“It takes large murder to turn rocks in the shade and expose the strange worms beneath. The lives of our discontented madmen are revealed.”
~ James Douglas Morrison, “THE LORDS, Notes on Vision,”©1969
I will never forget those few minutes last year, seeing the ferocity of a beast on the face of a man; the Chairman of the King County Republican Party, no less, sitting a few feet away. It was a suddenly open window on the soul of Michael Young. I won’t forget it and you shouldn’t either. It was during the second official meeting of the County Platform Committee.Young’s appointed 2006 Platform Committee Chair, Lori Sotelo, had spent most of the first official meeting, a week earlier, trying to pass a secrecy (gag) rule. She wanted to prevent me from publishing (here, at TheReaganWing.com) the extent to which she and Party Chair Michael Young were going to take conservative principles out of the Republican Platform. The truth getting out could have been devastating to their re-election in December. Their plan was supposed to be all subtlety and secrecy. But, while Mrs. Sotelo had no intention of using them, I was familiar with Roberts Rules of Order. In the First Meeting I had insisted on proper procedure, full debate, specific wording of proposals, and a full definition of what would be considered a “violation” of the proposed censorship. During debate I frequently resorted to our rules of debate. I pointed out that the Chair, as “referee” was not allowed to enter debate. So Lori stepped down, temporarily. I made motions. I proposed amendments. Lori’s first proposals were defeated and the issue, each time, should have died. But one of Lori’s allies on the committee would always invent new wording. I kept pointing out that each proposed gag rule would prevent delegates from reporting back to their districts. (The final wording actually did (!!). If you got a report on the Platform Committee from your representative in a District meeting any time between March and the County Convention, it was in violation of the censorship rule.)
That equates to a lot of difficulty. So in the second meeting (after Lori had spent part of the intervening week trying to get me off the Committee and failed) Michael Young appeared as “Parliamentarian,” replacing John Wootress, to prevent me from making any more motions.
The Second Meeting
During the second meeting Young made rulings for Lori (the actual Chair) who mouthed his words like a ventriloquist’s dummy. Michael would quietly say, “Move adoption of the minutes,” and Lori would repeat, “I move adoption of the minutes.”
The minutes, as it happened, had been falsified. They implied that the authority to appoint members of the Platform Subcommittees had been properly delegated to Lori, when, in fact, no such authority existed. Young and Sotelo intended to impose their Subcommittee scheme on the group in violation of the rules.
Parliamentary War
So when the minutes were moved for adoption, I moved to amend them to reflect what had actually happened. Young, sitting immediately to the left of, and slightly behind Lori, said, softly, “The motion is out of order.” Lori, speaking to the whole group, repeated, “The motion is out of order.” Michael Young’s statement, as “Parliamentarian” was just a lie. Sotelo’s parroting of it, as Chair, however, was official cheating.
I made a point of order. I was told that was out of order.
I challenged the ruling. My motion was not recognized.
I asked the reasoning. Michael said, “The motion is not germane.”
I asked how a motion to amend the minutes could possibly fail to be germane to the minutes. Michael said, “You’re out of order.”
Everything he said was a Parliamentary lie. Every ruling was blatant cheating. And so it went. When Lori presented her “Subcommittee Assignments” (She had no authority, under the rules to make “assignments” without a vote, and possible amendments by the Committee). I moved to amend them with a written counterproposal, printed for each member. I was, once again, illegally ruled out of order. Young and Sotelo needed to control the subcommittees to control the Platform; to get, for one example, every strong social conservative OFF the “Life and Family” subcommittee (to make it amenable to abortion “CHOICE” and “CIVIL UNIONS”).
Now the fact is, and I was well aware, that most Platform Committee members, indeed, most Delegates at Conventions and Precinct Committee Officers are not certain of much of Roberts Rules of Order. I knew that to overturn this parliamentary despotism, I would not only have to move without parliamentary flaw, I would, simultaneously, have to avoid appearing strident so that I could be persuasive and win the Committee over to my point of view. So I was deeply concentrating on the exchange of motions and rulings, trying to restrain my anger at Young’s cheating. I would make a legal motion, Young (repeated by Sotelo) would rule it “out of order” I would object or challenge the ruling on parliamentary grounds and Young would make up some fictional rule (like the “prerogative of the Chair”) to steamroll the committee.
I moved. He counter-moved.
I struggled to keep the issue alive, legally. He struggled to expunge the rights of the Committee, illegally.
If Young won this battle, he and Sotelo could simply dictate their decisions to the Committee. If I secured the Committee’s right to vote on procedures, I would still have to convince everyone, by discussion, to vote my way on process. It was mentally exhausting.
