On Friday mornings, I sometimes listen to the KUOW Weekday program at 10. I do so in somewhat the same spirit that a pathologist looks at diseased tissue; I think that "mainstream" journalism has serious problems, and I am interested in understanding those problems better*. The discussions of the four "mainstream" journalists, Knute Berger, now at Crosscut, Susan Paynter of the PI, Steve Scher of KUOW, and Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times, are often unintentionally revealing.
Today, Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat said something that illustrates those problems. The host of the show, KUOW's Steve Scher, opened the discussion with the murder of Rebecca Griego. Her killer, said Westneat, was an illegal immigrant, who had been stopped several times by the Seattle police. When he was stopped, the police did not ask about his immigration status — because that is forbidden by Seattle policy.
Now, here's the part of that discussion that I found most revealing: Westneat did not know that Seattle had that policy and, although Scher did not poll the group, none of the other journalists there seemed to know that fact either. (None of the four mentioned that similar policies are quite common in cities run by leftists, though they are.)
To not know this, Westneat (and Berger, Paynter, and Scher) would have to avoid reading almost all conservative publications and web sites, and avoid listening to almost all conservative talk shows. He would have to, in other words, stay in a leftist bubble and never come out of it, because this issue has been discussed endlessly by conservatives.
If I may say so, this gap in Westneat's knowledge shows a lack of curiosity that is not a good quality in a journalist. He can reduce that gap by reading some of Michelle Malkin's columns on the subject, or by studying the contrasting policies of two counties in southern California, Los Angeles and Orange. And if he wants to make a column out of that study, let me suggest he ponder this question: Would criminal illegal immigrants be more likely to move to an area that protects them, as Seattle and Los Angeles do, or to an area that does not protect them?
(*And, to be frank, to keep score. I give the program a zero if they manage to avoid any mention of moderate or conservative ideas during the hour. Today the score was higher than usual, hitting about five or six. The average is probably about 1.5.
As usual, there was a factual error during the show; in the news segment that leads into the show, the KUOW announcer said that Vice President Cheney had been on Rush Limbaugh's program today; actually he appeared there yesterday. I have never been able to figure out how to get Scher, or any of the others at KUOW, to correct errors, so I won't bother to email station about this one. But if they do correct it, I would like to know.)
Update: My apologies to other commenters, but I have had to close the comments because of one abusive poster who is unwilling to stay on topic, as I have requested him to do — not that I should have to tell him, or anyone else, to behave with ordinary civility when in another person's home, or at another person's site.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 06, 2007 02:14 PM | Email ThisIt's obvious why Leftists must remain detached. If they were to acknowledge the Conservative Blogosphere, other media sources, indeed much of America, they would be forced to live with that knowledge. They would rather exist in their ignorant bliss, because it allows them at least some ability to live with themselves.
Take for example Affirmative Action, and the Racism discussed in Stefan's earlier Post on the "White Privilege Conference." As long as Leftists can isolate themselves in a world where Whites are a monolithic entity, and Privilege is the cause for the problems of other "Colors," they allow themselves to sustain the myths needed to propose Affirmative Action, and attend "White Privilege" conferences with straight faces.
As soon as they actually look at the complexion of success and realize that it is a rainbow of correct philosophy and consistent application, then they are forced to acknowledge that their constructs are simply racist, and that sometimes, bad ideas actually lead to bad outcomes.
Much easier to sleep at night when one simply remains ignorant, and to blames it all on "White Privilege."
We are also a "circus free zone", an "War in Iraq free zone", a "dam free zone", and perhaps, soon, a "car-free zone".
Since all posts on Sound Politics must reference Global Warming before termination, I will mention my proposal: that the City Council get together and declare Seattle a "CO2 Free Zone". It will cost NOTHING and provide the same level of climate mitigation as any of the Mayor's and City Council's tax heavy solutions.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on April 6, 2007 02:57 PMSince most right/left-wing activist press releases don't appear in the MSM, it's hard to imagine where they would have seen it. It's still not in the Times/PI.
Besides it's more of a 'let's exploit this murder for a policy statement' memo than one expressing any concern/remorse about the murder itself.
