HinesSight

Shocking news! Cable “news” isn’t news.

Yesterday the TV truth hit home as it never had before. CNN, Fox, MSNBC – they aren't really news organizations, because what they peddle is mostly subjective fluff, not facts.

The West Virginia Democratic primary election is what drew me to this conclusion. It was something I already knew, but which hadn't sunk deeply into my consciousness until I spent most of the afternoon working on some windows with the television tuned to CNN.

It was unbelievable how an endless stream of pundits, reporters, political hacks, and elected officials could take a few crumbs of new information and turn them into an three layer cake of supposition, frosted with a heavy topping of speculation.

Let's see: last week, after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, the general cable news consensus was that Clinton was done for. Obama essentially had the nomination sewed up. The remaining six contests were just a matter of going through the motions.

Obama picked up a net gain of thirteen delegates on May 6. Then a bunch of superdelegates jumped onto the Obama bandwagon, putting him into the lead in that category also.

Polls predicted that West Virginia would be a Clinton blow-out. And that's what happened. She won 20 delegates and Obama won eight.

But from a large share of the blather on CNN you would have thought that the Democratic presidential race had changed completely.

Oh my god! Exit polls showed that many Clinton voters wouldn't support Obama in the general election! Poor, undereducated white voters in Appalachia weren't voting for Obama! He's doomed!

There was no new news presented, other than a confirmation via the actual results of what the pre-election polling had predicted. Yet the spin doctors, who, distressingly, included CNN anchors such as Wolf Blitzer, made a huge deal out of all this nothing.

The May 5 issue of Newsweek reported a new poll on how voters see Obama, Clinton, and McCain.

When asked "Which of the following presidential candidates shares your values?" 51% said that Obama did. Clinton got 49%, McCain 47%.

When asked "From what you know of the candidates, which of them, if any, do you think looks down on people like you?" 25% said that Obama did. Clinton got 32%, McCain 26%.

When Democrats were asked "Who do you think is most likely to defeat John McCain in the November election?" 46% said Obama and 38% said Clinton.

When Democrats were asked, "Who do you think best understands the problems and concerns of people like you?" 46% said Obama and 38% said Clinton.

Yet listening to CNN, I was told over and over that somehow the West Virginia primary showed that Obama has huge electability problems.

Well, with all those hours to fill before and after the election results filtered in, the cable news channels had to say something. So they just made stuff up, because reporting the actual results would have taken just a few minutes.

I'm a news junkie. But the overdose of punditology I imbibed yesterday may have permanently changed my desire to keep on getting my fix from television. On the Internet, at least, I can choose the blather I want to expose myself to.

What Survivor, the TV show, says about the election

We're fervent fans of CBS' Survivor. Haven't missed an episode, ever. Not once in sixteen seasons. We put so much time into the show, I like to discern Big Truths in the machinations that go on between the contestants.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but the Fans versus Favorites contest on a Micronesian island that concluded last night was a good omen for her.

First, the women ruled. Everyone in the final four was female. The girls were way more devious than the guys.

That's why this is called a "reality" show. Cirie talked about how her mother said that women might not be able to beat men physically (pointing to her biceps), but they could always beat them here (pointing to her brain).

It was painful to watch the last episodes. Trusting male after trusting male fell into the webs of trickery these Black Widows spun out of sweet talk and false promises.

Hopefully neither the voters nor the superdelegates will do the same. You never know, though.

Take the case of Erik, a nice guy who got wound around the finger of Natalie. She was billed as a "personal trainer." Her bio says that she also is a bartender. Yeah, I can believe it. She knows how to handle men, with or without a drink in their hand.

Erik strains and sweats to win immunity. He's on the chopping block to be voted off the island, being the odd man out with the four women.

I was excited when he won the immunity necklace. Now the females would have to eat one of their own at tribal council.

But the women hatch a scheme to make Erik feel that unless he gives the immunity necklace to Natalie, they won't trust him – so he'll be voted off eventually anyway.