I was seated immediately to Lori’s right, and Young sat back from the table, on the other side of her, slightly behind us. In the midst of this verbal struggle, my curiosity became aroused and I leaned back in my chair to look around Sotelo, at my actual opponent.
I was looking into the visage of hatred.
Young had been staring at my back as he made rulings for Lori to repeat and by turning I could now see him. He was focused on me with an intensity and viciousness on his face that cannot be overstated. It was extreme. It was like the ferocity of a predatory animal. If looks could kill I would have been on the floor writhing in agony. You have probably never seen a face like that except in a film or some horror drama. He was possessed.
It was not anger. It was not like, say, the face of someone whose car has just been stolen. For one thing, it was Michael Young, in this case, that was doing the stealing. You would think a man engaged in theft or embezzlement or parliamentary cheating would proceed dispassionately, without animosity for his victim. But Young was not simply robbing me (and the rest of the Committee) of our rights, he also hated me. Fiercely.
Several times in my life I’ve been in the presence of human beings that gave every appearance of being “possessed” by a force that gripped them with that kind of obsessive intensity. Since that event I’ve met three people that have experienced that same phenomenon from Michael Young. One of them, who was a well-respected and longtime elected leader in the Republican Party for decades, believes Young is mentally disturbed. Whatever the diagnosis, I saw a man liberated from any hint of reticence to do anything: to tell any lie, to violate any ethic, in pursuit of his goals, a man zealous, in fact, in the pursuit of evil.
That man of lawlessness
On the outside, Michael Young can be the soul of grace: articulate, charming, friendly.
Behind the scenes he is the dirtiest political operator in Washington since the retirement, from Party office, of Chris Vance. Young’s zeal, like Vance, to move the GOP to the left is prodigious. His methods are Machiavellian. His skill is considerable, perhaps even eclipsing Vance. But Vance was never so personally vindictive.
As I write this, in 2007, the Young/Sotelo administration is sponsoring a website, put up with a clumsy attempt at anonymity, to viciously slander former Republican, now Democrat County Council Candidate, Richard Pope. It is merely the latest in a series of such Young/Sotelo attacks, although most of them have been attacks on Republicans. But this outpouring of mudslinging and defamation cannot avoid smearing the Council campaign of Pope’s opponent, Jane Hague, one of Young’s closest allies and, like Young, a Pragmatic Big Business Republican. Unless she disavows it there is a proper assumption she is in on it and equally guilty of the lies. So she is stuck. She could disavow the website, highlighting it, helping Pope, or fail to distance herself from it, getting the mud on herself, helping Pope.
This is lose/lose for Hague.
Young’s best skill is lying. His primary method is Character Assassination. His primary goal is the end of the Republican Party as an independent voice. His primary motivation is hate. I saw all this in his eyes, sitting five feet away from me, March, 15, 2006.
Ω
More Articles on the Platform Committee:
Platform Committee Meetings Blacked Out. (concurrent report)
Second Meeting (concurrent report)
Fade to BLACK Part III (concurrent report)
The 2006 Platform Wars I: Piercing the Darkness.
2006 Platform Wars II: The Big Business Takeover of the King County Party
Platform Wars III: Sotelo, Amnesty and “Fluid Borders”
2006 Platform Wars IV: The Gathering Darkness
2006 Platform Wars V: The Life and Family Subcommittee
| 2006 KC Platform Wars Apendix A: Dueling Immigration Planks |
More Articles on Michael Young:
BLACKLISTED! Michael Young’s anti-Republican War
Michael Young on the Attack Again
Another Violation of Law by the Young/Sotelo Administration
Night and Fog Part II: Losing as “Winning”
Thank you for shedding some light on this dark subject.
I have seen both sides of Michael Young too.
In public, he is articulate, graceful, charming and friendly. One on one with his opponents is another story. I have especially seen the difference since I have moved out of King County.
On the morning of the 2006 state convention in Yakima, I had been working credentials, and then needed to return to my hotel room to check out. So I was a few minutes late into the “program” of the convention, which was mostly entertainment. The lights were dim.
Upon entering, it was difficult to find my delegation. The crowd was standing for God Bless America. The first “official” I could find who might be able to tell me where Snohomish Co. was seated, was Michael Young. So I asked him if he knew where Snohomish County was seated.
He spoke to me in a muffled but vicious tone. It was the tone you might catch someone using when secretly, verbally abusing their elderly relative, upon walking in the room unexpectedly. “I don’t know where you’re supposed to be sitting, Michelle.” “You’re lost, Michelle.”
