Watch this short video of Nate McMillan discussing the team yesterday, then we'll discuss:
Blazers practice: Lineup changes may be on the horizon
The hints are oblique, but you can understand why, as the Blazers come back home for a date with the semi-resurgent Kings, the buzz in P-Town is revolving around a change at starting PG and giving sophomore Jerryd Bayless more run. We'll have to wait until tonight for sure, but according to one Blazers Edge poster, Jason Quick also predicted a change yesterday while speaking on 95.5 The Game.
Is it a rational thing to do, move Miller into Blake's spot with the first unit? If you've watched the Blazers play this year, it's hard not to see the merits--Blake has been a poor distributor and his shot has been just abysmal so far. With Roy on the court by him, the first part hasn't been as much of an issue because Roy tends to handle the ball a lot himself (and in three-guard alignments there's even less pressure on Blake to make the big pass). But the absolutely crucial part of Blake's game is to hit some treys and stretch the defense. In effect, his long game IS his distributive skill; when he makes his shots the floor opens wide for the true scorers on the team (if they can hit theirs!)
Miller is not the shooter that Blake is--although for lack of another option he's been taking and draining some downtowners lately--but he is a much better and much more active passer. He doesn't drive to the hole like Brandon does necessarily, but considering Blake doesn't drive at all, Miller's an improvement. And that added activity, while not necessarily pulling defenders out from under the basket, does tend to keep them guessing and looking peripherally a lot for cutters and trailers.
The other part of Blake's game that is leading to some questions about effectiveness, is his typically extended dribble in the halfcourt. All Blazer fans understand the frustration, hearing Mike Barrett call a missed opponent shot with "...and the Blazers can run," only to see Blake stop past halfcourt and begin the SleepDribble of Death.
Once again turning to BEdge, editor Ben published an interesting piece showing that "late-clock" shots are in fact a relatively significant proportion of Blazer attempts, the team currently sitting at #1 in that category. Comparing the start of 09-10 to last year's #6 ranking (and nearly equal percentage of shots taken that way), the phenomenon didn't seem to trip them up too badly last year...but the difference is in shots made. According to Ben's research, last year the team made 36% of their short-clock shots; this year it's 20%. That's enough of a drop to take them from 6th in short-makes, to 26th. And that will hurt you.
Miller is definitely somewhat faster, but the King Hell Speedboy on the Blazers is Bayless, who plays his position like he's got something on the stove at home he needs to get back to. Get it across, get it started, get it in, get back--that's JayBay's game. And of course, that certainly doesn't involve wearing out spots on the parquet with a stationary dribble.
So along with the rumors and hints, it seems pretty clear that the numbers are also calling out for a change. We'll see what happens, if it happens--and if it does, it should be a pretty interesting game to watch. As noted, the Kings are--relative to their past anyway--having a fine season so far, and they will take advantage of any Blazer hesitancy and indecision when it comes to understanding roles and playing together. What do the other players do? Does LMA abandon the block and start slicing to the hole or his favorite baseline jumper spots? Do Joel/Dante/Juwan become bigger parts of the scoring offense, being likeliest to be stationed near the bucket when Miller or Bayless run out of tricks in midair and need a relief valve? Is it the death knell for the surfeit of Brandon Roy 10-second iso dramas? Tune in and see!
Briefly, I wanted to follow up on yesterday's story about the new policy drafted to handle media requests for attendance at local government Executive Sessions, by linking up to The O's story on the matter published this morning. I'm quoted a couple of times, and while the quotes are generally accurate, the tone seems a touch petulant, like I'm sour-grapesing my way through the issue because I had been refused. I think under a reasonable definition of "media" Loaded Orygun should qualify, but that's not really the point, and if a system was proposed that ended up excluding me for some justifiable reason, I don't think I'd have an objection.
But the problem is that not only would this policy tend to shut someone like me out, it would also restrict bloggers far more professional, regular and talented than myself. What if David Niewert, aka Orcinus, had only his webpage (and Crooks and Liars, where he is managing editor but I'm not aware of any original journalism they do there) and his books as his credential? Does Orcinus have a letterhead, or editors for that matter? Before TalkingPointsMemo became a full-fledged journo outfit, it was simply Josh Marshall, freelance journalist. Big no for him if he wanted to attend an Exec? Or how about Marcy Wheeler, who when known in her writings simply as "emptywheel," was the prime journalistic mover on L'affair du Plame? As someone without a real-name byline on her posts, she'd be viewed with skepticism as well.
And as I noted yesterday, the entire principle of a preemptively restrictive eligibility for attending sessions is both upside down relative to the point of the law and the need for it (ie, that ALL public meetings should be open, and if there are exceptions they should be tightly regulated and as open as possible), and to the known problem the lack of a detailed policy has caused in Oregon (which to my knowledge is none). It's a solution in search of a problem.
