Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for March, 2004

Sheik Yassin Assassination

Monday, March 22nd, 2004

Diane Mason of Lawrenceofcyberia.com has put together an extraordinary series of images of international Arab protests against the murder of Sheik Yassin, the leader of Hamas. The collage of rage gives one a humbling feeling when one thinks of the level of hatred and mayhem that will be coming Israel’s way in the very near future. Saying this gives me no pleasure whatsoever because Israelis have as much right to live in peace and security as their Palestinian neighbors. But “those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.” And Sharon and his henchmen have sown the bleakest wind with this horrible act.

They have not increased Israeli’s security. They have not even wiped out their worst enemy. They have, in fact, just raised up a thousand or even ten thousand Yassins who will do their best to raise the level of destruction against Israel even higher than whatever level Yassin achieved.

As I viewed Diane’s page of rage, I had the kind of admiring (& slightly jealous!) reaction that an actor or writer gets when he/she sees a brilliant performance or reads a great work of prose and wishes that he/she had performed or written it him/herself. Great work, Diane!

Jewish Humor: Want to Win the Lottery? Buy a Ticket!

Monday, March 22nd, 2004

There was once a Jew named Itzik. He was a devout Jew who observed the 613 commandments. He attended shul devotedly and served on the committee that ran it. Itzik performed acts of lovingkindness to help the poor and the sick. He donated to create dowries for poor brides. He was a mensch in every respect.

gmilut chesed, acts of lovingkindness

Jewish free loan society of Dolne, Poland
(credit: Eilat Gordin Levitan – Dolne Page)

But Itzik was a relatively poor man and his capacity to do good was severely limited by his lack of wealth. So he began to think: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if I would win the lottery! Just think of all the good deeds I could perform! I could replace the shul’s leaking roof, feed the sick and hungry, provide wedding feasts for poor newlyweds.”

So Itzik began perusing the newspaper each week to discover his name among the lucky winners. He didn’t win the first week. So he said to himself: “God didn’t want me to win this week. But for sure he understands the great good I can do with my winnings and he’ll make me a winner next week.” When next week’s winners were announced, he again was not among them. This time he addressed God directly: “Lord, please remember how my entire life is devoted to You and to doing good for my fellow man. Please heed my call and make me a winner.” When next week’s winners were announced again he wasn’t among them. This time Itzik was bereft and addressed God again: “Lord, I don’t understand why you haven’t answered my prayer. Don’t you understand how much good I can if you make me a winner? What on earth can I have done wrong to again be a loser?”

A booming voice from heaven replied: “Itzik, BUY A TICKET!!”

Besides being humorous and entertaining, this story reveals a deep truth about Judaism and social justice. You can talk a good game when it comes to doing good. You can have the purest motives and the deepest convictions, but if you don’t “play” in the sense of doing actual good deeds then you’re doing a disservice. You must engage with the world to do real good.

Seattle Spring Weather: “Oh the Wind and Rain”

Friday, March 19th, 2004

The last few days exemplified the oddities of Seattle weather. If given a choice to describe yesterday’s weather conditions, would you choose:

1. cold, windy, dark and dreary (but dry)
2. battering hailstones
3. rainy
4. sunny

Alki Beach spray on windy day

a windy Alki Beach, West Seattle (credit:
Go Northwest: a Travel Guide)

If you answered all four, you’d be correct! We had savage wind gusts up to 36 mph. The temperature in the morning was in the high 30s (really cold). We had a moment of hail falling from the sky. It rained AND the sun came out. If you enjoy weather variety this is the place for you.

I took Jonah down to Madrona Beach after his nap and I realized that his light spring jacket wouldn’t suffice so I luckily thought to put him in his winter coat. But I didn’t think I’d need his gloves (gloves in mid-March??) and this was a mistake. It’s always windy down by the beach and I expected we’d face a few gusts. But what we faced reminded me of the Libyan desert wind that whipped through a southern Crete beach at 80 mph when I visited in 1980. You basically couldn’t walk if you tried to walk erect. In short, it was WINDY.

