Sonicsgate Begins

in

Let the Sonics move. I don't care. I can't afford $50 a ticket to sit in the upper tiers of Key Arena anyway. I get a better view of the game on my TV.

The old Coliseum was renovated to the then state-of-the-art Key Arena just 10 years ago, and it cost taxpayers $74 million, according to the AP. Now the Sonics are asking for a $220 million renovation of Key Arena, want a new arena in a Seattle suburb, like Bellevue, or threaten to move out of the Northwest altogther.

The Sonics say they have lost about $60 million in the past five years, and blame a revenue-sharing lease with the city of Seattle that expires in 2010.

"Not my" Gov. Gregoire announced over the weekend that time had run out for striking a deal with the Sonics this year. The ball is in the Sonics' court now. (Get it? Sonics' court? Nevermind.)

"A substantial amount has been done for the baseball and football teams. I'm here personally to find out whether the same is being considered fairly for the NBA," said NBA commissioner David Stern, visiting state legislators.

Stern is right. Safeco Field, the most expensive new baseball park in North America, cost $517 million. Quest Field cost $300 million (Paul Allen shelled out 30% out of his deep pockets).

I'll pay $15 to get into an M's game, regardless of the franchise's success. Safeco Field is home to the NFC Champion Seahawks, and Matt Wood will pay $200 for a playoff ticket without blinking.

The problem with the Sonics' proposal is timing. Today, few will pay more than $50 a ticket to watch a stumbling NBA franchise, especially when the alternative is watching the Mariners, for a fraction of the price, or the champion Seahawks.

Key Arena has 17,000 seats, roughly half the capacity of most NBA arenas, and the Sonics can only fill half the seats. I doubt Sonics tickets will be cheaper at a new or remodeled arena. So now the Sonics need a larger, newer arena for what? A higher empty-seat ratio? The Sonics are naive to ask Seattle for $220 million now. Build the franchise and then we can talk about building an arena.

Jon Stewart Shows Genius at Oscars

in

Jon Stewart was a freakin' genius at the Oscars last night. It's a true pleasure to watch the Hollywood elite be reminded that they're no better than the rest of us. Build them up on the red carpet and then break them down at showtime. That's what I say.

My favorite Jon Stewart Oscar quotes:

"I have to say it is a little shocking to see all these big names here, these huge stars. The Oscars is really I guess the one night of the year when you can see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic Party. And it's exciting for the stars as well because it's the first time many of you have ever voted for a winner."

"There are women here who could barely afford enough gown to cover their breasts." - Stewart joking that Hollywood was losing money to illegal downloading

"'Capote' showed America that not all gay people are virile cowboys -- some are actually effete New York intellectuals."

"A lot of people say this town is too liberal, out of touch with mainstream America ... a modern day, beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah, a moral black hole where innocence is obliterated in an endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed ... I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that."

"Bjork could not be here -- she was trying on her Oscar dress and Dick Cheney shot her."

"'Schindler's List' and 'Munich.' I think I speak for all Jews when I say I can't wait to see what happens to us next. Trilogy!" - Stewart to Steven Speilberg

Oscars and Ice Cream

in

To better prepare myself for tonight's Oscars, I watched Crash last night. What a great portrayal of racism in America. It blew my mind (and reinforced the thoughts I had in my previous post).

Later I went to Mallard's. I had two scoops of Mocha Raspberry Chocolate Chunk in a waffle cone. Wow.

I'll be watching the Oscars at my house. C'mon over and bring your Oscar ballot.

King Country Opts to Brand MLK

in

As a former King County resident, I was extremely disappointed to learn that the County Council approved a measure to adopt an image of Martin Luther King Jr. for a new logo. Before a crowd gathers below my balcony in protest, let me explain why.

First, voters didn't approve the idea when Ron Sims presented this in 1999. According to the King County poll, 85 percent of residents voted against changing the logo and replacing it with an image of MLK. Although the poll is becoming dated, I doubt public opinion has swayed drastically on this issue. The logo change is not in the public's interest.

Second, it's merely a coincidence that King County and MLK share the same name. The county was originally named after former U.S. Vice President William Rufus DeVane King, who died in office in 1853. According to Sound Politics commentor Reporterward, King supported "land bills that helped stimulate settlement of Western territories and attracted pioneers to come to Washington State to claim homesteads as a place to start."

Vice President King was a slave owner, which is a reason why the County Council voted in 1986 to change the county namesake to MLK. Gregoire signed the namesake change into law in April 2005. (This doesn't change the fact that MLK has no ties to King County, except for one visit in 1961 and coincidentally sharing the same name.) On a tangent, if we're going to start changing namesakes because of slave ownership, we ought to do away with our state's name and reconsider renaming the U.S. all together, as nearly all of our founding fathers were slave owners. (Read: The '86 vote was political B.S. and I don't like Gregoire anyway.)

Third, MLK has enough public recognition already. We've honored him with his own national holiday. His legacy is the epicenter of Black History Month, and there's a major avenue named after him in every city in the U.S. All of those honors are appropriate, but let's put his legacy in context with other great Americans, including presidents, who receive comparably little recognition in the public arena. Is this new honor necessary?

Fourth, and most importantly, County Council was financially irresponsible for approving this measure. According to the Seattle Times, the branding transition will cost the county $522,255 over five years. The article reports:

"The ordinance passed 7-2, with Republicans Jane Hague of Bellevue and Kathy Lambert of Woodinville voting no because of concerns that the county could be liable to royalty claims from King's estate if it uses the logo in any commercial ventures.

The ordinance declares the county "does not intend to seek commercial profit" from use of the logo and acknowledges the King family's interest in collecting royalties from commercial uses of his image."

Thus, not only is the county paying more than $500,000 for the logo change, but it's also making itself eligible for royalty payments.

I believe the best way to honor MLK is to give the money to the struggling King County school districts. According to a Seattle Times article, the Seattle School District forecasts a $15 million budget deficit in 2006-07 and a nearly $25 million deficit the following school year. Changing a logo will not facilitate the societal changes MLK fought for. Empowering education will.