Do you have an opinion as to what it means to be an educated person? If one is writing a column and ventures opinions on a variety of subjects, should they be an educated person?
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2007 03:04 PMThe gist of the memo:
'Immigration is broken, this murder proves it'
It's not even a very convincing press release, plus it comes from a gun rights organization rather than a anti-immigrant group.
I imagine you consider yourself educated but I don't going trolling over at HorsesAss for alternatives to your views. In fact a google search for WVH plus Horses Ass pulls up links to this website. =)
I'm much rather spend my time at Huffington Post which is a liberal blog with intelligence.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2007 03:29 PMDoes an illegal have a criminal record? Do they have a communicable disease? Are they a terrorist or sociopath? These are all obviously legitimate and valid questions for any society. Native and naturalized citizens are documented from birth for basic tax, credit, census, health and criminal reasons. Absent that information, it is possible for extremely negligent and possibly very defective individuals to join our society undetected. One might argue that anyone can go bad at any time, even a native citizen. But that is fallacious, because we are not protecting ourselves from the unknowable, we are desiring to protect ourselves from what is easily discoverable.
Allowing illegals in to our society without any basic cross checking of their records from their home country is foolish, and not an arguable policy. Further, once a crime has been detected, following up with existing criminal databases and historical record is routine for native citizens. Why would we not expect the same for illegals? And yet that's exactly what Seattle does when and illegal commits a crime.
I am for a more open immigration policy, because the legal hurdles that I have seen good people go through are arcane and far too costly. I can understand why uneducated and impoverished illegals pour across our borders. They often have no method for following through with a legitimate immigration, much less the means to do so. However, the absolute least we can do is subject any caught illegal to documentation, a full background check, and correlation with the records of their own country, or deport them back as an "undisclosed risk."
It is logistically impossible to detect or document every single illegal immigrant. But it is absolutely reasonable to require every detected illegal to submit to basic documentation for taxation and background check purposes. And it's a NO BRAINER when the detection occurs as a result of a criminal inquiry from a law enforcement agent.
Only in the backwards Leftist world is it forbidden to establish basic objective criterion to determine merit and fit character, even in the case of criminal behavior. And that's a policy for societal suicide.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 6, 2007 03:42 PMIf they've never heard of the Sanctuary Law how will they know to research it? Besides it's not really the cause, it's just a way for conservatives point out something that they disagree with and tie it to an current news issue. I'm sure some liberal groups are doing the exactly the same thing (maybe about gun control).
I personally think a better way to honor the dead is to give money to Home Alive in Rebecca Griego's name so that in the future women will know what to do when they have a crazy psyco ex-BF and they will know how to defend themselves.
You finally said something that I agree with:
"Incidentally, conservatives, there is a sizeable population of Americans who are not white who vote. If you alienate minorities in an egregious fashion the Republican party is going to pay a heavy political price."
There is a context to the agreement, though, people of color have to be willing to listen and conservatives can't assume that the message won't be listened to. There are plenty of people of color that are religious, family oriented, and value education.
I don't know who is writing your stuff today, but I think I like the semi-sane alter ego.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2007 04:27 PM1) That's a really stupid expectation.
2) Stay on topic.
It is a sunny day in Seattle and I am not near the research. As a demographic, Mexicans are very hardworking and religous as well as conservative. They have done a few studies about Mexican's attitudes toward immigration and it is not about unfettered immigration. A couple of things about the migration, it drains Mexico of talent and it is difficult to absorb the influx in terms of public services and education for this country. Also, the wage scale is distorted. Far from dissing immigrants, many of us wonder why their home countries can't be reformed. Unlike many hate America types, migrants endure unbelievable hardship to get to what they believe is opportuntiy. When did you say you were leaving us for Cuba? Have a nice trip, hope it is one way.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2007 04:46 PMYes it is, I'd even bet money on it. Now stay on topic.
