What is beyond the pale is Domonic referring to "the law", "common sense", and "pressure" by citing to his MOTHERFUCKING SELF. You moron, citing to something you've said previously as some kind of legit source is like citing to Wikipedia in a legal brief. That pot really does a number on your brain cells, doesn't it?

Also, Dan, come up with something better than "wait- what?". Wrong about the Iraq war: Dan Savage. Wrong about Prop 8: Dan Savage. Wrong about anything politically-related: Dan motherfucking Savage. Dan Savage is just a five your old with fingers in his ears who doesn't want to listen because his feeerrings are hurt. Get some balls, you pervy dick. And P.S., NO one under the age of sixty wants to sleep with your aging ass. Stop posting about it, you fucking creep.
Ultimately (and seriously), folks, the reason Dom writes for this paper is not so much because he has credibility (and YMMV as to how you believe that should officially be constituted)... but because his writing and choice of expression are by their nature inflammatory. He has clear pet issues and takes a slap-the-Yakuza-in-the-face approach to journalism.

As you might have noticed, his schtick generates hits on this blog, circulates copies of the pub's fish wrap and basically adds the sort of value that Dan's ad dept uses to sell sponsorships and space to advertisers whose fees pay his bills.

If Dom were rational and objective in his approach, he wouldn't add the value that he was hired to add. Ultimately, I can't bag on Dan or Dom for that: They're both acting out of an understandable sense of self-preservation. Dom, though he may be IRL a fairly rational human being, is doing what he has to do to keep his job. And Dan hires the writers he needs to hire to move copies, generate hits and bring in the needed ad and sponsorship revenue. You've got to do business to stay alive.
@65: Help me out here, because I'm not getting it. He reports facts, but he does so in a way that you find rude and alientating, therefore he has no credibility?

This is a question of style, not anyone's capacity for reasoned thought. And your attacks on Dom are, quite frankly, not particularly substantial. What you just said about him -- in terms of "paying the bills" and so forth -- could just as easily be said of anyone whose reporting you didn't like.
65 ftw

It is amusing when Dan goes off on Beck (and before him Rush) because Dan is the Liberal version; a loud mouthed inflammatory witless flaming asshole who generates lots of attention (for himself) but adds nothing to the dialog.

If your were looking for information and enlightenment you might have the New York Times (or WSJ or The Economist or whatever- fill in the blank with your favorite legitimate news source, if there are any left...) dropped on your doorstep every morning- Dan on the other hand is like having the gag 'burning paper bag full of shit' left on your doorstep every day.
It's such a bummer that we have these trolls on the Slog who insist on making the style of the Stranger and the writer of the post the issue instead of the topic.

You trolls such. Shut the hell up already and go back to playing your video games in your mom's basement.

The article is about Tom Carr and his ridiculous attack on nightlife. It's not about Dom, Dan Savage, Dan's article on Iraq, or journalism. If you hate the Stranger so much, Please, PLEASE go somewhere else. If you love Tom Carr, great, let's have a discussion about HIS policies, not Dom's writing style or high school years.

And Stranger - it's past time to start blocking these idiots. It would be awesome to be able to come to your comment threads and actually discuss real issues. As it is we have just a bunch of partially retarded people discussing god knows what. Boot them please. Most intelligent people refuse to post here anymore because of all the trolls.
@68: So, anything critical of Stranger "journalists" is trolling and should be banned?

@51: I don't want Dom's job (not looking for a 75 percent pay cut). But I do think it's an absolute crime that there are so many talented, experienced, thoughtful journalists out there without newspaper jobs while this simple-minded hack has one.
66. His reporting is done with a clear and obvious bias towards issues personal to him, and has been since the day he arrived (though to be fair, you could say that about just about every reporter on this paper, right up to the editorial director). Any amount of facts and reporting can be twisted to further an agenda.
@ 69 - it's really like you are just fucking retarded. No, not everyone critical of the Stranger should be banned, just idiots like you and the others on here who can't talk about the topic being slogged about.

Believe it or not, this place used to have some pretty great discussions about the topics at hand. Now it's just a place for trolls. Which is too bad, because we as a community need more real discussions and a lot less crazy talk - Glenn Beck and Fox news give us enough of that.

Anyone have any thoughts on Tom Carr? His attack on small business, gay nightlife, etc? His opponent Pete Holmes? Anyone?
@70: I would think a clear and obvious bias would be far preferable to an obscure and hidden one. In any case, yes, Dominic certainly constructs a narrative around the facts he reports, and this construction is usually in service of a general thesis. But where, specifically, are the distortions and misrepresentations that you are complaining about?

Again, what you have said so far is so generic that it could be applied to virtually any reporter with whom one happened to have a problem. It's the same lines that the teabaggers use when complaining about "the liberal media."

I'm actually not a huge fan of Dominic's (though I don't have the dislike of him that you, a couple other regulars and the throngs of unregistered trolls do), but I would rather see specific instances of how and when he has misrepresented something to further a bogus conclusion than just more general bromides about "what's wrong with the media."

Shorter me: Less armchair quarterbacking, more substantial contributions.
Thanks for posting, DOM.

The fact that Tom Carr, an elected official, makes a point of not doing what the citizens "want him to do" precisely highlights the problem with him.

His "we don't do that" rigidity suggests an OCD personality who can't let anything go and is so lost in the details that can't see the big picture.