A few points to consider.
First, I do not trust, and therefore disregard, the characterizations of what they “feel” from other people. So your stuff about what you think you saw in Young’s eyes, I just couldn’t care less about.
Second, I have no idea why you say TheTruthOnPope was “put up with a clumsy attempt at anonymity.” That makes no sense whatsoever: it says, clearly, that it was paid for by the King County GOP. And calling it slander implies it is untrue, which you say later on, that it is lies: so what’s not true about it?
I don’t ask because I want an answer for myself (I don’t live in King County anyway), but because I don’t think you should expect anyone to care that you say it’s “lies” if you won’t say what’s untrue. Everything they say looks pretty well-documented to me. Although I do see one glaring error: they say Pope said, “I warned Bush in January 2001 John McKay can not be trusted,” when he said that of MIKE McKay. And what’s even more puzzling is that I don’t know how this would be of any significant interests to voters (even if he had said it about Mike’s brother John). Maybe they mean to imply he didn’t actually tell that to Bush, or that he’s crazy to have thought Bush would care what he thought?
Anyway, unless you can convince people that it’s lies, instead of merely asserting it, I disagree that this is lose/lose for Hague. Hague has serious problems, but if the voters are convinced that the only other choice is a terrible one, she’ll be re-elected. And that looks to me like what’s going to happen.
I don’t mean to be all negative. The stuff about the Platform Committee was interesting.
Regarding Richard Pope, where are the “lies”? What part of the web site is “defamatory”?
Pudge is right; Doug has a very nasty habit of using hyperbole to slander people he disagrees with, using unrelated analogies, exaggerations, and out and out distortions. He talks of how Michael Young is full of hate, yet his post illustrates his own hatred for the man. The sad thing is, I do agree with him on some items, but his over the top diatribes destroys the very arguments he is clumsily trying to articulate.
Regarding this issue, I find it border line laughable that he uses Richard Pope’s pathetic candidacy to hammer Mr. Young. If he wants to defend Richard, that speaks volumes of his priorities.
Pudge says, “First, I do not trust, and therefore disregard, the characterizations of what they “feel” from other people.”
First, let me point out that there is nothing in the article about anything I “feel” or felt. As a matter of fact, what I “felt” at the time was fascination at what I was seeing. I told you what I SAW and the typification of Young’s countenance as “fierce” and “hateful” is objective. People signal their emotions through a language of facial gestures that is universally recognized, even across language and cultural barriers, despite the myriad variations on those themes by individuals. That’s why actors can “appear” angry or sad, etc. It is becaue there are certain ways of acting that we all recognize as communicating those human attitudes.
Second, you, of course, should not “trust” anything in the article merely because I said it, anymore than anyone should trust the Young hit piece just because it was written. You need more to go on, including the context, internal logic, supportive evidence, etc.
“So your stuff about what you think you saw in Young’s eyes, I just couldn’t care less about.”
What I suspect is that you are uncomfortable with the facts I’ve presented, even assuming them to be true, and dislike drawing conclusions consistent with them. The facts, the visible tokens of Young’s internal dysfunction, represent characteristics about human nature that many people would rather not deal with. If that’s you, feel free to ignore the report. Just realize that there are spiritual realities with which you have consciously chosen not to deal… at least for the time being. Realize that there are causes and effects for which you will not be able to synthesize explanations, having eliminated, a priori, factors for which you had evidence you didn’t accept.
“… I have no idea why you say TheTruthOnPope was “put up with a clumsy attempt at anonymity.”
Then, please, name for me two or three of the “Top Staff Reporters” who, having looked into the hundreds of controversies in Richard Pope’s legal and political life, took personal responsibility for determining that Pope was wrong in every case. Who wrote the claims? Who investigated? We know that it was Lori Sotelo who signed hundreds of false accusations to invalidate voter registrations, but that was only because the law required a signature.
“I don’t think you should expect anyone to care that you say it’s “lies” if you won’t say what’s untrue.”
You are quite right, here, Pudge. We need to at least point out some lies we specifically allege if we are to claim they published lies. The problem is that doing this stuff accurately, understandably and readably takes time AND when I decided to publish what you’ve read so far, I had already exceeded, by a factor of 2, the number of words most people are willing to digest at a single sitting.
“Everything they say looks pretty well-documented to me.”
Oh, Please! I would hope that you would begin by seeing the obvious distortions of fact and start to look more carefully. For instance, when they say, “5,586,087 people said NO to hate, said NO to harrassing women and said NO TO POPE in elections since 1996,” you can see that:
1. They’ve simply added up the number of VOTES for Pope’s opponents in political races in the last 10 years. Does anyone seriously think they were all DIFFERENT PEOPLE? How many people voted FOR him? Were they voting FOR hate and harrassment of women?