Natalie is reluctant to even try this line out on Erik. "Who would believe that?" she asks her conspiring sisters. "Give it a try, Natalie," they urge her. "Use your feminine wiles."

Dear god, it was painful for me, as a man, to watch Erik cross his fingers (dude, nobody does this anymore, especially not 22 year olds) after handing over the necklace in an astonishing display of naiveté.

Which, in short order, resulted in him having his torch snuffed on a 4-1 vote. So much for trust. Everyone watching could see it coming but Erik.

Barack, pay attention. Don't believe what Hillary's camp is telling you, no matter how good it sounds. If you take her on as your vice-president, make sure she's on a short leash (ignore how sexist that sounds).

The crowning touch of reality came when Parvati beat out Amanda in the final tribal council and won the million dollars. Laurel and I both cried out "No!" when the 5-3 vote was announced.

Amanda, the beauty queen, was cool, calm, and collected. A schemer, sure. But basically straightforward. Parvati was a shameless flirt, coming on to guys and girls alike (one comment on the Survivor message board opined, "Natalie voted for Parvati because she wants to sleep with her").

So who comes out on top? The woman who will say or do anything to win, forming and breaking alliances with anyone and everyone if it helps her get what she wants.

I can reluctantly accept Parvati winning Survivor. But equally schemy Hillary winning the Democratic nomination… nightmare.

That'd be too much reality.

Oregon Supreme Court affirms Measure 49

Good legal news for those who love the naturalness of Oregon, rather than unneeded subdivisions on prime farm and forest land. Last Thursday the state Supreme Court ruled on the Corey case.

The decision affirmed that Measure 49, voted in last November by a wide margin, trumps Measure 37 – which Measure 49 fixed. Oregonians in Action, plus others who favor the rights of a few Measure 37 claimants over the property rights of the many, had been hoping that Corey v. DLCD would overturn Measure 49 in some fashion.

But the position of the Department of Land Conservation and Development was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In the end, we hold only that plaintiffs' contention that Measure 49 does not affect the rights of persons who already have obtained Measure 37 waivers is incorrect. In fact, Measure 49 by its terms deprives Measure 37 waivers -- and all orders disposing of Measure 37 claims -- of any continuing viability, with a single exception that does not apply to plaintiffs' claim.

Thus, after December 6, 2007 (the effective date of Measure 49), the final order at issue in the present case had no legal effect. It follows that resolution of the issue that the Court of Appeals decided in Corey and as to which we allowed review -- whether the Court of Appeals or the circuit court has jurisdiction to review DLCD's final order respecting plaintiffs' Measure 37 claim -- can have no practical effect upon the parties: If the order at issue has no continuing legal effect, then neither party can gain anything from review in either forum. The case is moot.

It's sort of strange that Oregon's largest newspapers didn't cover this story. I learned about it through the Medford Mail Tribune ("Ruling backs Measure 49 over 37") and the Albany Democrat Herald ("Supreme Court ruling backs county's actions on land use").

The latest issue of the Oregonians in Action newsletter had a dream…that somehow the pave it over advocates would wake up and find that a court had ruled that Measure 37 was still the law of the land.

It could be argued that the Court of Appeals' decision in Corey makes Measure 37 waivers a property right that cannot be taken from property owners without some form of compensation.

Fortunately for Oregon, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Belly dancers show need to shake up Salem

Beauty. Artistry. Color. Diversity. Energy. Passion.

Not words usually associated with downtown Salem, Oregon. But yesterday Silverton's Raks Sarama belly dancing troupe, performing at a First Wednesday celebration, showed that this sleepy city has potential to wake up.

In my You Tube video (embedded below) you can hear a conversation between me and a fellow progressive friend, Frances, where I extol the virtues of my Flip Video camera.