What DMented forgot is that Rebecca's killer was from the UK. So much for that claim of racial bigotry.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 6, 2007 05:22 PMDuring the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years. These dour predictions gained credibility when the Arab oil crisis of 1973 quadrupled prices from $3 to $12 per barrel (from $16 to $48 in 2006 dollars) and when the Iranian oil crisis more than doubled oil prices from $14 per barrel in 1978 to $35 per barrel by 1981 (from $45 to $98 in 2006 dollars).I do get tired of hearing the same doom and gloom, you'd think they could come up with something new after 35 years.
Most of today's petro-doomsters base their forecasts on the work of the geologist M. King Hubbert, who correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. domestic oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1970 and begin to decline. In 1969 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak around 2000.http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.htmlBut are proven reserves all that's left? Several analyses put ultimate reserves at much higher levels. For example, the USGS undertook a comprehensive analysis of world oil reserves in 2000. It calculated that the total world endowment of recoverable oil is 3 trillion barrels. (Its figure is higher because it includes estimates for undiscovered resources and projected increases in already producing fields.) In addition, the total world endowment of natural gas is equivalent to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, plus 330 billion barrels of natural gas liquids such as propane and butane. The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil. Proven reserves of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are equivalent to 2 trillion barrels of oil. The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, which means 82 percent of the world's endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used.
One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for the bulk of the coming century. But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum. "Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future," notes the University of Houston's Economides. "It's also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.
The best way to solve the problem is the way DMented and the PO crowd are the most opposed to.
Wring your hands, wear your tin foil hat, drink your kool-aid and moan in your pessimistic rat hole.
While the rest of us work out the solutions to these problems, you'll whine and cry, and reap the benefit from the work of others who are optimistic, smart, and hard working. Your contribution will have been to say it shouldn't be done, it can't be done, it will only profit the rich if it is done, and in the end you'll use all the products of others and tell them how stupid they are for not believing the next doom and gloom snake oil pitch.
If you don't believe me my company made a breakthrough which boosted the efficiency of solar cells by 25%. We don't have any whiners at my office.
Posted by: JCM on April 6, 2007 09:14 PMNow, as to David Matthew's utterly moronic assertion that because Jim Miller points out the fact that the wacko killer was an illegal alien that Jim Miller must be a racist... David, are you even aware of the guy's race?
The dude was WHITE. He was from BRITAIN. Are you telling me that if a white person is against illegal immigration, even when it's by other white people from a white, European country, that makes him a racists?
What pipe are you smoking from?
Posted by: Mike H on April 6, 2007 09:31 PMWe should make a law outlawing crime.
Crime should be punished.
How the F is that a racist statement?
Posted by: JCM on April 6, 2007 09:39 PMIf it is exclusively against Mexican illegal immigrants, why are we talking about a white illegal from Britain?
And no, the police probably wouldn't ask Jim Miller, but then I'm guessing that Jim Miller doesn't have a thick foreign accent either like someone in this country illegally would probably have.
Posted by: Mike H on April 7, 2007 04:56 AMDefine "harassment". If someone gets pulled over on suspicion of DUI, and it's obvious that they are foreign born, be it British (as in this guys case), Mexican, Chinese, or whatever, I don't believe it to be "harassment" to simply inquire about their immigration status.
Are you seriously suggesting that Seattle Police doing that constitutes "harassment"?
Posted by: Mike H on April 7, 2007 06:41 AMThank you for proving my point.
Posted by: JCM on April 7, 2007 07:47 AMPlease stay on topic. The subject is the interesting gap in knowledge of Danny Westneat and othere "mainstream" journalists. The discussion will be better for all of us if you stay with that.
Please avoid libelous comments. Falsely accusing someone of racism may not be libelous in the strict legal sense of the word, but it certainly is in the ordinary sense of the word. (And if some lawyer wants to look at the comments and give us an informed opinion on the legal issues, I would be happy to send them to him or her.)
Those are reasonable requests that any decent, civilized person willl honor. All of us, except Stefan Sharkansky, are guests here, and should behave as guests, not as vandals.
By the way, one tactic of some terrorists and terrorist supporters is to invade American web sites to spread enemy propaganda. So this matter of abusive comments is more important than it may seem, at first.
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 7, 2007 08:19 AM