"In Minnesota, it's all over for PRT... 'nuff said." [ellipses in original]
Every year the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist writes something to this effect. In 2003 and 2004, it was the failure to pass state funding bills. In 2005 it was the conviction and defeat of Dean Zimmermann. Every year brings the PRT Is No More pronouncement. There will always be something--it's become his annual anti-passion play where he acts out the non-rising of PRT.
What is it this year? Is it the defeat of Rep. Mark Olson and Sen. Michelle Bachmann, ultra-right wing targets of the Propagandist's highly effective, cerebral, and subtle issues-based grassroots mobilization campaign?
Ha! No, seriously, this time it's,
"it is unlikely that [Mark Olson] will mention PRT again at the legislature. The House leader, Margaret Keliher [sic] spoke against PRT in 2004 and she won't allow a PRT bill to go anywhere as long as she's in charge."Let's examine this bit of reportage.
1. "it is unlikely that [Mark Olson] will mention PRT again at the legislature." Why? Because Olson's transportation positions hurt him? That's what DMO claimed pre-election day. But when the dust settled Olson was reëlected. Unless his district voted for him because they didn't like his policies, Olson really has no incentive to drop PRT (it's the least of his worries). However, he needs to take the more responsible position of promoting PRT as one part of a balanced, multi-mode transit system.
2. "The House leader, Margaret Keliher [sic] spoke against PRT in 2004 and she won't allow a PRT bill to go anywhere as long as she's in charge."
This claim, as written, verges on hearsay on a journalistic level. By writing this I'm only trying to help. Kendoll is, after all, supposed to be the Transportation Editor of the TC Daily Planet, as well as a muckraking investigative reporter. One would expect that he aspires to some level of competent objective journalism.
And I'm not suggesting Kelliher is pro-PRT, or that she is not anti-PRT, or that she would allow PRT legislation to come forward. I'm not even suggesting PRT legislation will go "anywhere." I just want some background about how Kenwood is in a position to know what is in Kelliher's mind ("she won't allow... as long as she's in charge").
Why it's fishy: first, Kenwood is characterizing what Kelliher said rather than directly quoting her. Second, he does not source Kelliher's statements, or the context in which they were given.
Finally, and this is the most puzzling: subtlety is not Kenmore's strong suit, so why is he so subtle about what Kelliher may or may not have said? If Kelliher is so adamantly against PRT ("she won't allow... as long as she's in charge"), why can nothing be found online quoting her? Why did the Propagandist make only one tiny mention of it in 2004 (and calling her "Anderson Kelliher," not Margaret Anderson Kelliher)-- instead of blaring it to high heaven and repeating it over and over and over, ad nauseous?
Also today: Kelliher smacked by Lloydletta.
Propagandist pesters liberal blogger who doesn't care about PRT: Norwegianity nails it--
"...there's no way we gain from photoshopped rudeness and every likelihood these pix will surface in two years at an inopportune time. Put another way, how would you react to seeing Keith Ellison with horns? I know I for one would be a little pissed if I saw that."Related: His bad phone manners (7/12)
The United States has dropped Ken Avidor from a list of countries said to severely violate religious freedoms.