Before that, Frances told me that she'd just been extolling the virtues of Lloyd Chapman, who is running for mayor against the incumbent, Janet Taylor. She ran into some Taylor supporters and told them that Chapman was a better choice for Salem.

Amen to that.

I can't vote for Chapman since we live outside of the city limits. But I sure hope he wins, defying the odds against dislodging Taylor from her entrenched position as a defender of unplanned growth, reduced quality of life, and favoritism toward big business over the average citizen.

We recently got back from a Hawaii vacation where shopkeepers asked us innumerable times "So, where are you from?"

I got tired of muttering, "Salem, Oregon…it's pretty boring with not much going on…Portland and Eugene are a lot more interesting." Had to speak the truth, though.

It's sort of hard to put a finger on exactly what it is Salem lacks. Whatever it is, Janet Taylor and her hidebound city council aren't the ones to bring it to town.

Chapman promises to shake Salem up. And god knows, we need it.

Raks Sarama showed me that. It was great to see the sidewalk in front of the Salem Center mall filled with smiling clapping people rather than just a few moribund shuffling shoppers.

At the end of the video I include a dig at Hillary Clinton. Understand, I'm much more of an Obama lover than a Clinton hater. There's a lot to like about her.

However, this country needs to be shaken up even more than Salem does. More of the same won't cut it. That's why I'm for belly dancing in the streets, Lloyd Chapman, and Barack Obama.

Depression reigns if Clinton wins

I figure I'd better write this now, a few minutes before the Indiana and North Carolina polls begin to close, because later on I might be too depressed.

I'm a grumpy new Democrat, having changed my registration to "D" from non-affiliated a few months ago so I could vote for Obama in the Oregon primary.

I felt good back then. Now Obama v. Clinton is a game that's feeling way tired, way repetitive, way past its prime. The Democrats need to get it on against McCain, not themselves.

Clinton is really starting to irritate me, though at first (briefly) I was in her camp.

Obviously her supporters are equally piqued at Obama, because I just saw an exit poll where about half of Clinton voters in Indiana and North Carolina said they'd either vote for McCain or not at all come November if Obama gets the nomination.

Many more Obama voters – 70%, I recall – said they'd vote for Clinton if, god forbid, she's the nominee. See, we're more enlightened than Clinton supporters.

And that's another gripe I've got against her. Clinton is relying on winning over the uneducated, the clueless, the rednecks, the embittered, the unemployed.

That may be good politics. But I'll be damned if I want the future course of our county left in the hands of the people least qualified to make that decision.

If they're swayed to vote for Clinton by a promise of a $30 summer driving gas tax bonus, her pandering to the lowest common mental denominator just proves that Obama's call for a new style of politics is right on.

Last night Jon Stewart had a great The Daily Show segment on Clinton's gas tax proposal being dismissed as a screwy idea by so many economists, she couldn't mention one who favored it. Yet she still thought it was a good notion, because economists are elitists.

Stewart showed her face morphing into George Bush's. This sort of non-rational, anti-scientific thinking is just what we've had to suffer through for the past eight years.

And now Clinton wants to bring us more of the same. No thanks.

Hopefully Indiana and North Carolina will start to drive the nails in Clinton's coffin. Her time has come…to go.

Inside look at Statesman Journal election endorsements

Like making sausage, if people knew more about how many newspaper editorial boards go about deciding on endorsements, they'd be disgusted.

Today Salem's Statesman Journal, the newspaper in Oregon's capital, endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's no big deal. Here's why.

I have a better understanding than most of how this paper's editorial board works, because last fall I got hot and heavy into investigating how the Statesman Journal was able to justify endorsing a "no" vote on Measure 49 – a fix for Measure 37, which the newspaper opposed in 2004.

Go figure. My wife and I sure couldn't. Back in October I explained why the editorial board should get an "F" in journalism ethics. Dick Hughes, editorial page editor, wrote the "no on 49" piece.