2. Since the ridiculous allegations of the Hague/Young hit piece (hate and harrassment of women) were never issues in any of those campaigns, those voters were OBVIOUSLY casting no judgement on those issues.
3. Since, in all those Races, Pope was a Republican, it is just as true to say that 5,586,087 people said NO to HATE, NO to the Iraq War, and NO to the REPUBLIAN PARTY.
4. As a matter of fact, using that same technique, we could, with equal validity, say that in 2004, one election alone, 1,373,361 people said “NO to HATE, NO to incompetence, and NO do Dino Rossi”. Correcting for number of elections, then, Dino would have had more than THIRTEEN MILLION PEOPLE saying “no” to whatever allegations Young would want to make about him. That’s more than twice as many as Pope.
So, Pudge, you don’t even need to do any research (and your knowledge about the McKay “misstatement of fact” is impressive) to realize you’re reading propaganda.
By the way, a “misstatement of fact” intended in a public campaign to ruin a man’s reputation, is properly also called: a “lie.”
Doug, are you Richard Popes campaign manager? You seriously are throwing your weight to him? If so, enough said, you have spoken!
Doug Parris:
There is nothing you can say to alter the fact that what you “saw” was only your perception. You cannot, in fact, see hatred in someone’s eyes. You can only see what you think/feel/believe is representative of someone’s hatred. It is inherently, necessarily, subjective. Please do not pretend otherwise.
I am not “uncomfortable with the facts [you]‘ve presented.” I merely stated the incontrovertible truth that your subjective perceptions are NOT facts.
As to “staff reporters,” I couldn’t care less who the individual people are behind it. It is approved of by the KC GOP, and therefore its entire executive committee is responsible for the entire content. That is enough.
When you say, “when they say, ‘5,586,087 people said NO to hate, said NO to harrassing women and said NO TO POPE in elections since 1996,’ you can see that: 1. They’ve simply added up the number of VOTES for Pope’s opponents in political races in the last 10 years.”
Um, yes. Of course I can. It is, after all, what they said. What you call a distortion of fact is, in fact, true.
“Since the ridiculous allegations of the Hague/Young hit piece (hate and harrassment of women) were never issues in any of those campaigns, those voters were OBVIOUSLY casting no judgement on those issues.”
That is not a lie, it’s editorializing.
“Since, in all those Races, Pope was a Republican, it is just as true to say that 5,586,087 people said NO to HATE, NO to the Iraq War, and NO to the REPUBLIAN PARTY.”
Yes, it is. It certainly is a stupid opinion, but I can’t see it as a lie. But fine, if you think that’s beyond editorializing such that it constitutes a lie, I won’t continue to debate the point.
“By the way, a ‘misstatement of fact’ intended in a public campaign to ruin a man’s reputation, is properly also called: a ‘lie.’”
Yes, if it was intentionally false, or told with reckless disregard for the truth. If it was a mere error, then it is not a lie. Since I am incapable of knowing whether it was told with intent or reckless disregard, I can only state with certainty that it is a misstatement.
Pudge says, “There is nothing you can say to alter the fact that what you “saw” was only your perception.”
That’s like saying “there’s nothing you can say to alter the fact that what you “said” was only what your words expressed.” Obviously. Pointing that out is sophomoric. What I see is what I perceived is the observation of my eyes is the testimony of my five senses is the evidence of fact as I became aware of it by experience. Yes, I too can deal in synonyms. You’ve said nothing.
“You cannot, in fact, see hatred in someone’s eyes. You can only see what you think/feel/believe is representative of someone’s hatred.”
This is a ludicrous statement. It is the same as saying “you can’t do math, you can only do what you think/feel/believe is math.” Don’t try those weak mind tricks on an old Jedi.
So, tell me Pudge, is your alternate theory that Michael Young, while, effectively, chairing a meeting of the whole Platform Committee, decided to FAKE a look of ferocious hatred, just because he, I don’t know, thought it made him look handsome?
“It is inherently, necessarily, subjective. Please do not pretend otherwise.”
It is no more subjective than, for instance, “seeing” the color red: “You don’t actually ‘know’ it is red, you only ‘perceive’ it as red and report on your subjective perception.” By this epistemological standard we cannot know anything. That standard says all experience is subjective. Your assertion is just wrong. It is rooted in the philosophy of Timothy Leary and was built on the subjective assertions of Immanuel Kant. No, Pudge, there is such a thing as objective reality and it can be perceived. It can, in fact, be perceived absolutely, but, that fact is hidden from the unregenerate.
