I sure am glad that you and Goldstien support Burner. Have you noticed how much nicer Goldstien has become since geting fired from radio.

I understand that the fire is in fact not beleaved to have been started by ELF at all. This was told to me by a person in law enforcment up in that area. But then, while I think BIAW is run by a bunch of over the top locusts, I don't think they had anything to do with the fires. All of their actions are linked to financial gain so it just does not add up.

So the pot and the kettle are both black. Yawn. next subject, please.

Goldstein is a hypocrite who overplayed his hand. The BIAW is hardly a mafia style organization. And I seriously doubt Goldstein ever received any threats of any kind by "speaking out " against them. Rather they probably came from his imagination after a particularly long night of "drinking liberally".

To even say that the BIAW would purposely burn down a multimillion dollar home for some nutty conspiracy theory just shows that Goldstein likely either has mental problems or alcohol problems or both - one driving the other.

We do know Goldstein is given to fits of uncontrolled rage, such as the time he faxed a letter off to the legislative ethic board claiming that Luke Esser copulates with pigs (though Goldstein used the vernacular F word in his version).

http :// www . horsesass.org/?p=2109

These are not the actions of a sane person.

Postman, I think you are misrepresenting this part:

***
Goldstein asked his guests whether they agreed with his theory that the BIAW’s criticism of mainstream environmentalists was “projection” because the builders had done the arson themselves.

There was a yes, a “yeah, probably,” and a “yeah, a little.” Connelly was something of a moderating voice, answering, “Nein.”
***

We weren't asked if we thought the BIAW did the crime. We were asked if we thought the BIAW was "projecting" when they called enviromentalists Nazis. There's a big difference.

Also, you left out Carl Ballard's "stormwater-front" joke, which was comedy genius. Or his "greenbelt" joke. Or my Marge Schott joke, which Joel liked (and Joel, according to the P-I employee handbook, is not allowed to laugh at jokes).

BTW, you're welcome any Tuesday night.

If Goldstein actually believes that the BIAW burned down those homes, then he probably also belongs to Rev. Wright's church and believes the U.S. Govt. created AIDS to give to black people.

And frankly, the most powerful groups in Olympia are the liberal teachers' union, and public employee unions in general. By far.

Postman -

How come even though this is the latest blog post, the Times front page refers to the previous entry as the "latest"?

Could it perhaps be a bias that you don't want an unflattering story about a Democrat activist to be on the front page?

the funniest thing about this whole tangent is that we are going back and forth over whether the nazi comparison (hyperbolic or not) is fitting. in the first post, postman said he doesn't like rhetoric and prefers to stick to the subject, but since the biaw has no point other than to slander those who they should really learn how to negotiate with, the only point to research and dig into was the nazi comparison.

frankly, as someone who's worked in the residential construction industry (and also has green values), i share some sympathy towards their concerns over onerous and tedious regulation. so, it's disappointing to to not see any real discussion of real issues other than whether the nazi label fits or not.

P-I columnist Joel Connelly, a guest at this week’s gathering, said the BIAW column about the arson was outrageous…Goldstein asked his guests whether they agreed with his theory that the BIAW’s criticism of mainstream environmentalists was “projection” because the builders had done the arson themselves.

There was a yes, a “yeah, probably,” and a “yeah, a little.” Connelly was something of a moderating voice, answering, “Nein.”

Interesting flip/flop comment by Connelly. Starts out slamming BIAW then sticks up for them…"Nein" means: no and again no!...or certainly not!

Postman: Base on his answer Connelly should start ghost writing under the name Sergeant Schultz…

"whether the nazi label fits or not"??!!

I could "label" baseball players or coffee drinkers as Nazis, but I don't because MILLIONS of people were killed in World War II. Imagine the feelings of despair and horror you felt on 9/11. Now imagine thousands of planes crashing into thousands of buildings. That's the horrible legacy of the Nazi Party.

Musser, McCabe, the BIAW and Goldberg know making an association with Nazis over policy isn't a philosophical debate, but a way to associate that horrific evil with stupid logic.

It is an obscenity to use the evil of the Nazi Party and Hitler to progress your own agenda.

As soon as the hand-wringing liberals speak out against this type on nonsense being preached by liberals on college campuses, I'll start worrying about what some private organization says in their newsletter.

This whole thing is way below your standards, David, and I'm beginning to question your agenda.

And I never thought I'd do that.

Let me add:

Liberals like Goldstein talking about conservatives projecting? It is to laugh.

You define projection, guys and gals.

David, you may not be trying to draw a direct parallel between my comments and those of the BIAW, but by devoting a post to what I said, readers might understandably infer exactly that. Or, perhaps your characterization of your own comments as not a direct parallel is implicitly more credible than my characterization of my own comments as satire? For when in your headline you put the word "satire" in quotes, you clearly imply that you don't take my characterization at face value.