I thought I’d entertain my son by lifting my hat and letting the wind carry it away. He thought it was hilarious to see it skittering away across the sand and we both had to do throw our hats in the air for the next half hour (“Daddy, do it again!”). Then Jonah wanted me to help him up the lifeguard’s chair, which scared me a bit because of the 35 mph gusts we were experiencing. But all went well and no one did a nose dive.

Jonah always loves digging at the beach and yesterday was no exception. But the difference between yesterday and other days at the beach was the severe chill. Jonah’s hands froze and he, who usually is never cold and would walk through the world naked if we allowed it, cried because his were so cold it hurt. I rubbed his hands in mine and blew hot air on them and gradually he calmed down.

This morning I took the dog for a walk around 10 AM and although the sun was shining it was frigidly cold. Our nanny told me it felt like it might snow! One thing about Seattle that’s different from New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco is that it can be VERY cold in the mornings and sometimes doesn’t really warm up till about midday.

The Madrid Bombing, the Spanish Government’s Fall and Lessons for George Bush

Thursday, March 18th, 2004
aznar bush

“Hey Buddy, if only they knew
we’re makin’ it up as we go along!

(credit: Galizacig.com)

The events of the past week in Spain have been extraordinary for so many reasons. First, the ferocity and unparalleled devastation of the bombings; second, the utter foolishness of the conservative Spanish government in clinging to an ETA connection well after it no longer made any sense; third, the drubbing that the Bush Administration took in seeing Aznar, a hard and fast ally in the Iraq War, fall hard and fall fast.

Finally, I was shocked that the U.S. media, including as august a publication as the New York Times, kept telling us right up to the Sunday election that the Conservatives were well ahead in the polls and were favored to win by a wide margin. In its March 13th edition, the Times‘ Elaine Sciolino wrote in Grieving Crowds in Spain Seethe at Train Attacks:

Mariano Rajoy, the handpicked successor of Prime Minister José María Aznar and the candidate of the governing Popular Party, is in the lead. Mr. Rajoy has enjoyed a comfortable lead of up to 8 percentage points in recent polls. But a poll published on Sunday by the polling agency Sigma Dos and commissioned by El Mundo showed that the Socialists were gaining on the Popular Party, reducing its lead to 4.5 percent.

Boy were they asleep at the wheel! The polls were quoted as giving the Conservatives a 5-7 point edge over the Socialists. Instead, that was the margin of the Socialist victory. To have a 10-14 point switch in a matter of days is extraordinary. And you mean to tell me no one in the world media could detect this shift as it was happening?? I say this was a pathetic media performance.

There has been much ridiculous and distorted posturing by Republicans about the moral lesson to be learned from both the bombing and the conservatives electoral defeat. That brightest light among foreign policy analysts, House Speaker Denny Hastert said, as quoted in the New York Times’ U.S. Lawmakers Blame Spain, Battle Over Iraq:

Here is a country that stood against terrorism, and had a huge terrorist act within their country, and they chose to change their government and to in a sense appease terrorists.

No, Denny, afraid you got it all wrong. Here is a right wing government which, in the aftermath of the bombing refused to acknowledge what was obvious even to the least discering among us: that the terrorist bombing had nothing to do with ETA. Clearly, Aznar and his government WANTED the bombing to have an ETA connection because they, like Bush, feel most comfortable running on a domestic terrorism platform.

But almost from Day 1, the evidence pointed away from ETA and toward Al Qaeda:

1. ETA never sponsors multiple, coordinated attacks of the sort perpetrated last week
2. ETA almost always precedes its bombings with a warning in order to minimize civilian casualties (there was no warning last week)
3. ETA activates its bombs directly through cell phone calls (last week’s bombs were activated by alarm clocks connected to cell phones)
4. ETA always takes credit for its attacks; here ETA disclaimed responsibility from the very start

Even that pontificating, self-important windbag, Tom Friedman, has taken up with the Republicans by writing in Axis of Appeasement in today’s Times:

The new Spanish government’s decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we’ve faced since 9/11. It’s what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence.

Oh, please Tom–give me a break! For an otherwise intelligent person, you sure can spout a load of drivel sometimes.

But Maureen Dowd has redeemed the failures of her New York TImes colleagues by writing an OpEd piece, Pride and Prejudice, that is right on the money. She writes about the Spanish election:

The Spanish were angry at José María Aznar because they felt he misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda. The Republicans certainly don’t want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.

