I consider myself a Moderate, which we know means many things to many people.  In this instance, I am asking if Washington can be a little moderate too.

Can we be moderately sensible about our slogan?  Can we use something that makes moderate sense?  Can we use something that is only moderately embarrassing to the people that live here?

How about something that is only moderately insulting to tourists?  Is moderately catchy?  Makes our state sound moderately appealing?

They commissioned someone to pick a tourism slogan for our state, and the "SayWa" Slogan is really what they picked. 

http://www.komotv.com/stories/42395.htm

SEATTLE - Have you heard the new tourism slogan for Washington state? It’s "SayWA."  We ran it by tourist Marcy Heim.

"You mean like say what? Come to Seattle? Say What? Like that?" she asked.

No, not say WHAT.  It’s pronounced "wah" as in, say Washington.

"Oh, say Waaaah," she said. "We get it." 

Do you?  The new campaign pitches "wah" as the sound you’ll make when you see our state’s majestic mountains, rugged coastline and glorious sunsets.

I think it stands for "Say what were they thinking?"   "Say what genius came up with this one?"

When the $442,000 ad campaign goes nationwide at the end of the month, potential visitors will see the sites in Washington that are supposed to make your jaw drop, mixed with the slogan, "SayWA."

How about "Say what?  We paid how much for this?"

"Say Where are my tax dollars really going?"

You tell me, would this make you come here?  We have the most beutiful mountains, the best wines, awesome skiing, beautiful coastlines and the best microbrews and coffee in the nation.  All that and the best we can come up withis SayWa?

All it makes me wonder is why the other states get the cool slogans…Are we really doomed to always be moderately mediocre?  Say…maybe…

The news came out yesterday (seen at ST, of course) that Senator Russ Feingold, the man we have to thank for the campaign finance reform (that didn’t work), is attempting to pass legislation to Censure Pres Bush concerning the NSA wiretaps. 

March 12, 2006— In an exclusive interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called on the Senate to publicly admonish President Bush for approving domestic wiretaps on American citizens without first seeking a legally required court order.

"This conduct is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors," said Feingold, D-Wis., a three-term senator and potential presidential contender.

He said Bush had, "openly and almost thumbing his nose at the American people," continued the NSA domestic wiretap program.

…Feingold asserts the president, "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States."

Sen Frist responded:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also appearing exclusively on "This Week," defended Bush.

"Russ is just wrong, he is flat wrong, he is dead wrong," Frist said.

… 

Frist called the censure attempt "political" and a "terrible, terrible signal" to enemies of the U.S. abroad. He assured Stephanopoulos that the resolution would never gain traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

I would expect that the republican controlled senate would squash this, except that the Senate has been fickle about supporting the President lately.

But it appears that Feingold has a bigger issue to deal with: He has to convince his own party to do ti first.

From Drudge:

Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure

Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold’s effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, preventing a floor vote that could alienate swing voters.

A day of tough, election-year talk between Feingold and Vice President Dick Cheney ended with Senate leaders sending the matter to the Judiciary Committee.

….

My mother has lung cancer.  She has smoked most of her life and is paying for it now, and she will be the first to tell you she was aware it might happen.  I am also a former smoker who quit in 1991, so I know how hard it is to kick the habit.  Not too many days go by without me feeling a familiar twinge.  It’s certainly an insidious habit.

But despite my ambivalence to smoking in general, I oppose smoking laws that go overboard.  The more we pass laws the more we restrict rights and affect people’s lives.  I mean how stupid is it to ban smoking in a damn cigar shop?  Or a cigar bar?  Can anyone really claim they are there and don’t accept the risks?  Sure, in a restaurant I can see and accept bans.  In a mall?  Fine.  But sometimes the extent of this law makes me irate.

A good case in point is the 60,000 residents of  health care facilities, particularly nursing homes and long term treatment centers.  These people who have limited mobility already, are now forced to take excessive and unsafe steps to be able to smoke.  The Seattle Times noted today:  

Soon after the state’s new smoking ban passed, Lake Vue Gardens nursing home in Kirkland told residents who smoke that they’d have to start puffing off the premises.

Their old smoking spot — a covered gazebo in the courtyard — was now officially too close to the windows of nonsmokers, many of whom suffered from respiratory problems.

…

For safety’s sake, the Lake Vue smokers were outfitted with reflective orange jackets and flashlights. Poles with flags were installed on their wheelchairs, along with reflective stickers.

But the off-site solution lasted just a few days, until one smoker ran into a pothole and fell out of her wheelchair.

I don’t think the law was intended to force people who can’t get around well to risk injury because some feel good bleeding hearts want a touchy feely smoking ban.  More…..

Finally someone in the media is willing to stop, and take a realistic look at the kinds of stories the media thrives on, and conclude what so many of us have already:  The media reporting has at times been irresponsible.

I have been mostly posting excerpts of articles lately, but this one deserves a full read.  (Hat tip ST)  From Townhall.com:

Responsible or irresponsible reporting? How some stories may put lives at risk
by W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

We writers – whether journalists reporting, columnists expounding, or authors expanding – have an incredible responsibility. We must be critical in our approach to news and information. We must understand it. We must remember it is not about us as writers; it is solely about our readers. We must ensure that the information we receive and disseminate is both thorough and unflaggingly truthful. And we must accurately boil it down in a fashion that is digestible for our readers.

There is another variable in the reporting mix: We must report and write responsibly. And when it comes to writing about war and military operations, we have to strike a balance between what we owe the news-consuming general public and what we owe our soldiers in the field. 

For instance, as a military/defense writer, I often find myself privy to sensitive information. Such information, if read by the enemy (and make no mistake, the enemy reads what we write), could put the lives of our men and women in uniform at great risk. This is a trust the vast majority of my colleagues and I take very seriously. But more than a few defense contractors and some senior military leaders believe, not all reporters feel bound by such accuracy or responsibility.

Case in point: a story published January 7, 2006 in The New York Times that criticized, among other things, the military’s issuance – or lack thereof – of body armor for troops in Iraq.