Believe it or not when I insist that you are one of the local journalists I respect most, but this attempt to make me part of the story is an exercise in the sort of perversely "balanced" journalism I routinely rail against. I suppose I should address your post more fully in a post of my own, but I guess I can sum up my response in a single word: context. Unlike the BIAW, I was not offering a pseudo-historical treatise in an official newsletter, but simply making an off hand sarcastic remark, satirically using the BIAW's own Nazi rhetoric as a springboard. In the full context of my oeuvre no reasonable person should infer that I truly believe Tom McCabe to be a Nazi, any more than they should infer that I truly believe that Luke Esser has sex with pigs. The BIAW on the other hand, continues to defend their claims.

To those who choose to read me literally, I am clearly an awful, awful person. But hell if I'm ever going to write down to their level.

The BIAW equates conservation to Nazism and environmental regulation to Stalinism. Don't you think it is more relevant to ask Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Doug Sutherland and other BIAW superstars their take on BIAW's rhetoric rather than dwelling on the barroom antics of that "horse's ass" blogger guy?

Do you want some Cheese with that Whine Goldy?
Nobody has ever taken you seriously, get over yourself.

"The excerpting is a bit out of context and involved a little paragraph manipulating. "

Clownstein manipulating for his own purposes? I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

Oh this bit is rich:

"I had somebody tell me that, ‘You might want to check your credit report, see who is checking on your, your credit rating.’ They hire private investigators to go after people."

That is a good bunch of hearsay. Got any evidence of that Goldstein other than your already demonstrably impugned word?

If fact, it is the other way around. It is the Democrat activist's like Goldstein that pull credit report's of people they don't like. A great example of this is the case of federal prosecutors investigating Democratic Party researchers in Washington (the other one) who illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican candidate for governor.

I urge the independent reader to see for themselves:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001534.html

Or just google:

michael steele credit report

Biased, no, I don't think that's the case at all.

Will, yes, the question was whether you thought BIAW was "projecting," which Goldy asked because he said he believed they were projecting because they were the arsons. I think it's a small difference, but I'm glad you included what you think is the right context and people can decide for themselves. There were definitely some chuckles there and I'm sorry I couldn't include all the greatest hits.

Goldy, This is maybe the third post I've ever written that focused on you. I have written more than a thousand about politicians, so I don't think I'm in danger of focusing my attention on the wrong guys.

You are way off-base when you suggest this is some attempt at the sort of balanced journalism you hate. I said that was not what I was doing, there's nothing in the story that does that. There is no where near equal treatments between the same stories in terms of space devoted or time spent researching. They both deal with Nazis. But I think this is just an easy club for you to hit me with no matter what I'd write. I have never, and will never, believe that journalism is about taking turns about which side I write about. My history proves that, no matter how often you complain what you see as a perverted view of balance that makes for bad journalism.

You complained about the BIAW's column. I researched it and debunked the claim. That's what I do. And that's the difference between what you do and what I do, not an artificial scale of journalistic justice.

jhc more non jews died in WW2 than did jews. I just sick of it and so is the rest of the world.

Postman wrote:

You are way off-base when you suggest this is some attempt at the sort of balanced journalism you hate. I said that was not what I was doing, there's nothing in the story that does that. There is no where near equal treatments between the same stories in terms of space devoted or time spent researching. They both deal with Nazis. But I think this is just an easy club for you to hit me with no matter what I'd write. I have never, and will never, believe that journalism is about taking turns about which side I write about. My history proves that, no matter how often you complain what you see as a perverted view of balance that makes for bad journalism.

Don't worry Mr Postman, you have convinced us all that you are not a balanced journalist. Your liberal bias creds are intact.

I would also like to hear what Dino Rossi, Luke Esser and Rob McKenna (or Frank Chopp for that matter) think of the BIAW's comments comparing the goals of conservationists to Nazis.

I thought the BIAW torched their properties for insurance money since they weren't able to sell them.

The free market was not willing to pay them what the insurance market was...

Exhales.

Draws breath again.

Wow. I actually thought the BIAW was just some builder's association. You know, guys with hammers trying to make a buck. No big deal.

It turns out they're a bunch of off-the-charts WACKOS. I checked out their newsletter and complementing their Nazi rants is a special insert dedicated to global warming denial. I KID YOU NOT. They also seem quite angry about, well, everything.

So I guess I learned something from all this. Are legislators really listening to these nut cases? And if so, which legislators?

Mr. Postman, I think you did a good job of debunking BIAW's ham-handed attempts to link environmentalism to Nazism.