By "used to have some pretty great discussions" you mean, of course, that the Liberals could suck each other off and compliment each other on how clever and progressive they were without the harsh glare of reality intruding?
P.S. I've read through every critique on this thread of Dom's article. It's all just whining about bias without a single attempt to counter any of the facts or opinions presented.

The Stranger has a point a view, and it can certainly be annoying when it differs from your own. But whining and complaining without presenting an alternative just makes you look as stupid as Tom Carr does.
@69: Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Obviously they fail as journalists if they can't even present themselves as worthy of a job. And somehow, I doubt you make that much more than Dom, mainly because you're about as thick as mud and 75% less interesting.

@70: Jesus, that's journalism. It's easy to ignore bias or pick it out in any article. Humans are not aggregators of facts, they're biased opinion-based hacks. All of us. It all depends on whether or not you can write something interesting that drags emotion out of people. Emotions like outright jealousy or hatred. Wheeee.

By the way, what interesting and thought-provoking things have you written, Gomez? I can think of one thing you've written that is fun for the entire internet, but in your own opinion, what would you say is your one piece of writing that makes you eminently more deserving of any journalistic acclaim than Dominic?
Baconcat, the Stranger Attack Corgi (TM)
@77: Yeah, I agree with Dom 110% of the time and can't bear to see well-reasoned arguments against his ethics or writing skill.
Since you're clearly railing here in blind defense of a friend of yours, BC, you wouldn't think anything I've written is great even if I pointed it out to you. So there's no sense in getting in a pissing contest.
And note that every argument made on Dominic's behalf has been a vague platitude, with no real hard evidence of his history of activist credibility whatsoever. Throw some links down, people. I'll be happy to buy in if you give me some tangible evidence.
Gomez, seriously? There have been absolutely no meaningful arguments presented against the way he handled this, just that, gosh, he's Dominic Holden so there MUST be something wrong with his approach.

And you want to ask for some kind of activist cred? Because he owes you that? Right. Show me what papers you've been in, name some folks you've worked with that have some clout. Pretty sure you can't.

Of course, you're sooooooo credible yourself, instantly nagging on me and claiming I'm in the tank or a shill. I've disagreed quite loudly with Dom and other staffers. Of course, I've also agreed, so therein lies the problem?

This whole flap is hilarious. I can't wait for the next "victim" of the "SLOG IS ALWAYS WRONG" sadsack parade.
This discussion in a nutshell: Platitudes for platitudes, where any 'credibility' involved is simply a baseless word of mouth. So that would render this whole discussion a big wash of nothing.

Seriously, BC, unless you can provide some evidence of Dominic's civic credibility, said credibility amounts to little more than a puffed-up hipster myth.

And Slog is not, per your words, always wrong. And they're not always right.
@82: You don't even pay attention, do you? Dominic spearheaded I-75 getting him attention and attacks from the feds and Tom Carr. Carr hates Dominic because of I-75, which passed by a large margin. People regularly namecheck I-75 (in fact, Belltown's blog on the PI even pointed out that jaywalking is a higher priority crime than possession as a result of I-75).

NORML mentions Dominic as a co-founder of the Sensible Seattle Coalition and primary sponsor of I-75. This might not be a cause you support, but its effect on crime enforcement in Seattle is tangible to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings on drug enforcement, even though Carr has made it clear that he won't honor the spirit of the initiative as passed.

Dominic has shown quite a bit of patience in this paper when reporting on matters relating to Carr, and Carr has shown similar restraint. This blog posting is nowhere near as nasty as it could get and most people know that.

So to summarize, how many thousands of dollars have you saved the city? How many national organizations recognize you on their website? How many pieces of citizen legislation have you crafted that have been copied by other cities throughout the nation? How many times have the feds come outright and excoriated you by name?

What's that Gomez? Zeros across the board? Thought so.
Oh yeah, the pot initiative. A cause near and dear to his heart, as he's let us know a few dozen times. So it would figure he'd fight like hell to hit his bong without the cops ringing him up.

I can grant you I-75. The rest of your rebuttal is the usual. Anything else of substance?
carr went out of his way in an email conversation (linked to by slog) to say that he had nothing against faire, and to outline that he was following normal policy guidelines (which include keeping an option open to file the objection). carr said he hadn't decided yet whether he was going to follow-through or not, but didn't like what he felt was an effort to intimidate him. then, carr didn't file the objection.

carr had a case for the original complaint.
carr followed the normal policy for keeping the option open to object.
carr decided not to file an objection (something we seem to all agree with and approve of).

i can see how carr would be a little upset. what i never saw from the stranger was an example of where -- in this case -- carr was being vindictive, or where he stepped over the line. was this normal operating procedure or not? if not, then i would agree with dom. but without any additional information, i cannot say. in other words, dom accuses carr of a few things with no evidence (a vendetta against liquor and nightlife manifested against faire, keeping an option open to object where normally his department would not, caving into pressure, generally being a bad person, etc).

in the end, we approve of carr's actions completely, so why a post disparaging him? shouldn't we be applauding the right choice? i don't like carr and especially do not like the city's attitude toward liquor and nightlife as manifested by some recent actions. but either show me what wrong he did (in this case), or cut the guy some slack. were i carr, i'd be a little upset, too.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.