Here's what I had to say, as quoted by Zheng in the piece. I may add more commentary below the fold to discuss more specific objections to the way the policy was crafted, later on. And I know I want to say something about the quote attributed to the only pro-transparency advocate on the panel:
The policy stems from a Lake Oswego incident in July 2008 when Mark Bunster, author of political blog Loaded Orygun, unsuccessfully insisted he was a member of the media who could attend a closed session about the city's $110 million sewer interceptor project. Oregon law allows media representatives to attend but not report directly from executive sessions.
"It's not fair to independent purveyors of journalism, because in many ways, it does not recognize how they operate," Bunster said after reviewing the policy. "The policy asks people like myself to conform or produce evidence of eligibility in ways that are reflective of the established forms of media."
The new policy also creates definitions that go beyond the spirit of the original 1970s statute, Bunster said, and potentially leaves public bodies vulnerable to legal action.
Judson Randall, president of Open Oregon, a nonprofit freedom-of-information coalition, was the only member of Lake Oswego's task force not currently affiliated with government or media. He said the policy serves the public interest by guaranteeing access for legitimate reporters.
"The only person who will be excluded is some fly-by-night blogger who nobody knows who she or he is," he said. "To me, that's OK, because if they don't have some sort of cachet, then maybe they shouldn't be in a meeting."
I just looked at the date of this link, which leads to a piece about the piece done by Yuxing Zheng of The O about me getting kicked out of a Lake Oswego Executive Session, on the grounds that I wasn't legitmately verifiable "media." I'll get into that in a second, but I looked at the date, and it's Monday October 6, 2008. Exactly a year ago, and now the story pops up again.
As I said, I was refused entry to an Executive Session meeting because none of them were sufficently aware of or trusting of the name Loaded Orygun to throw me in there with representatives of Willy Week and The O (Zheng). Before I left, the City Attorney did admit out loud that there really should be a policy, "by the next Executive Session," as I recall him saying. Ha. Ha ha.
Yeah. As I said, a year ago today--that's when the original O piece came out on the whole Exec Sess angle of the Poop Project story--the LO City Attorney came up with a draft policy that was largely drawn from that of Columbia County. In the article there was a lot of skepticism from transparency and good-government types. including Judson Randall, the president of Open Oregon:
"Who defines news?" he asked. "If somebody writes a column, is that news? Is there information in there that is newsworthy you wouldn't consider news? There's all kinds of shades in there. If I were a city council, I wouldn't want to be in a position to decide that."
"The government shouldn't be controlling the media," he said. "What it gives, it can take away."
Randall was part of an eight-member committee that took those drafts and attempted to come up with a statewide framework that all public bodies could use for their own meetings laws. The others were all members of the various broadcasting and print guilds, editor honcho Bob Caldwell of The O, and the City Attorney and past Mayor of Lake O. They wrote this letter, to explain the conclusions and analysis reached in this form to be used by local governments to define their Executive Session policy--which is to say their defintion of media.
Two interesting and potentially game-changing happenings went down yesterday, both of which would seem to be positives for the drive to see a full and robust public option (FRPO) included in any health care reform bill that passes Congress. Plus I've got news of a demonstration in Portland that goes even beyond that, and continues to press for action on a single-payer plan.
First, the President made front page news in The Oregonian this morning, by commenting at some length on the health care bill being carried by Senator Ron Wyden. Obama was as usual polite and mostly glancing in his criticisms, but he was indeed critical of the plan:
"There are a lot of good concepts to what Ron's proposing," Obama said. But despite his professed agreement with "90 percent" of Wyden's thinking, he said parts of the plan are too "radical" for the country.
Wyden argues that linking health care costs to individuals will promote competition and drive down costs. But Obama said that is too sharp a departure from what workers have known -- and become comfortable with -- for generations.
That fundamental shift, along with the major changes in the tax code that Wyden proposes, are too "radical," Obama said, when aligned with all the other changes that must take place to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans who don't have it.
The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system."
A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."
FINALLY a member of the Oregon "craft beer community" has gathered the stones to pierce through the doomsday talk, and admit that raising the tax on beer is not going to raise the price of a common pint by two dollars or more as prophesied by opponents of Ben Cannon's bill this session. Krakow Cafe's Mark Kirchmeier penned an editorial response to the Widmers and other reluctants, attempting to correct the math from a beer retailer's perspective:
Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, is proposing a tax increase of about 20 cents per 16-ounce pint to raise more than $300 million to adequately fund crime-reducing alcohol and drug treatment.
Some in the Oregon brewery and retail lobby have reacted claiming they have a special "iconic" status that Oregonians should be grateful for and that the overhead of processing this tax would balloon the cost of the average pint by $2.
I hope the public doesn't swallow that swill.
Cannon's HB2461 would -- after calculating increased brewer and distributor markups -- increase the typical half-barrel that Krakow carries from $135 to about $166. Each half-barrel contains 125 pints, which I sell at $3.50 a pint.