You do not bolster a weak argument by inserting adjectives like “incontrovertible.” And that’s an incontrovertible fact. Lol.
“As to ‘staff reporters,’ I couldn’t care less who the individual people are behind it.” It’s irrelevant whether or not you care. You said you had no idea why I said “TheTruthOnPope” was “put up with a clumsy attempt at anonymity.” Now you do.
“It is approved of by the KC GOP, and therefore its entire executive committee is responsible for the entire content. That is enough.”
Enough? To the contrary. Suppose Geri Modrell, Snohomish County Chair, was publishing lies that you knew to be lies and knew that she knew to be lies but for which, because she did not take personal responsibility, but rather attributed to the Snohomish County Executive Board, YOU became personally and financially liable. Wouldn’t you find her attempt to “share” responsibility for that unilateral act unacceptable? No, in fact, one lie on the King County site has already been retracted, but only by the demand of a member of the King County Central Committee on this very issue.
When you embark on the mission of destroying a man’s reputation, you have, at the very least, a moral obligation to put your name on the allegations, to take responsibility for their truth or falsehood.
“When you say, ‘when they say, ‘5,586,087 people said NO to hate, said NO to harrassing women and said NO TO POPE in elections since 1996,’ you can see that: 1. They’ve simply added up the number of VOTES for Pope’s opponents in political races in the last 10 years.’
Um, yes. Of course I can. It is, after all, what they said. What you call a distortion of fact is, in fact, true.”
No, Pudge, they added VOTES, from different years and said they were PEOPLE. Every time, for instance, over that ten year period, Michael Young voted against Richard Pope it was a new VOTE, but not a new PERSON. Michael Young, voting 10 times against Pope is not ten people voting against Pope. They said it was. Further, it is likely that some people voted against him in one of those elections and for him in another, thus, in fact, canceling out the first vote as a supposed referendum on his character. What I called a distortion of fact is, in fact, a distortion of fact.
“‘Since the ridiculous allegations of the Hague/Young hit piece (hate and harrassment of women) were never issues in any of those campaigns, those voters were OBVIOUSLY casting no judgement on those issues.’
That is not a lie, it’s editorializing.”
No, Pudge, it’s both. Editorial voice is not a moral filter. I can lie editorially.
“… is properly also called: a ‘lie.’”
“Yes, if it was intentionally false, or told with reckless disregard for the truth.”
“Mere error,” in a campaign to ruin a man’s reputation, is the very definition of “reckless disregard for the truth.”
Doug, why do you continue to defend Richard Pope?
For the sake of what you are trying to accomplish, you must let go of your own blind hatred and vindictiveness. If you let someone looking at you cross eyed, and conclude that is hate, your argument on a completely different topic is null and void.
Stop twisting the words, and answer the simple question, does your defense of Richard Pope really mean you wish him to be on the King County Council?
Doug:
No. You said that it is a “fact” that you “saw” hatred. It is not. It is not sophomoric for me to point out the fact that you are incorrect. There is no fact here. It is your subjective opinion.
It is not at all like seeing the color red. Red is a specific physical property of light wavelengths that is, in fact, objective, even if we perceive it subjectively (I have slightly anamalous red photoreceptors, for example). But we can still objectively measure the actual amount of red in something.
I won’t bother dwelling on this point anymore. You’re wrong. Shrug.
And yes, whether I care is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as everything you posted. So what? In fact, it was not put up anonymously. We know who it is from. You meant “anonymously” to mean something different from “anonymously.” It wasn’t anonymous.
Suppose Geri Modrell, Snohomish County Chair, was publishing lies that you knew to be lies and knew that she knew to be lies but for which, because she did not take personal responsibility, but rather attributed to the Snohomish County Executive Board, YOU became personally and financially liable.
Then she would have violated the rules of our executive committee, and you would hear about it, one way or another. She does not have the authority to put up something unsigned “from” the county party like that.
No, Pudge, they added VOTES, from different years and said they were PEOPLE.
And that does not make it incorrect. You are simply misinterpreting it. That is a very common English usage to mean what you say it can’t mean.
Editorial voice is not a moral filter. I can lie editorially.
Of course. But it would have to be objectively untrue, and it’s not, because it is clearly a subjective claim.
“Mere error,” in a campaign to ruin a man’s reputation, is the very definition of “reckless disregard for the truth.”