To which you might have added: As it's well known that Hitler loved children and dogs, according to their logic, anyone who likes kids or dogs can't be trusted.

All of this rhetorical combat must seem pointless to the average newspaper reader, though. If there is any validity to the builders' complaints of overregulation, then what we really need is a serious discussion of how much building regulation is necessary to protect neighboring property owners and the general public from potentially harmful construction practices, and whether current regulations go too far.

Certainly, if my uphill neighbor does something that could result in my property being inundated by mud, I'm concerned about that, and I don't think I'd be out of line to want government to step in and prevent it.

I don't know if the building industry is overregulated or not, but it seems obvious that builders and BIAW would serve their own interests better if they gave us examples and reasoned arguments instead of ideological rants.

They will not win my support for their cause with base appeals to emotion or unsupported assertions. Builders produce a useful product and have the same right as everyone else to make a profit, but they have no more right than anyone else to do so at the expense of other property owners or in a manner contrary to the general public interest.

Every single time Goldstein gets cornered he falls back on the 'it's satire' whine. He's been doing it for years. He's an avid fan of pointing out the hate and evil in everyone else while allowing defending and encouraging it with his blog.He cries about the possibility of an unnamed threat of violence, but he doesn't blink an eye when his posse threatens to 'out' the names and addresses of those with whom they disagree. ... with massive displayes of foul language and insult. I never go to his blog without a proxy server and cookie tracking blocked. I don't trust him or ay of his devotees.

He's a loon.

And loons are dangerous.

Kiana--you're ignorant. The uber-powerful teachers union had to fight like hell to get the additional .5% increase in COLA, and the class size proposal was stillborn.

There's a myth that the WEA is an ogre that gets whatever it wants from the democratic legislators trip-tropping over the bridge. This is a myth that deserves to be busted.

"Don't worry Mr Postman, you have convinced us all that you are not a balanced journalist. Your liberal bias creds are intact."
-
You giys don't get it. JOURNALISM isn't about which side you're on. Postman has tried to explain it, and certainly examplifies it in his work.
Your porblem is believing all reporters have, or SHOULD have, an agenda. It's a convenient way to disqualify the objective truth you don't want in print, Go back to FOX News or wherever the anti-journalism "bias" suits you. You silly ignorance insults the concept of what good journalism truly is, more than it insults Postman.

Syllabucks, yep that's Goldy in a nutshell. He turns the hyperbole up to eleven to drive traffic. And if he gets called on it, he quickly downplays to satire. All the while raising the roof if any of his competitors try anything similar.

It's always refreshing to read real journalism from Postman.

"You giys don't get it. JOURNALISM isn't about which side you're on. Postman has tried to explain it, and certainly examplifies it in his work.
Your porblem is believing all reporters have, or SHOULD have, an agenda. It's a convenient way to disqualify the objective truth you don't want in print, Go back to FOX News or wherever the anti-journalism "bias" suits you. You silly ignorance insults the concept of what good journalism truly is, more than it insults Postman."

Are you brain dead? Go back and read Postman's own words where he works very hard to prove to Goldstein he isn't balaced in his reporting, as if being a fair and balanced journalist is some sort of evil thing to be avoided at all costs.

An agenda is the LAST thing we want. It is the liberals like Goldstein who rail on against journalists being balanced when they dare to print something negative about liberals like Postman did about Goldstein. How dare anyone break the golden rule that thou shall not print anything negative about a liberal.

Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that the liberal media has an agenda. You liberals have been blind for years on that. It is only in recent months, when SNL did a skit on how the liberal media is in the tank for Obama that finally did it penetrate any thick liberal skull that there is bias in the media. Only when the liberal ox is being gored, in this unique case when lib Hillary vs Lib Obama, do you people complain at all. Hillary supporters finally got to see what we have been putting up with for years. It was only after that SNL skit that Obama was finally asked any probing questions. In his first session with reporters following the skit, Obama got mad and walked out because they were finally asking him questions.

So yes, Mr Postman, your liiberal biased creds are intact. Oh I read today that the Times is cutting back due to low circulation. I wonder why? Hmm could it be that the public is beginning to wise up and reject liberal biased media like the Times?

Naw, keep making excuses and cling to that liberal bias as the Times is swirling around the drian.

FairAndBalanced, you have it exactly right. That's why I keep seeing things like "Faux News" etc. Libs are so blinded by the bias that they wouldn't know "fair and balanced" if it bit them in the butt. I must say that Mr. Postman, in most cases, attempts to display a non biased view. As for the reduced circulation at the ST and PI, I can't believe it's due to biased reporting, with as many Libs are in Seattle, it should be sky rocketing! But hey, for all you Libs, they're saving trees man, lots of trees......