After extensive exchanges of emails in which Hughes failed to offer me any substantive rationale for the newspaper's position, Laurel and I met with Hughes at a coffee house along with two other Measure 49 supporters who were similarly aghast at how the editorial's conclusion was marvelously unsupported by logic or facts.

It was quite a meeting. We learned a lot about how the editorial board decision making process works. Or, more accurately, doesn't work.

Most readers of a newspaper probably assume that an editorial board consists of a large group of people. More than four, at least. But that's how many are on the Statesman Journal board: four.

All are newspaper employees. In addition to Hughes, there's Brian Priester (President and Publisher), Bill Church (Executive Editor), and Barbara Curtin (Opinion Editor).

In the case of the Measure 49 editorial, Hughes told us that Priester stayed out of the debate, not having been in Oregon very long. So the "no" endorsement was made by three people, one of whom favored a "yes" vote. Thus one person ended up deciding the Statesman Journal's position, Dick Hughes (who also wrote the editorial).

Likely this is common. With some newspapers, the publisher calls the shots on endorsements. Again, one person. But when an editorial begins with "Our Viewpoint," as the Clinton endorsement does, readers are given the impression that "our" includes a representative group of people.

Nope. At the coffee house meeting we asked Hughes, "What happened to the community representatives on the Statesman Journal editorial board?"

Answer: Priester requested that they be removed in the summer of 2007 after he took over the reins of the paper. So there's no input from anyone other than Statesman Journal employees on editorial endorsements.

The Clinton endorsement editorial mentions a "divided Editorial Board" twice. I suspect it was divided right down the middle, two-two, with the publisher breaking the tie. If so, the endorsement again represents the position of one person.

The newspaper has a blog where draft editorials are posted prior to publication. Reader comments are requested, as they were with the Measure 49 editorial.

But Hughes explained to us that he was the only staffer who read the many comments submitted on the illogical "no on 49" draft. He didn't share them with the other editorial board members, reflecting the newspaper's lack of interest in community input.

Over and over Hughes told us that the Measure 49 editorial was opinion, not a news story. And I kept telling him that I recognized this, but opinion with no factual substance behind it shouldn't become a newspaper endorsement.

The Measure 49 piece was a travesty. There was essentially no connection between the conclusion – vote "no"– and facts supporting this recommendation. Because there weren't any facts. Just opinion.

That's a crappy way to run an editorial board. Which is why I wasn't surprised or disappointed to see the Clinton endorsement today, even though I'm an Obama supporter.

My expectations of the Statesman Journal are so low, after learning how the editorial writing process works from our meeting with Dick Hughes, that I no longer take seriously what newspaper employees publish on the editorial pages.

The Statesman Journal is a Gannett paper. And that's a whole other story, well told by Richard McCord in his book "The Chain Gang."

He documents how ethics and Gannett are two words that don't belong together, using as one of his examples how the Gannett empire drove newspaper competition out of Salem in a sleazy fashion.

So take Statesman Journal editorials for what they're worth: very little.

Maui tourists gone (mildly) wild

Proving that a man on a Maui vacation armed with a Flip Video and a You Tube account is an formidable cinemagraphic force, here are the final four videos in my 2008 Hawaiian Island oeuvre.

These follow my preceding works of tourist art: "Maui beach people: beautiful or not?", "Video tour of Kapalua zipline course" and "Having a whale of a good time on a Maui cruise."

Serious students of Flip Videography (assuming there are any) may notice an evolution in my style during our ten days on Maui. Myself, I can't. But often an artist can't recognize his own genius.

In "Maui's Lahaina Stables sunset ride" I explore the island's yin and yang: marvelous natural beauty coupled with increasingly annoying over-development. On my horse I walk (and jerkily trot) up to the lower reaches of a mystical West Maui mountain valley, pondering what Shangri La lies beyond our two-hour ride's reaches.