Hm. If that’s true, then you are therefore lying about Michael Young, because you made several errors in your campaign to ruin his reputation.
And Doug, why didn’t you approve my comment on your Sound Politics post?
Pudge (at 10) says: “She does not have the authority to put up something unsigned “from” the county party like that.”
That’s great! Would you please post the rule from your bylaws specifying that? I will specifically propose that language for King County next chance I get, although it won’t do any good while Young is Chair. Michael Young, throughout his administration, has completely ignored the concept that there are any limits to his authority, acts unilaterally and has repeatedly violated the King County By-laws.
“’..they added VOTES, from different years and said they were PEOPLE.’ And that does not make it incorrect. You are simply misinterpreting it. That is a very common English usage to mean what you say it can’t mean.”
“Votes” can mean “people” and is common usage for that purpose ONLY when talking about a single election.” They used VOTES with a clear intent to mean something it simply cannot mean.
“…it would have to be objectively untrue, and it’s not, because it is clearly a subjective claim.”
And
“Red is a specific physical property of light wavelengths that is, in fact, objective…”
Pudge, it is obvious, here, that you believe the physical world to be “objective” and everything else, “subjective.” This is the base assumption of the materialist, the “modernist” the atheist, the communist. It had no credence anywhere until the eighteenth century. You are, I believe somewhat effectively, representing the views of epistemological relativism. But, to the contrary, it is possible for me to know truth that is not directly observable with the five senses and impossible for you, by your own criteria, to prove otherwise. I can, further, as in this case, connect physically observable phenomena (in which you believe) with objectively observable moral phenomena (in which you don’t) to make objective conclusions than encompass more than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.
You, and many others that have not yet chosen sides in the quarter-century war that seeks to liberate the Washington State Republican Party from the remaining chains of Dan Evans’ “Mainstream” liberal legacy, simply assume that the spiritual world is not objective and can be spoken of in theory alone. Wake up. Arise from the dead. You can receive Light.
“…it would have to be objectively untrue, and it’s not, because it is clearly a subjective claim.”
The hit piece says that 5,586,087 people, by voting against Richard Pope, indicated a rejection of the “hate” and “harrassing” of women inherient in his candidacy. There is no question that this is what is indicated and that claim has been proved, here in discussion, to be objectively false. You are correct that the connection between the votes and their meaning is made editorially, subjectively, but it does not matter, because while the claim’s basis is subjective, it’s refutation is not. It is objectively untrue. A lie. The claim that the attacks of 9/11 were a Bush Administration plot are similar. They are made based entirely on subjective determinations, but that does not matter. They are objectively untrue and stating them in a declarative sentence is a lie.
“…you made several errors in your campaign to ruin his reputation.”
Name one. I’ll retract it.
“…why didn’t you approve my comment on your Sound Politics post?”
Sorry, Pudge. I only have so much time. The last time I was at Sound Politics I had approved of every post there. I don’t know why they want every post on the public blog approved, especially by long time posters like yourself. We are set up, here, only to approve first-time posts only because it has helped us filter out hundreds of posts made by robo-spam engines.
“RBN” (at 4,6 and 9):
“he uses Richard Pope’s pathetic candidacy to hammer Mr. Young. If he wants to defend Richard, that speaks volumes of his priorities.”
“Doug, are you Richard Popes campaign manager? You seriously are throwing your weight to him?”
“Doug, why do you continue to defend Richard Pope?”
“Stop twisting the words, and answer the simple question, does your defense of Richard Pope really mean you wish him to be on the King County Council?”
Richard Pope is being slandered by Michael Young and it has given me a topical reason to continue my coverage of Michael Young. You may have noticed that the title of this piece begins with the Roman numeral VI. It is the sixth in a series about the war Young and Sotelo waged in the 2006 Platform Committee, by morally corrupt tactics, to expunge the conservative core of the King County Republican Platform. (The rest of the series is available in the links below the article.) That was part of their larger war, still being fought on many fronts, to make the KCGOP a liberal party (because, among other things, they believe that is the road to success).
Obviously, it is to the advantage of Pope, and the disadvantage of Hague as Candidates, that Young’s lies, as well as his ethical and political corruption, are being exposed, but that is the fault of Young, not me.
Pope is also the target of the dufflepuds at Sound Politics who know virtually nothing but have no compunction to anonymously villify anyone who falls outside their groupthink. But he is not a “nut” or a gadfly by any stretch of the imagination and the suggestion that he is “hateful” is laughable. That claim can only be successful with people who have absolutely no actual knowledge of the man. I have known Richard, who, as a Republican PCO, used to reside in my legislative district, since the mid- ‘90s. He is the very soul of serenity. His public demeanor has never, in well over a decade, approached stridency, mush less radicalism or hate.