Cannon's measure would increase my costs no more than 40 cents a pint. For the industry to claim that beer retailers will have to spike prices -- from $3.50 to $5.50 a pint -- is the rhetorical equivalent of driving under the influence.
We icons should be more responsible than that.
The implication from Kirchmeier's figuring is that the manufacturer and distributor costs passed down to him would basically cause him to double the tax rate to cover his costs. Moreover, his willingness to divulge his own cost and profit structure shows just how disingenuous folks like the Widmers are being--because many of them charge $4 or more for the same pints elsewhere. And given that craft brewers with their own pubs are both manufacturer AND distributor to their home taprooms, they're not similarly marking up their base prices before selling the beer they make at retail, the way Kirchmeier describes.
If you went to Krakow Cafe tomorrow, and your favorite beer had gone from $3.50 to $4.00, would you storm out in disgust? Or if you'd never been there before and a pint was four bucks, would you even blanche at coughing up? Doubtful. And even if you might, would you still complain after recognizing that you're no longer on the hook for your part of the $300 million in public health costs being saved by the measure?
Lest you think that Kirchmeier is just a dullard bar owner, the piece notes that his previous gig was as LA to former Rep. Gary Hansen in the '05 Leg, where he concentrated on drug and alcohol issues in the state. And even with his support of the tax, in current economic times he advocates a smaller tax, around 5-7 cents per pint, perhaps to be phased in and added to down the road.
Of course, it may well be moot; according to the bill tracking notes at the Leg's page, the bill has yet to pass out of committee--and the deadline for getting them out has long passed. Score another one for the rapacious beer lobby. As a serious craft beer lover, the hold it has over the Legislature continues to embarrass.
Out today is an interesting piece cobbled together on the downlow about John Kroger's first high profile gig as Attorney General--investigating Sam Adams for criminal behavior. As the AG's office refuses to comment, the story is left to educated speculation on who's doing what, but it does name names:
While it's unclear which of the Department of Justice's attorneys has taken the case, the agency has assigned Ron Nelson as lead investigator in the Adams matter, said sources familiar with the case.
Nelson retired as a special agent for the department in June. But the agency hired him back on July 15 as a temporary criminal investigator, said Lonn Hoklin, a spokesman for the state Department of Administrative Services.
Nelson has worked his share of major investigations during an 18-year career with the Justice Department, distinguishing himself as a tenacious investigator on drug, prostitution and public corruption cases. He spent part of this week interviewing key witnesses in the Adams case.
As I said, that's about as close as it comes to news. The rest is largely former DAs and legal people using their experience to paint a picture of what the investigation would likely entail (They're going to interview anybody who knows anything, in case you were wondering). But the end of the article hones in on the question of misdemeanor assault, the criminal charge being focused on as applicable to any pre-18 romantic contact between Adams and Breedlove:
The issue of whether a kiss amounts to sex was decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2001. A panel ruled that lips can be considered intimate body parts, and that a kiss can be considered sexual contact under certain circumstances.
In the Adams case, both Breedlove and Adams would have to consider the kiss more than chaste, according to the law. Or if Adams didn't view it that way, then the test is that a reasonable person would consider the kiss intimate.
As an aside, I know it's a meaningless distinction to most readers, but it would be helpful to some to know exactly what case we're talking about when referring to a legal precedent. The Appeals Court in 2001 said, in Horny Gent v Saucy Teen...etc. Regardless, the way The O parses the law, how is Adams not in serious danger of indictment? Does any reasonable person not consider a one minute kiss slightly more than chaste? Because this interpretation differs from previous reportage about lips being "initmate parts" that I've seen, it's why I'd love to know what case we're talking about here. If the above is correct, isn't that...relevant?
I'm still uncomfortable about the entire investigation given that as far as I know, no individual has lodged a specific criminal complaint--the allegation of a crime committed by Adams. That's not what we have here; what we have is a fishing expedition to see if there's any illegal activity surrounding the relationship Adams revealed. But no one has made any on-record allegation that a crime occurred. If that sounds reasonable to you, ask yourself if you'd welcome an investigation without complaint, into any of the activities you've comported that simply "look suspicious." Does the fling in question look suspicious? That is, causes a question by the known facts and not by the appearances? If so, it's only because Adams lied in a political context, which is dangerous ground IMO for the legal system to inject itself into.
Would I support a City ethics investigation? Wholeheartedly. I think there are rules of conduct that all City employees are accountable for, and as Commissioner Adams certainly would seem to have given some of those rules short shrift. If an ethics rebuke is warranted by investigation, it should be given. That's a response to Adams' behavior that requires neither recall nor resignation, but is still an on-record black mark on his professional portfolio--as it should be.