Shifting gears, a lot, to "Maui shopping in Wailea," I document my humble husbandly shopping demeanor: five steps behind Laurel, who rules the store browsing roost. My camera lingers on a shapely black-clad shopper (or more likely, store employee) who I would have followed more closely if not for a fear of "Security! I'm being stalked!"

"Snorkeling on Maui" actually is my wife's video creation. It features no narration, mostly because it isn't possible to talk with a snorkel in your mouth. This was filmed with the Flip Video underwater case. Laurel used no artificial fish food aids in filming her snorkeling on Napili and Kapalua Bays. Hence, the natural number of fish.

My final video, "Maui's Banyan Tree and Napili Bay," melds a stroll under a notable Lahaina attraction and a view of one of Maui's most beautiful beaches. The viewer is treated to a massive display of bird chirping at dusk and a cogent explanation of how we have managed to do a lot of Maui moving while vacationing on the same beach for 20 years.

Having a whale of a good time on a Maui cruise

What is it about whales? And screaming people. I had plenty of time to ponder this question on the sunset dinner cruise that left yesterday from Maui's Lahaina harbor.

As memorialized in my You Tube video, you can hear our fellow passengers (and me) getting super-excited when some whales appeared close to the Pacific Whale Foundation boat.

Elvis and the Beatles probably didn't get more "oohs" and "ahs" when they came on stage. Yes, there's something about whales.

My philosophical self likes this notion: whales are like God. Mysterious, powerful, unseen. Usually hidden beneath the surface, once in a while one reveals itself and Wow! – the crowd goes wild. Praise whale!

There was even some magical thinking going on with the captain, who you can hear me chatting with. I asked her how we could get some tricks out of the whales, since a whole lot of dramatic breaching wasn't going on.

She told me that in her sixteen years of experience, the best way to see whales is to turn your camera off.

Actually, I'd been wondering the same thing, having just filmed many minutes of open ocean, interspersed with a few whale sightings. (My video has been edited to show the best ones.) But I resisted the temptation to turn off my Flip Video.

And just a few seconds after the captain spoke, bingo, the whale breached big time. So much for magical thinking.

Aside from the whales, another exciting image on the video shows me sipping my very first Mai Tai. The expression on my face is partly staged, but mostly real – because it took me a while to realize that I was supposed to stir the drink up.

All the alcohol must have been sitting on the top, because at first it seemed like a killer Mai Tai (not that I'd know, really, since this was my first). Guess this is one of those things experienced drinkers learn on the job.

We also got a kick out of the wedding party, who you'll see sitting on the bow area in front of us. The bride wore a formal white dress on her Maui sunset dinner cruise. Cool. She certainly stood out among the shorts and t-shirt crowd.

This Pacific Whale Foundation cruise gets a thumbs up from us. It's vegetarian friendly, featuring pasta and a tofu stir fry for entrees, plus the usual veggie appetizers.

The music man was friendly and competent, though we could have done with fewer of his corny jokes during the whale sightings. Some silence might have been more appropriate when the divinities of the deep paid us a visit.

Video tour of Kapalua zipline course

Any mildly-extreme sport that starts and ends at an expresso bar is right up our alley. That's one reason we enjoyed yesterday's outing at the Kapalua Resort's zipline adventure on Maui so much.

But naturally zipping was the main attraction. We'd never zipped before. If you don't know what it is, my four minute video will show you.

It's a kick. You hang on harnesses attached to what we were assured is a super-strong cable. Then you let yourself go from a platform and zip – the longest of the four courses being over 2000 feet.

In the video I only show two of the ziplines, the short practice course and the longest ending course, which soars over a beautiful valley.

After three zips, I felt experienced enough to hold my Flip Video camera in one hand for almost all of the last course. But when you near the landing platform zippers are supposed to hold on to a bar with two hands; hence, the sudden shot of the sky. (I broke the rule at the very end.)

Kapalua has parallel lines, so two people zip at the same time. On the last course I was paired with Amy, who was zipping as part of her training to work at the Kapalua Adventure Center.