Dowd notes that since we haven’t been able to find WMD in Iraq, Bush has turned to touting the flowering of Iraqi democracy as the most important reason for going to war. She slying and deliciously comments: “But when our [Spanish] allies engage in democracy, some Republicans mock them as lily-livered.” I think Maureen Dowd is the wittiest, shrewdest and most incisive columinst at the Times bar none.

The Spanish people had every right to doubt the government’s version of events since it flew in the face of everything people knew of what had happened. One of the primary rules of modern politics is that elected leaders who face a crisis must be as accurate as possible, must reveal as much as they know, and must not lie or conceal facts that are inconvenient politically. Aznar did the exact opposite and so richly deserved his political fate.

Bush and the Republicans are, as usual, taking a completely wrong lesson from this tragedy. Instead of calling the Spaniards craven capitulators to international terrorism, they should be listening to to the intelligent, and carefully modulated advice offered by the new Prime Minister Zapatero: if you want our continued help go to the UN or NATO and gather an international consensus behind your policy. Forge a true global alliance with the world’s major states and powers and agree on an agenda for stablizing Iraq. That’s the lesson that George Bush should be learning from the defeat of his Spanish ally, but there’s little likelihood of that happening, I’m afraid.

Another lesson that Bush should learn is that you cannot eternally sustain a policy which no longer has the support of the majority of your constituents. Aznar pursued his toadying support for Bush’s Iraq policy in the face of 80-90% opposition from Spaniards. In the U.S., opposition is nowhere near as high, but it grows by the day. Perhaps John Kerry will rap this lesson on Bush’s knuckles come Election Day.

Chilling Effects: Online Resources in the Struggle for Free Culture and a Free Blogosphere

Wednesday, March 17th, 2004

Chillingeffects.org
As you’ll know from reading my blog, I am deeply concerned with the stranglehold that copyright law maintains over the free expression of ideas on the internet. As a blogger, the effects of copyright on the blogworld hits especially close to home.

The Free Culture movement presents a great opportunity to propagate a more open view of the internet than the conventional interpretation of copyright might otherwise allow. I’d like to recommend for your review the following tremendous resources which deal with copyright, fair use and promoting free expression on the web:

Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons These are the good folks who put Diebold’s 15,000 coroprate documents online in order to warn us that Diebold’s electronic voting system was shoddy and prone to security breaches. I’m pleased to say that Swarthmore’s general counsel sided with them by determining that the publication of the documents on a University server WAS covered by Fair Use. Diebold later dropped its objection to online posting.

Chilling Effects is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics.

Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize businesses. But we’ve noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that individual copyright holders and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence online users.

FAQs about Copyright and Fair Use is a great overview of Fair Use and the ways in which it may protect online users from the threat of copyright infringement.

Calling All Bloggers: Fair Use as a Protection from Copyright Infringement

Saturday, March 13th, 2004

I’ve been reading up on the concept of Fair Use as a means of protecting bloggers from accusations of copyright infringement. Several non-profit websites whose purpose is to provide access to copyrighted news articles have come up with an interesting and innovative understanding of Fair Use as a strong defense against a charge of infringement.

The Global Policy Forum and Common Dreams republish copyrighted news stories that are relevant to their respective missions. They post the articles in their entirety without seeking permission of the copyright holder. To see an example of their approach in action, take a look at Israel Announces Official Decision to Remove Arafat on the Global Policy website; or From His First Day in Office, Bush Was Ousting Aristide at Commondreams.org. You will notice a Fair Use Notice which states:

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In my recent thinking about Fair Use, I saw it as providing limited protection because I understood it to apply only in cases where a scholar, educator or researcher quoted a very limited amount of a copyrighted text. Since I and many of us quote more extensively from such works, it seemed like Fair Use wouldn’t provide much help.

But Lloyd Rich, a Denver intellectual property attorney who maintains the Publishing Law Center website writes intriguingly in How Much of Someone Else’s Work May I Use Without Asking Permission?: The Fair Use Doctrine, Part I that word count is a poor way of understanding Fair Use. In some instances, a judge might find that publishing an entire copyrighted article (as do Common Dreams and Global Policy Forum) falls squarely within Fair Use and in other cases quoting an extremely modest amount of a copyrighted work may not be protected by Fair Use. It all depends on the circumstances surrounding use of the copyrighted materials.