What I think, ain't stopping John Kroger of course. I think the most interesting path to take is the notion left by KATU's anonymous Breedlove "friend," who claimed he received a text message from Beau admitting a prior-to-18 affair. If that's true, there should be an electronic record, or? More coming, undoubtedly. Meanwhile, Willamette Week breathlessly notes that Sam Adams went to a big meeting in a test of his effectiveness...and they had the meeting. But wait! Some big business leaders weren't there! Oh, they said it had nothing to do with Adams. But something COULD have happened! Really! And it would have been scaaaaandalous!
I really don't think I can pass this up--for a blog that has decided it's going to cover the Blazers with as much vigor as it does state politics, I have to report this. As far as I can tell it's only in the print edition of Monday's Oregonian sports pages, but periodically they run something called the "Rip City Culture Grid," asking several Blazer players their opinions on Portland-specific cultural minutaie.
Usually it's pretty mundane or noncontroversial, like favorite pizza (Bellagio's the winner with two mentions out of eight; Blake says Papa Murphy's??) or how many bridges they can name (Oden wins with four of twelve--Burnside, Broadway, Hawthorne and Ross Island) , but this week they threw in a sizzling hot potato: Sam Adams--stay or go?
The smartest of the eight respondents were the three who simply said "no comment"--Martell, Brandon and Blake (who said "not going to touch that one"), with honorable mention to Vanilla Gorilla ("don't care") and Travis ("Who?", which I'm not sure whether I believe or not, but is funny either way).
Channing Frye, who I suppose has the least to lose as the player most likely not to be under Sam's jurisdiction at the Rose Garden much longer, is most direct--his response was "Eww. Go." Aside from sounding a little bit like a teenage girl, that's wading into it with both feet. Is the "ewww" for the gayness, the skeeviness, or the lyingness? Can't tell.
At the other end of the spectrum is Oden, with the curious answer "Stay. He's cool." I'm fine with the opinion to stay--but has Adams left any trace of "coolness" behind in the City Hall bathrooms? Even many supporters would probably agree he has.
One other note--I can't tell whether this was an Outlaw-type answer (who?) or an intentional dodge, but LaMarcus's response when asked about whether Sam should stay or go was, "The beer?" One imagines LMA would thus be likeliest to spontaneously laugh when told of the newest T-shirt sensation, about "having a Sam Adams at 18."
And finally, not apropos of Adams but interesting, were their responses about what they'd want to change in Portland. By far the most popular answer was "rain" or "the weather," but Martell claims he wouldn't change anything, and Oden would like the city to be more diverse (taller? Older looking? More open to age-gap relationships?). But God bless him, Channing is a born Portlander from another life. His response? "Cleaner rivers." Tom McCall must be smiling in his grave (and also shouting from the beyond, "DON'T TRADE HIM!")
*Brandon Roy became a new father on Monday night. His fiancee, Tiana Bardwell, gave birth to the couple's second child, Mariah Leilani Roy at 5:22 p.m. in Seattle. Roy said she weighed in at 6 pounds and was 19 inches.
*Blazers general manager envisions Roy returning from his hamstring injury as soon as Saturday's home game against Golden State. However, he said a final decision won't be made until Roy, Pritchard, athletic trainer Jay Jensen and the team doctors meet on Wednesday.
You decide which is the part to celebrate more--a functioning vas deferens and uterus on the part of Brandon and his honey, or the thought of him being back on the court as soon as Saturday. I'll call it a draw. :) But I sure hope he's using his injury to do some pre-catchup on sleep and family time. If you see him go all narcoleptic on a drive in the 4th quarter this weekend, you'll know why. (Wheels: "Roy drives to the rim, leaps--and falls to the heap in a giant snore! Boom-nap-a-laka!")
Congrats Brandon and Tiana! And for the dolt in the comments who insists on hazing Roy for being a single dad (in a nonetheless committed, long term relationship) -- give me a break. Wake up and smell the 21st Century, dude.
I've linked to the Oregonian story on this, but the online version has a section cut from it that contains the line in the printed version that made me shake my head about this new guy again. If you didn't follow the link yet, Portlander Eric Bryant used a little-cited law allowing citizens to ticket other citizens this summer, nailing policeman Chadd Stensgaard (does he get paid by the letter?)* for parking illegally in a non-emergency situation. Clearly public safety vehicles should have the ability and right to park just about anywhere they need to in an emergency. "Lunch" does not qualify. "Depositing a check" doesn't, either, nor does "more coffee and donuts."
In the printed version, Westerman's response after listening to Bryant's press conference on the new tickets reads this way: "He's the one trying to cause financial hardship to my officers." Sweet fancy Jesus, talk about an oppression complex! "Financial hardship" for a $35 ticket? For people who have good paying jobs? What a load of fucking nonsense, really. What does that make the $250 fine when a HOMELESS person sits on the sidewalk for more than an hour? Financial nuclear devastation?