Not surprisingly, she zipped way faster than I did. About halfway down I thought about leaning back (less air resistance) to see if I could catch up, but then I realized that given how much we were paying per second of zipping, I should be going as slow as possible to stretch out the experience.

Not as slow as Laurel, though. She was zipping so sedately at the end of the last course she stopped 20 feet from the platform. A rope was thrown to her so she could be towed in.

We were fortunate to just be one of three tourists on our zipline adventure, the other three zippers being staff in training. Rob, from North Carolina via New Zealand, was the other tourista. He's thinking of moving to Ashland, Oregon – an excellent idea, we told him.

This is a fun 2 ½ to 3 hour escapade for those who are (1) moderately adventurous and (2) moderately physically fit. The zipline course requires pretty good balance – not when you're zipping, but while you're on a ladder getting unhooked from the equipment.

I suspect the first practice tower is designed to weed out the excessively infirm right at the start. You walk up a swaying hanging board/rope bridge, then have to navigate some steep stairs while hanging onto your zipline gear.

It's not a big deal for most people. But I wonder why Kapalua doesn't assess the fitness of potential zippers before they get fitted into a harness and take a twenty-minute ride up to the Mountain Outpost.

Maybe the staff figure that if you want to slide on a cable for thousands of feet over a deep Maui valley, you're fit enough to do it.

Messages to Maui’ans from an Oregon vacationer

Ah, the World Wide Web is wonderful. It lets me communicate, potentially at least, with some people on Maui that I have messages for.

--To the couple in the room next door: It was so nice to get to know you early this morning – through the loud cell phone conversations on your deck. I hope your mother is able to join you on Maui. Paying for her lodging if she springs for the airline ticket sounds fair. And good luck with finding a babysitter through the nanny hotline. Hopefully she'll keep your child quieter than you've been able to.

--To everyone else staying in our section of the resort: Are we the only ones who can read the resort rules? Which mentions quiet time from 10:30 pm to 8:00 am. And no cell phone conversations outside rooms. I realize that it's tough to keep kids quiet in Hawaii (or anywhere), but letting them outside at 6:30 am seriously interferes with my Maui mellow, which is heavily dependent on much sleeping and napping.

--To Maui residents: If you keep allowing condos and high rises to be built, eventually you're going to have zero natural island and 100% artificial ugliness. Like almost everywhere, including Oregon, I'm sure your local elected officials love property taxes and over-building. They're not going to stop this Maui madness on their own. You've got to vote them out before it's too late. Really. I've been coming here for over twenty years, and you're losing the reasons both locals and vacationers like us love this island.

--To restaurant owners: Here's a tip for generating increased profits. Have at least one decent vegetarian entrée on your menu. Lots of people are trying to eat healthier now. Plus, there are many steadfast vegetarians. But you wouldn't know it from the meat and seafood fare (and nothing else) that we see on your dinner menu before we walk away and take our credit card elsewhere.

--To a couple of beach goers: Guy #1, cigarettes don't disappear when they're snuffed out in the sand. Filters don't disintegrate. Kids will find them when they play in what their parents thought was pristine beach sand, until little Johnny cries out with a butt in his mouth, "Mommy, look what I found!" Guy #2, you're too obvious. Drinking coke after coke, then walking into the ocean up to your waist for just a minute before getting back on your towel – that's a pee-giveway. Be more subtle. My wife got creeped out and had to walk way down the beach before getting in the water.

--To the turtle botherers: How would you like it if someone followed you home and waited outside until you left, and they could start stalking you again? Sea turtles were here first. Tourists came later. Know your place. Diving down and peering into a turtle's rock crevice refuge after it surfaces to breathe isn't cool. It's tourist-dorky. Watch them from a generous distance. If they want to come see you, they will. (Bet: they won't.)

--To the babes in bikinis: Thank you.