Four “fair use factors” need to be analyzed in order to determine whether use of a copyrighted work is Fair Use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

The first criteria provides stronger protection for derived works which are created for non-profit purposes. The second criteria

looks to see if the new work is for one of the purposes specifically contemplated by the fair use — (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching. The burden of proving fair use is somewhat easier to demonstrate if the new work is for one of these purposes.

The third criteria evaluates the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work, e.g., is the transformative purpose of the new work for comment, criticism, or parody of the copyrighted work. In other words, does the new work merely supplant the original, or does it add something entirely new to it? Does the new work have a different purpose or different character than the copyrighted work? The crucial factor is whether the new work alters the copyrighted work by adding new expression, meaning or message to the copyrighted work.

The scope of fair use is greater when an “informational” work – a work of facts or information, a work of scholarship or of news reporting — as opposed to a more “creative” work — a work of fiction — is involved or when a work is designed to inform or educate rather than entertain.

And under the fourth criteria:

those who wish to use another’s copyrighted materials without permission must decide whether or not their utilization of the copyrighted material is going to harm either the present or potential market for the copyrighted work.

Rich outlines four different cases in which Fair Use was invoked by defendants as a defense against an infringement claim in Fair Use: Interpretations and Guidelines – The Fair Use Doctrine Part II. Very informative reading.

In conclusion, I would suggest that if your blog like mine uses copyrighted material (especially news sources) to engage in important discussions about the issues of the day, then there’s a pretty good bet that Fair Use provides a strong defense. Why do I say this (at least in the case of my own blog)?

1. I quote from news article which are fact-based and not (except in a few instances) “creative works” like novels, poems or other works of art.
2. While I quote extensively from some articles, I almost never quote an entire article (& in the few cases where I’ve done this I will shortly be removing those items).
3. My blog is non-commercial.
4. I am not in any way hindering the copyright owner’s efforts to benefit financially from his or her asset.
5. I give full attribution in hyperlinks to the original copyrighted article or image (at least when I can verify such information).
6. My blog’s purpose is to educate my readers about important artistic, cultural, political and scientific issues of the day. Toward that purpose I engage in scholarly research while preparing my posts.

But as anyone who’s familiar with this somewhat ill-defined part of the law knows, copyright infringement is all in the eye of the beholder–in this case a judge. It’s up to him or her to determine, based on the infinite variety of the facts of the particular case, whether a violation occurred. And the only way to determine whether this view of Fair Use is valid is to go to court and prove it, an experience no one welcomes. But as Knownot, a legal correspondent who has taught me much about copyright law as it impacts bloggers, says: if you adhere to a principle you believe is important, the only way to show you really value it is by testing its mettle in a crisis–in this case an accusation of infringement.

‘The Tyranny of Copyright’

Friday, March 12th, 2004
chains.gif

Breaking the chains of copyright
(graphic: Christoper Niemman)

Robert Boynton published The Tyranny of Copyright in the New York Times Magazine‘s January 25, 2004 issue. In it, he takes up the conflict between two opposing tendencies within the creative world: the urge by inventors and innovators to control their creations in order to reap maximum financial reward from them; and the countervailing needs of society to freely consume these new ideas and innovations and adapt them to unforeseen future uses. Boynton describes the two tendencies as the “permission culture” versus the “free culture movement” or “cultural commons.”

He harkens back to the dawning of the internet age when its promise seemed infinite and limits seemed remote:

Not long ago, the Internet’s ability to provide instant, inexpensive and perfect copies of text, sound and images was heralded with the phrase ”information wants to be free.” Yet the implications of this freedom have frightened some creators — particularly those in the recording, publishing and movie industries — who argue that the greater ease of copying and distribution increases the need for more stringent intellectual property laws.