This is just absurd passing of the buck, and reflects a poor eye for both public relations and the sense in Portland that cops are mostly arrogant pricks who think they can do whatever they want because they're cops. I'm not saying that's true; I'm saying that Westerman is doing himself no favors by repeatedly saying things that reinforce such a construct.
Matt Davis at the Portland Mercury is carving out quite a niche as police watchdog; both the tasing story and this one are originally his, and here's the story that PM broke a day before The O's version. If you can believe it, Westerman says something ELSE that's brash and stupid:
"Mr. Bryant has got a bone to pick and he's got the right to do that," Westerman continues. "But he's on a crusade, he was camped out at the parking garage next to the police bureau. All he's going to do is force the city into creating formal legal exceptions for Police Officers, which he's not going to like." [emph me]
What he's clearly implying is that stuff like parking in a "no government spot" to eat lunch will become legal in the City, but that's surely not what the transportation bureau is saying in The O's piece, again only available in the printed version:
"What we want to do is continue to allow emergency vehicles access to parking they need to do their business to protect people and property," said Cheryl Kuck, of the city transportation bureau. "At the same time, we want them to be more responsible and have some rules."
Catch that? DOT is suggesting that the police "need to be more responsible." That doesn't sound like the change Westerman is alleging will occur, that the City will simply do their bidding so they can continue to blow off the law. And now that this has happened again, the "but we have an informal agreement!" excuse REALLY is not going to fly any more. Suck it up and find a parking spot like the rest of us. We know it's tough; we actually have to do it if we want to leave our car.
Voluntary Portland exile, government- (especially government employee-) hater, losing council candidate (smell the irony!) and Brainfart NW editor Dave Lister got an opportunity in Thursday's O to show that--landslide election be damned--the manifest failures of conservative economics and trickle down theory are still being kicked around as lucid concepts by the know-nothing factions of our community. And hey, you can toss in a bit of that failed focus on the evils of an undocumented workforce to boot! From his op-ed:
Increases in the minimum wage affect the cost of all goods and services. Menu prices. Hotel rates. Grocery store prices. As increases in the minimum wage put upward pressure on prices, the spending power of those earning that minimum declines.
And there's another factor that concerns me even more. What's the impact of the "living" minimum wage on young people attempting to enter the work force?
My nephew, for nearly 18 months in 2003 and 2004, languished without a job. Armed with only a GED and no experience, he would have been happy to have work at $5 an hour. At $7.50, he was unemployable.
Aside from the difficulty of young people entering the work force and the reluctance of employers to provide them opportunities, another unintended consequence of Oregon's high minimum wage is the issue of illegal immigration. If a person enters this country illegally and plans to use a false or stolen Social Security number to obtain entry-level work, which state would you choose? I'm willing to bet it would be a state with the highest minimum wage.
Beyond the immediate comments to the online version of his story, a couple of folks responding to The O have already beaten me to the punch in fisking Lister; one does us all a favor by bringing to bear some of those nasty facts that Lister tends to ignore or work around with his hodgepodge of anecdcotalism:
real studies on the subject conclude that a 10% increase in the minimum wage can be expected to cause between a 1% and 2% increase in fast food prices [hyperlink added by me]
Yesterday, you may recall a piece I did that ran down the results of the Leg races, working from the Oregonian's page and calls. In it, I cited The O's tabulation of 37 House Democrats, including a pickup in HD39 by Toby Forsberg for Wayne Scott's old seat. Over at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm was doing the same thing:
In HD 39, Toby Forsberg (D) defeated Bill Kennemer (R) 52-47% to capture the seat held by former GOP majority leader Rep. Wayne Scott.
Hooray! we both said. Democratic pickup!, we both said.
So imagine my zeal to correct fellow editor skywaker9 this morning, in his predictions post-mortem:
I missed 2 house races, both of which were very close. I projected that Adamson and Eberle would win and neither did. Forsberg appears headed to a narrow defeat as well, which is unfortunately predicted.
Au contraire!, I was ready to exclaim in a comment--it's 37 Dems, not 36. But before I did anything that might be embarrassing later, I checked back at the results page to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. Wouldn't you know it, now the check mark by Forsberg's name is gone, and it shows this:
Oregon House District 39 Toby Forsberg Dem.12,54449% Bill Kennemer Rep.12,74750% Write-in 710%
That's crazy close--just 203 votes--but quite obviously, not only would you not call the race for Forsberg at this time, he's now LOSING. Which makes The O's projection on him a touch premature, no?
I checked with Clackamas Clerk Sherry Hall this afternoon, and she confirmed that there are still votes left to tabulate there--the county results page shows 76% "turnout" while the state indicates a turnout of at least 83%. The question is how many of those are in the HD39 area, which comprises Canby and Oregon City. The answer is...