I have, it should come as no surprise, regarded Pope as a moderate. That puts him, however, well to the right of ultra-liberal, Pro-Abortion, 100% at Gay Rights Watch, Jane Hague. It is somewhat fascinating to see dufflepuds who want to claim I cannot work with anyone that disagrees with me, even slightly, now claiming I am working for Richard Pope.
Pope is clearly, by any rational criteria, a better candidate for County Council than Hague, but I am not endorsing him, not working for him and I have no intention of doing so. I am a Republican and the Reagan Wing is a Republican organization. Pope is a Democrat. But then, so is Hague. Hague is a much better Democrat, by my reckoning, being a far-left, pro abortion, tax and spend, gay rights, liberal in the mold of Michael Young. But she has chosen to call herself a Republican, albeit in name only, and I will not endorse a Democrat against her. That it is more practical for someone to Hague’s right to run against her as a Democrat than to challenge her in a Republican primary speaks volumes about Michael Young’s leadership.
But I would defend anyone against accusations I knew to be slanders and Pope is just such a person.
“…Pudge, it is obvious, here, that you believe the physical world to be “objective” and everything else, “subjective.” This is the base assumption of the materialist, the “modernist” the atheist, the communist
Doug, you are beautiful; you call someone who looks at you sideways as “hateful” and then imply that those who disagree with your philosophy as a modernist, atheist, and communist” ! Are you kidding me!?
You continue to dodge the question, why do you allow your diabolic hatred as justification to defend Mr. Pope? Any rationale conservative would disavow him for his trial lawyer shenanigans (lawsuit against Costco as an example)
I think you try to impress with your vocabulary (“You are, I believe somewhat effectively, representing the views of epistemological relativism”) instead of sticking to the simple truths.
Doug Parris:
There is no bylaw specifically forbidding it. But there is nothing authorizing it. There is a bylaw authorizing the chair to be spokesman for the party, but this web site is not the chair speaking for the party, it is the party speaking. There is no authority to do that.
They used VOTES with a clear intent to mean something it simply cannot mean.
The intent is only clear in your mind, not in fact.
Pudge, it is obvious, here, that you believe the physical world to be “objective” and everything else, “subjective.”
False. Nothing you say about me in the following paragraph is remotely true. I am simply stating the fact that facial expressions must be interpreted subjectively. There’s no way around it. All language, all symbols, all human communication is subjectively interpreted. It’s a fundamental tenet of interpersonal communication. It has not one thing to do with philosophical relativism.
You are misunderstanding the fundamentals of communication and reading WAY too deeply into anything I said.
Heck, you even admitted you were wrong. You said, That’s why actors can “appear” angry or sad, etc. But in fact, those actors don’t have to be angry or sad when they appear so. You have to attempt to interpret what you see in regards to intent.
I know you were thinking when you said that, “but there’s still a standard for angry or sad,” but everyone’s face is different and it is more obvious on some people than others, and others have facial constructions such that two emotions look similar. I’ve known many people who look very angry when they are serious or intense, or sad when they are not expressing any emotion at all.
Maybe, for example, he was not hateful toward you, but he was worried about a problem at home that caused him to want to finish the meeting as quickly as possible, so he had a look of concern, seriousness, and intensity that had nothing directly to do with you, that you misinterpreted as “hate.”
You’re just wrong here. You are pretending you have a power of objective interpretation that, in fact, no mere man has.
Name one. I’ll retract it.
Already did.
Sorry, Pudge. I only have so much time. The last time I was at Sound Politics I had approved of every post there.
Well, mine was there, and you did not approve it. I accept at face value that there was no intent on your part to restrict my post, I was just curious as to why it wasn’t there. Oh well.
RBN: Doug didn’t impress me with his vocabulary. I understood precisely what he was saying, and expect that many intelligent people will understand, and use, those words. Nothing impressive about that to me. But I do agree his delving into accusations of relativism constituted fallacious ad hominem.
Pudge (at 14):
“There is no bylaw specifically forbidding it. But there is nothing authorizing it.”
Then, of course, your earlier statement, “…she would have violated the rules of our executive committee” is false. That is precisely the situtation in King County.
“All language, all symbols, all human communication is subjectively interpreted.”
You’re being self-contradictory. You say all language is subjectively interpreted, but previously you conceded it was possible to slander someone by lying about them OBJECTIVELY. Your quote: “Of course. But it would have to be objectively untrue…”
If all interpretation is subjective then, by your standards, lies and slander are impossible since they must be objectively determined.
