Thanks For The Publicity, Dana
Posted by: Jubal | 06/13/2008 8:47 AM
In Orange County politics, do you often hear someone say, "Hey, did you read the Dana Parsons column today?"
Neither do I.
In fact, I didn't see today's column until commenter Rocket pointed it out to me.
I encourage readers to peruse Parsons' column. It is a meandering mishmash of faulty logic and straw men, with a sanctimonious dollop of accusing me of sins Parsons commits in his column. He accuses me of being unfair, demeaning, uninformed, a crypto-sexist, etc.
I could expend the energy to respond in detail, but that it be akin to coming upon a spilt bowl of rice and trying to decide which grain to pick up first. I just don't have all day.
A couple of quick points, though.
And I loved this one:
I'll leave it to readers -- including Parsons -- to re-read the post in question which should make it plain Parsons is responding not to what i wrote, but what he wants to think I wrote.
Oh when will the management of the Times deliver Dana Parsons from having to condescend to us benighted Orange County neanderthals...what is it, twice a week?
In the meantime, thanks for the publicity, Dana. A blurb in the OC Register would obviously be preferable, but we might get a few more readers out of your column.
UPDATE: I just read the "Moorlach Update." Supervisor Moorlach thinks Dana provide razor-sharp analysis:
Then again, a Moorlach Update from earlier this year, the good supervisor claimed to be completely unaware of the criticism I had been expressing for weeks about his proposal to increase government regulation of political speech in OC.
Neither do I.
In fact, I didn't see today's column until commenter Rocket pointed it out to me.
I encourage readers to peruse Parsons' column. It is a meandering mishmash of faulty logic and straw men, with a sanctimonious dollop of accusing me of sins Parsons commits in his column. He accuses me of being unfair, demeaning, uninformed, a crypto-sexist, etc.
I could expend the energy to respond in detail, but that it be akin to coming upon a spilt bowl of rice and trying to decide which grain to pick up first. I just don't have all day.
A couple of quick points, though.
"Oh, they'd be aghast to have it portrayed that way. We're not saying that the lady isn't qualified.Parsons' oversimplification aside, but I'd like to point out for his benefit that in no school of logic are those two mutually exclusive.
They're just saying she got the job over Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters because she's a woman.
In some schools of logic, apparently, those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive observations."
And I loved this one:
"I normally wouldn't draw attention to a blogger..."Heaven forbid! It's OK for a columnist to read the rantings of a...blogger...in order to follow OC politics. But draw attention to one? Only if absolutely necessary to correct his insensitivity and impertinence for pointing out the obvious.
I'll leave it to readers -- including Parsons -- to re-read the post in question which should make it plain Parsons is responding not to what i wrote, but what he wants to think I wrote.
Oh when will the management of the Times deliver Dana Parsons from having to condescend to us benighted Orange County neanderthals...what is it, twice a week?
In the meantime, thanks for the publicity, Dana. A blurb in the OC Register would obviously be preferable, but we might get a few more readers out of your column.
UPDATE: I just read the "Moorlach Update." Supervisor Moorlach thinks Dana provide razor-sharp analysis:
And Dana does an excellent job of analysis for those having a tough time swallowing the majority of the Supervisors' vote. It is the second article and it is exceptional.Thanks, John. I never impugned your motives for voting for Hutchens. I appreciate you subscribing to Parsons' sophistry.
Then again, a Moorlach Update from earlier this year, the good supervisor claimed to be completely unaware of the criticism I had been expressing for weeks about his proposal to increase government regulation of political speech in OC.
CATEGORY:
OC Sheriff's Department, OC's Next Sheriff
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
I love the "I normally wouldn't call attention to a blogger" line.
Parsons may not like paying attention to blogs but Times editors sure are: which is why on the paper's website bloggers are now manifest.
Further, it's bloggers that help in part by driving web traffic to traditional news sites in many cases. I and others would argue this symbiotic relationship is making both journalism and bloggers better--producing a dearth of new and interesting information to media consumers not content to wait until the Times hits the porch at 6am (tomorrow)to digest the latest.
I agree with Matt that the "tipping point" is that Hutchens is female.
Its disturbing how little people are willing to read and/or think. The PC crowd just looks at the headline and won't look at anything else.
I believe that Hutchens was the best choice. And she isn't the only one that was better than Walters. I also believe that if anyone but Hutchens was in the final two, Walters would be Sheriff.'
Walters was the safe choice. Two other supervisors supported him. He was from Orange County. He was from outside the Sheriff's Department. He's done good things with the Santa Ana Jail (a real trouble spot for OCSD).
Hutchens is more unknown. Politically, supporting her would've been a risky move. Until CWLA got involved. CWLA made it politically possible for Nguyen, and to a lesser extent, Bates, to support Hutchens.
Had any of the other more qualified male candidates made the final two, CWLA would've sat things out because there wasn't a woman in the race. In that case, we probably would've seen 4-1 support for Walters with Moorlach talking to himself like usual.
The bottom line is that the only sexist here is CWLA even if their actions resulted in the best outcome (this time).
Dana Parsons is a dinosaur complaining about all these pesky mammals running around.
Jubal has correctly highlighted the gender politics that played a role in the Hutchens decision. She is obviously talented and impressive. Was she the most qualified? Probably not. Was her gender a HUGE factor in the effort by the CWLA and the South County ladies cabal? Of course. They would probably admit that it was the most important consideration. (By the way, why is it acceptable for the CWLA to promote Hutchens BECAUSE she is female, but not okay for me to advocate for a male candidate simply because he is a male candidate?).
All that aside... what about another real angle to this story:
The two John Lewis clients (Norby,Campbell) backed the John Lewis client(Walters) who probably should not have been one of the final two picks to begin with.
It seems that in the end, merit took a back seat to political interests.
Jubal:
I think this Parson's commentary should have been directed at local knucklehead and Santa Ana councilman Carlos Bustamante who was quoted in the LA Times as overheard making the following comment to Chief Walters after Hutchens appointment:
"I kept telling [Santa Ana Police Chief and sheriff finalist Paul Walters], 'Maybe we should get you some implants. Or a water bra.'"
We have had our share of disagreements with Parsons and other LA Times reporters (Diane Weder for example), in the past, but we have also had our disagreements with a number of OCR reporters “paraphrasing” the facts – If fact, we borrowed our grandiose tag line from Will Rogers - we do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times and the OC Register and report the facts.
On the other hand, yesterday’s excellent OCR investigative piece By NORBERTO SANTANA JR. and NATALYA SHULYAKOVSKAYA on “Overtime policies push 100 sheriff's officers over $150,000” validates the argument that OCSD insiders, including Sheriff Anderson and the AOCSD are an integral part of the culture Sandra Hutchens will need to dismantle if she is to be successful.