...they don't know. But it's not because they're not on top of things, but because the votes left to count are "special" ballots. Ms. Hall reported 16,532 ballots they call "second look," because there's some issue with them: a bad signature match, part of the ballot marked too poorly for the machine to read but with voter intent possible to discern, etc. On top of that, there are over 4,500 ballots from Multno and Washington Counties, mismailed by voters to the wrong clerk's office. (That's a lot for one election, she noted). Another 400 ballots are from other counties beyond the Portland metro. Because these are oddball ballots in some way, officials have no sense of what parts of the county they belong to--so there's no telling how many of them have HD39 votes on them.
Oh, and just to confuse you a little more, they have a different number than The O, updated at least once:
Aside from being a disappointment for Forsberg, his supporters and anyone who wants to see as many Dems in the House as possible, it's the cardinal elections sin to project a race and then have to un-project it. Whether it's calling the Presidency for Dewey or Florida for Gore, having to backtrack from a projection is cause for massive embarrassment at a news organization. I hope they're massively embarrased, anyway...
Near as I can tell, the Oregonian called this race for Merkley at 5:50pm local time. There's no article as of yet, but the big red check mark and the phrase "Jeff Merkley Wins Senate Seat" are there, so I'll assume they've made the call. :)
In a little speculative folly to flesh this diary out, once you're done looking at the Senate tabulations, click over to the President tab. Notice (first of all) how much Obama outperformed Merkley in several counties, winning some outright that Merkley could not. One of those is Jackson County, usually bright red (and where Smith is currently up by 7 points). But Obama narrowly won Jackson, and is all of 300 votes behind McCain in Deschutes County, home of the Transplanted California Republican. Two percent of the ballots are still outstanding there.
Could Obama win Deschutes? He probably doesn't have enough votes left, actually--but I still find it notable how close he came. Obama is also within 225 in Polk County, the more conservative sister of Benton County. Two percent remain there as well. And in Coos County, he's only down about a thousand with four percent remaining. All other counties look to stay the way they are now. In Oregon, as elsewhere, Obama successfully stretched the map. Merkley's failure to reproduce the feat is why we had to wait until now for the call.
But it's been made, Smith is gone. HOORAY! Now I can take that "Stop Gordon Smith" link down, eh? Congrats Senator-elect Merkley!
Today's Lake Oswego Review takes another look at the "bloggers as media" question that arose when I was excluded from an LO Council Executive Session meeting, essentially for being insufficiently credentialled. Reporter Lee van der Voo--who is a board member of the state chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and has recused herself from discussions and negotiations with government on this topic--explains the recent events, and then discusses how the proposal put forth by City Attorney David Powell has many in the state media worried:
Lake Oswego Mayor Judie Hammerstad said she wants to create a responsible atmosphere for executive sessions in an age where technology has outstripped the fine points of Oregon’s open meetings law.
But the city’s efforts to define the media have met with concern from trade organizations, open government advocates and media outlets.
Those groups say government should not be allowed to define who is a journalist and what constitutes news.
“If government is allowed to certify media representatives, then government therefore is allowed to decertify,” said Judson Randall, president of Open Oregon, an advocacy group promoting open government.
Once the authority is aquired, Randall said government can change criteria to make rules increasingly burdensome.
Duane Bosworth, a media attorney also on the board of Open Oregon, said any approach to clarify the state law should focus on refining what the Legislature intended when lawmakers approved it.
That effort should not overlook the Legislature’s primary goals when it wrote the law, Bosworth said. Those goals were to acknowledge the media as a watchdog and allow journalists to stay current on civic happenings.
“Lake Oswego has to value those things,” said Bosworth.
He is concerned the resulting local policy instead has a punitive tone and is based on worst-case scenarios that have never played out. He said Lake Oswego has been slow to prove the policy has real benefits and is even necessary at all.
“It’s as if they are dictating to the world what a news media must look like and that’s not proper,” said Bosworth.
Citing a need for more feedback, the Lake Oswego City Council delayed plans to approve the policy Oct. 7. Instead, officials plan meetings with press advocates and will continue talks.
Van der Voo goes on to quote me a little bit, wherein I immodestly repeat that by any reasonable standard I should be considered a member of the local media. Of course, the issue to the City is not whether I qualify on a productivity basis, but rather on an institutional basis--one that they presume will determine whether their (the Council's) interests are safely protected or not. Accountability is a different issue than establishing who qualifies as media, and to shoehorn them together is in my view a central reason why their initial proposal was flawed.
Here's an idea: how about a $500 civil penalty, to be assessed EITHER institutionally or individually against anyone violating the terms of the Exec Session law? If the problem is that bloggers lack an institution behind them that offers a disincentive to violating the terms, why not then apply a similar disincentive to individuals acting independently? I don't think LO has a categorical fear of bloggers per se; to quote Marge Simpson, they simply fear the unknown. A path to accountabilty for anyone appearing at an Exec Session, would seem to solve this problem, no?