“The intent is only clear in your mind, not in fact.” Of course, by the gospel according to Pudge, nothing said or written can be clear in fact, because all language is “subjectively interpreted.”
“…facial expressions must be interpreted subjectively. All language, all symbols, all human communication is subjectively interpreted. It’s a fundamental tenet of interpersonal communication. It has not one thing to do with philosophical relativism.”
This proposition, with respect to the current controversy, can be weighed by two simple propositions:
1. Is it possible that Michael Young, in truth and in fact, expressed real hatred to Doug Parris on March 15, 2006? And, if so,
2. Is it possible that Doug Parris actually was able, by seeing that expression, to determine that fact?
If one can answer “yes” to those questions, your premise is wrong. I think the truth is an obvious matter of common sense. I think your logic-twisting assertion that reality, here, cannot be objectively observed, is, despite being entirely unknown to you, a symptom of an unexamined philosophical error deeply embedded in your outlook on politics (and, presumably, other things). It is, in fact, epistemological relativism. It is taught, subtly, in public schools and underlies all the a priori assumptions of the dominant media culture. It is, usually, not the kind of thing that one adopts consciously, but is programmed into by a long period of unconscious conditioning and must honestly be examined in oneself when brought to light. Do you have the courage to examine yourself, Pudge?
“…you even admitted you were wrong. You said, That’s why actors can “appear” angry or sad, etc. But in fact, those actors don’t have to be angry or sad when they appear so.”
You’re getting closer. Actors “fake” hatred or anger because the things they do with their faces are, as you point out, language.
It is similar with words: If I say, “I’m going to kill you.” I might be acting or kidding or serious, but the meaning of the words, themselves, is objective. It cannot be construed to mean, “I’m going to take you to Disney World.” The same is true of the expression on Michael Young’s face. He could, in theory, have been acting or kidding or serious, but he did not intend to give me an all-expense paid trip to Disney World. His expression, objectively, meant fierce hatred. The only remaining question would be: “Was he acting, kidding or serious?”
Now, given that this “Doug Parris” fellow is not lying, given that the event actually took place as he describes, there is one simple means to weigh that question: What makes the most sense, given the context of the event? What could Young have, rationally, been attempting in faking such a countenance? On the other hand, does it make sense, given what he was doing, that he actually harbors such feeling to Mr. Parris? I’ll let the reader make his own determination. The third option is to agree with Pudge, that we can’t know anything by personal communication becaues it’s all “subjective.”
I wish to point out, however, that the above are not my only options because I was actually there, directly witnessed the events, and was a principal to them, spiritually. I had the capacity to discern the facts directly in ways Pudge does not believe exist.
“Maybe, for example, he was not hateful toward you, but he was worried about a problem at home that caused him to want to finish the meeting as quickly as possible, so he had a look of concern, seriousness, and intensity that had nothing directly to do with you, that you misinterpreted as ‘hate.’”
No, pudge, there was no such possibility. There are many ways to demonstrate the implausibility of that explanation, but let me be more direct. When I had completed the words of this article, that was conceived to have two pictures, I began a search to find a suitable “second” picture to illustrate the look on Young’s face, since I obviously had no such photograph. Michael’s expression was extremely rare. Had he seemed “worried or “concerned’ or “serious” or “intense” I might actually already have such a photo. But Young has been rattling arouind the KCGOP in an official capacity since I moved to King County in 1995 and I dare say there are very, very few people that have ever seen such an expression, not only on Young, but on anyone. Have you ever seen Mitt Romney (a similar politician) looking angry or hateful? Those kinds of guys, whose entire career depend on appearances, studiously avoid looking even mean or perturbed, particularly in public. But the face Young made is rarely seen in real life, even on terrorists or criminals. Extreme and extremely rare. I spent more than an hour on the project to find something similar, sifting through, probably, more than a thousand faces. The face that most closely resembles the look on Young that evening is the tiger, above. Ask yourself if that tiger looks “worried about a problem at home” that makes him want to finish a meeting as quickly as possible.
“Well, mine was there, and you did not approve it.”
After completing the responses, here, I went to Sound to approve your post. It was the first I’d heard of it. Curiously, there were many posts to that thread for whom my approval was not required. I don’t know why. I logged in and tried to find some interface that would show me posts that were awaiting approval. I found nothing. Finally, I found an email in my inbox with a link to approve your post. I don’t use the public blog much and I have no idea why your post required approval and others did not. Again, sorry, I didn’t know you were waiting.
[...] Part VI: The King of Character Assassination [...]