These “content providers” propose a copyright standard which critics derisively refer to as the “permission culture:”

Whereas you used to own the CD or book you purchased, in the permission culture it is more likely that you’ll lease (or ”license”) a song, video or e-book, and even then only under restrictive conditions: read your e-book, but don’t copy and paste any selections; listen to music on your MP3 player, but don’t burn it onto a CD or transfer it to your stereo.
bird_behind_bars.jpg

Songbird behind bars

These critics view iTunes, Apple’s new online music store, as the first step toward a society in which cultural activity we currently take for granted — reading an encyclopedia in the library, selling a geometry textbook to a classmate, copying a song for a friend– will be monetized through a system of micropayments which give participants the rights to ever smaller pieces of our culture are doled out. ”Sooner or later,” predicts Miriam Nisbet, the legislative counsel for the American Library Association, ”you’ll get to the point where you say, ‘Well, I guess that 25 cents isn’t too much to pay for this sentence,’ and then there’s no hope and no going back.”

The problem with this philosophical approach to copyright is that it is likely to stifle creativity and innovation. You can think of it in terms of the amazing variety of engineering innovations produced by the U.S. space program. This creativity was translated into thousands of new consumer products and processes which have in turn made our lives better. The same adaptive process happens with books, films, music and the realm of ideas.

Imagine, if you write a weblog like me. In the permission culture, there is no room for the free exchange of ideas unless you first pay to use them. In quoting this very article, an adherent of permission culture might find me violating the New York Times copyright. Again, this would entitle the New York Times to pursue me for copyright infringement. This is the very same approach that the music and film industries are taking in going after file sharers. It is the same approach they are taking in attempting to engineer new media players that will not allow copying of songs or movies, nor the playing of content previously copied.

But the “free culture” activists are not taking it lying down.

These lawyers, scholars and activists fear that bolstering copyright protection in the name of foiling ”piracy” will have disastrous consequences for society — hindering the ability to experiment and create and eroding our democratic freedoms. They object fiercely to the way copyright has been distorted by recent legislation and manipulated by media companies. They share a fear that the United States is becoming less free and ultimately less creative. While the American copyright system was designed to encourage innovation, it is now, they contend, being used to squelch it. They see themselves as fighting a radical effort to turn copyright law into a tool for hoarding ideas.

Instead, they believe in the ”cultural commons” — a shared stockpile ideas where the majority of America’s music and literature would reside, from which anyone could partake without having to pay or ask permission. The public domain is a necessity for social and cultural progress, not some sort of socialist luxury. ”Our art, our culture, our science depend on this public domain,” he has written, ”every bit as much as they depend on intellectual property.” (James Boyle, Duke Law School)

No less an American innovative genius than Thomas Jefferson understood the tension between these perspectives all too well:

”If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property,” he wrote, ”it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone.”

Jefferson, it seems, would not come down on the side of the permission culture.

Larry Lessig, Stanford Law professor, and one of the seminal thinkers in this field poses the problem in stark, even extreme rhetorical terms:

‘We are invoking ideas that should be central to the American tradition, such as that a free society is richer than a control society,” he says. ”But in the cultural sphere, big media wants to build a new Soviet empire where you need permission from the central party to do anything.” He complains that Americans have been reduced to ”an Oliver Twist-like position,” in which they have to ask, ”Please, sir, may I?” every time we want to use something under copyright — and then only if we are fortunate enough to have the assistance of a high-priced lawyer.

Those of us bloggers who maintain a Creative Commons blog license should thank Lessig and the others in the group which created this concept, positing a lesser or looser definition of copyright. In the case of my blog, anyone may avail themselves of my content as long as they do not use it for commercial purposes or to benefit themselves financially. I also ask borrowers to acknowledge me as the source of the content they appropriate and not to distort the meaning of what I’ve written. Other than that, you’re free to lift what you like.

This matches my view of what the web should be: an open marketplace of ideas available to make the world a better place. The only way we can change society for the better, the only way we can find ways to enjoy our lives more is through free and open dialogue. The more control there is over this marketplace the weaker the level of innovation and the impulse for change.

If you are skeptical of this approach, you have every right to ask: “if you do away with copyright as we currently know it, what would you put in its place that would compensate creators for their work while providing full, free access to consumers?” William Fisher, director of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Law and the Internet, has come up with an imaginative solution. Just as songwriters receive royalties from ASCAP and BMI based on the number of times their songs are played on the public airwaves, so

works capable of being transmitted online would be registered with a central office (whether government or independent is unclear). The central office would then monitor how frequently a work is used and compensate the creators on that basis. The money would come from a tax on various content-related devices, like DVD burners, blank CD’s or digital recorders. Fisher’s proposal might be the best thing that ever happened to the cultural commons: the creators would be paid, while every individual would have unlimited access to every cultural creation.