As van der Voo notes and as we expected, Tuesday's hearing has been postponed in order for LO to confer with the various constituencies and try to come up with something better. We'll keep following the story...
Update, 1pm--I just got my hands on the short KEX report that aired yesterday, featuring a couple of quick snippets from our interview. Listen to it here {mp3, about 1 min worth)
The O now has a more comprehensive "reader forum/feedback" setup, with something called "The Stump" that also pulls in editorial commentary from the staff at the paper. Following up on the story in Sunday's print edition, they ran a somewhat more in-depth version online Sunday night, written by a different reporter. (Ironically, the print edition has nearly a dozen comments; the online version just one).
As I said, the story obviously covers much of the same ground as the print edition, but offers more analysis and less quoting of subject experts, and gives some ink to David Powell's characterization of the situation:
David Powell, the Lake Oswego city attorney, is right when he suggests that the problem from the city's perspective is finding a responsible party who will be accountable for the actions of the reporter. If the reporter breaks a promise not to publish an account of a properly conducted executive session, to whom does the city complain? And complain is about all it can do because there is no legal sanction for breaking the pledge. It is, as Powell said to The Oregonian's Yuxing Zheng in August, a transaction "based largely on good faith and almost an honor system." In other words, one that works until it doesn't.
And of course, there are plenty of questions from the press perspective, the chief one being what's up with a pre-meeting promise not to publish something? But none of the alternatives to the present law is especially appealing, either.
Issuing press credentials might solve the matter at a practical level even if it leaves most of the theoretical problems unresolved. Changing the law to keep everyone out of closed meetings meets a theoretical standard but serves up immense practical problems. and I don't mean just for the news media. Ask anyone who has ended up on the receiving end of coverage jihad about secret meetings. And, in any case, the public does have the right generally to know what its local governments are up to.
Powell, who plans to report back to his city council meeting this week about how to proceed, thinks that the city (and other governments, for that matter) and other interested parties - a number of press organizations and freedom-of-information groups - should sit down and talk some more. Then, maybe, the legislature ought to reexamine the law.
I think the Council's worries revolve around trust issues, and it's very true that the Exec Session laws in Oregon lack teeth in terms of enforceability. However, what LO is doing is giving faith to organizations they know well--Powell's original proposal actually pre-cleared anyone from The O and the Lake Oswego Review--with no more enforcement or verification of trustworthiness than we have now. Jayson Blair, anyone? The key problem with their concept is that it favors corporate, institutionalized media essentially on faith, and by comparison views independent sources skeptically.
More on this as we go forward, of course...but even if you already read the print version on this story, this one is worth a read for delving a little bit more into the theoretical issues, which is IMO where we need to be right now as interested parties work on a viable solution.
Once again I'm heartened to see the traditional media respond to a question in their own industry that they could easily ignore, but have publicized and agreed that the question should be asked: when it comes to a workable definition for Oregon's business of government, who are "the media?" Oregonian reporter Yuxing Zheng has followed up on her original article about me getting thrown out of Lake Oswego Council's Executive Session, with a new piece on the Council's proposed response to the problem of defining media.
In Sunday's Metro section, Zheng takes City Attorney David Powell's proposed definition scheme to a number of subject experts, all of whom seem to find it...wanting:
Lake Oswego is considering defining media organizations as "institutionalized," "well-established" and producing at least 25 percent news content. That has stirred a firestorm of protest from media organizations and media law experts who say the proposed policy is overly restrictive or simply unnecessary. Others contend that a government should not try to arbitrarily define media, especially in a fluid, Internet-fueled landscape where legions of bloggers, including Bunster, insist they are journalists.
"It's a pretty draconian policy," said Wendy Culverwell, president of the state chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. "It just went to fairly long extremes to define media, to require people to provide fairly lengthy documentation. That's just not appropriate for a city government to be doing."
In what I sincerely consider a public service, The Oregonian took the time to review just who the hell Bill Sizemore is, what he's done in Oregon politics, what his record is, and which of the ballot measures this fall are backed by him and his nutjob financiers. (Left unanalyzed is just who the hell he thinks he is, or how he gets off disrupting the public process with repeated contempt.) To jostle your own memory, or tell the story for your first hearing:
During the past 14 years, Sizemore and his anti-tax, anti-union allies have come to dominate Oregon's initiative system, although every Sizemore measure has been rejected by voters, overturned by the courts or changed by legislators.
After a six-year period in which Sizemore qualified only one measure for the ballot and seemed to be fading from the state's political scene, the 57-year-old activist is back.
Five of the eight citizen initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot are authored by Sizemore, including three that are versions of earlier measures he sponsored that voters rejected.
Sizemore has returned despite multiple setbacks, including a disastrous campaign as the 1998 Republican candidate for governor and mounting legal troubles. In 2002, in a civil case brought by two teachers unions, a Multnomah County jury found that Sizemore had engaged in a pattern of racketeering that included forged signatures and filing of false financial reports as part of his effort to put two anti-union initiatives on the 2000 ballot.
The jury awarded $2.5 million plus attorney fees to the unions from two now-defunct Taxpayers United organizations that Sizemore controlled. The money has not been paid, and Sizemore has been held in contempt of court three times for violating an injunction stemming from the lawsuit.
And because Sizemore has not gone away, a coalition that stretches from labor unions to civic, religious and environmental groups to business organizations is preparing to spend millions of dollars this fall to defeat his five ballot measures and two others that were authored by another prolific initiative activist, Kevin Mannix, the former Republican Party chairman.
Is there much reason to give this scourge on the process any more consideration and analysis of his twisted motives and shameless disregard for jurisprudence and the rather obvious hint being dropped to KNOCK IT OFF? I don't think so.
But it's important that Oregon voters be clear on who Bill Sizemore is and why he has so many initiatives on the ballot. He says so himself; his intent is to get them on the ballot, not necessarily pass them. (Hint--that's a good way to make money, floating expenses from measure campaign to campaign).
Below the fold, the measure's he's sponsoring this year, so you can know in advance which to reject out of hand.
Oregon Democrats have long coveted the seat of Sen. Gordon Smith, the only Republican currently holding statewide office. They consider him vulnerable because of the way he has supported the policies of an unpopular president while managing to rile many in his party. And in a year in which Democrats are expected to gain ground in Congress, they just may be right.
We think the candidate they should send to face Smith is, in some ways, the unlikeliest one of all: Steve Novick, an Ivy League lawyer who stands 4'-9" and has a hook instead of a left hand.
This choice is unorthodox not just because of Novick's remarkable personal characteristics and history, but because the Democratic Party establishment is supporting another solid candidate, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley. Merkley launched his campaign after other prominent Oregon Democrats decided not to undertake the rigors and risks of a race against a well-heeled incumbent.
Well, I sure cut into my vacation leave stash with a good long break over the holidays. I had to leave early in that last pre-Christmas week in order to pick up an ailing relative and bring her back to Portland, and stayed out of the office until this morning. So like me, perhaps late last week you were still pulling wrapping paper and a hunk of tape off the bottom of your slippers, and almost missed the little to-do about the continuing wait for interactive appearances between interested Democratic candidates for Senate.
It started off with a speculative analysis from a well-known diarist based on a derivative "whispers" column, but by the end of the afternoon resulted in a straighter record on on the proceedings and status, and some questions about who, if anyone, is holding up debates. Along the way it seems some folks jumped to conclusions based on their reliance of the good old MSM--always a mistake, one finds these days.
With the 2007 elections out of the way, and the Presidential voting set to begin in less than two months (egad), it seems like we've dumped the last one and quickly moved on to the next. The O fronted its Metro section with the somewhat odd headlnePrimary Race: Naughty or Nice, and then committed the Sin of Couric in the subhead by starting with "some say" and ending with a warning to Democrats. Jeff Mapes used his blog column to write about the O story, and offered more warnings about Gordon Smith. A triumph of the traditional media! But even discerning, alternatve outlet folks like Randy Stapilus are interested in the tenor of the race. To a certain extent all three resort at times to the senseless parroting of the Republican-cum-conventional wisdom that always views through the lenses of cautioning Democrats not to go "too far left." Is there any discussion in any of these pieces about Smith being the most vulnerable Republican Senate incumbent running in 2008, and his dismal re-elect numbers a year away from the race? Nope. But watch out, Democrats!
That said, we'll put Randy at the head of the line and talk about his more informative, less cute report first. {but below the fold...!}
In its ever-evolving quest to seek out the 21st Century in the delivery of news, The Oregonian has been adding paper-led blogs (although not making them much more intuituvely findable) in order to speed up their online coverage. Jeff Mapes has started his own blog where he lets his Beatlesque mop down, and chats politics (or Jeff Mapes, as today). And then what do I discover--on a Sunday no less--an apparently no more than 10 day old blog: Northwest Headlines. And there, the dirty headline itself:
Stories from Northwest newspapers
I don't mean to suggest that Loaded Orygun has a patent on delivering news from other state sources on a regular basis...no wait, yes--yes I do mean to suggest that. Almost since we've been around, first Carla and then nothstine have scrubbed the local media for stuff the big boys just can't be bothered with, news which brings Oregon home no matter what part of the state you call yours. Time and time again, readers say how the one day they make sure to read LO is for the Sunday whiparound. And now this Freddy-come-lately wants to start offering the news they didn't see fit to print the first time around, and call it something bland like Northwest Headlines?
Well...OK then. As long as it's bland and sounds totally uninteresting and impossible to find later, that's OK I guess. But the minute I see any reference to "spanning," I'm calling the legal posse together to throw a wrench into that spanning. Believe it!
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