If you think this sounds like a wild-eyed, radical scheme,

Fisher and Charles Nesson, his colleague at Harvard Law School, have showed this proposal to movie executives and lawyers for several media conglomerates. Fisher says that his ideas have been received with great interest by the very industries — music, home video — that see their business models disintegrating before their eyes.

I don’t think even the most extreme free culture activist believes that this proposal will sweep the land. But the online content providers face a severe crisis (look at the music industry, for example) They can change or die. Fisher’s proposal provides them with a way to thrive by embracing the web’s innovation, rather than foolishly attempting to stifle it.

Seattle TV News: Provincial and Parochial

Friday, March 12th, 2004

We moved to Seattle in 1998 and think it’s a wonderful place to live. Before coming here, I lived all over the place: Jerusalem, Dublin, L.A., the Bay Area, New York City and Westchester. I’ve hated television news in every city I’ve lived in in the U.S. The worst was L.A. because to judge by the news footage there was a heinous crime committed every 30 seconds. The LA TImes once reported that when TV news viewers were asked how much crime there was in the city, they overestimated by as much as 50%. All because that’s what the news seemed to be telling them.

TV news is designed to shock, titillate and scare viewers; but most emphatically not to inform them and certainly not to cover the major issues of the day. Seattle’s TV news is also laughable, but for different reasons. I remember the first year we moved here, I was watching the 11 PM news and the lead story was about an old lady’s cat that had been shot while sitting in the lady’s tree. This was the lead story!! But if you think about it, this story has all the great angles: a defenseless little old lady, a horrible mysterious villain shooting innocent creatures, a poor defenseless cat, etc. Perfect!

Now, we have a comparable tale of woe in KOMO TV’s March 9th story by Kevin Reece which led the 11 PM news: ‘I Think He Messed With The Wrong Couple Of Girls’. To hear the tale of villainy and crime, we should perhaps let the participants tell it themselves:

cookie_thief_030904.jpg

Ana fought off the Thin Mint Thief!
credit: KOMO TV

Eleven year old Ana and her mom Tamara were selling Girl Scout cookies in the entryway of Fred Meyer on S. Burlington Boulevard Sunday night. They quickly became suspicious of a man who passed by their table at least three times. But they never thought he’d attack.

“I thought who’s gonna steal Girl Scout cookie money,” Ana told KOMO 4 News. “It’s not something you imagine happening to Girl Scouts.” But that’s exactly what he tried to do: lunging at their cash box that had $100 inside.

“He came back in fully running, grabbed the money box, pulled my mom over the table,” said Ana. “She had her hands on it. It sent cookies and things flying all over.”

“All I remember is being on the ground and him trying to pull the box away from me,” said Ana’s mom Tamara. “And I was just hanging on for dear life and screaming at him.”

“I don’t know what was going through his mind, maybe he just thought, oh taking candy from a baby let’s go, easy as pie, no big deal. Actually I think he messed with the wrong couple of girls.”

Yup, that’s the lead story on Seattle’s evening news. And I bet in this town that passes for a major news story. More important than Mayor Nickles recognizing gay marriages performed out of state. More important than the multi-billion dollar Monorail and Sound Transit mass transit projects. More important than the region’s sinking economy and joblessness. Give ‘em a choice between a real story dealing with life and death issues like jobs, commuting, and public policy; and a non-story like poor defenseless people beset by sordid villains and I know which they’ll pick every time.

Insofar as I have any problems with Seattle this is it: it is a wannabe hip, diverse, cool city. It tries to be tolerant and forward thinking. But every so often, something terribly insular and provincial happens that makes you sit up and say: “Ah, so that’s what Seattle must’ve been like 25 years ago (pre-Microsoft) when it was a sleepy little burg.” The problem isn’t that Seattle’s reach exceeds its grasp. The problem is Seattle’s reach sometimes falls far short of its grasp. Those are the times when you realize that while Seattle is a world class city, it is still sometimes stuck in its past.