Say Anything Blog

Fargo Forum Opinion Editor Jack “Fill In The Blanks” Zaleski holds no rhetorical aspersion back in this full-on slap at anyone and everyone who dared defend exonerated WSI director Sandy Blunt.

Read it all here.

There are a number of points worth making here in rebuttal to Zaleski’s (for lack of a better term) tantrum.

It should be noted that the “conspiracy” to “force a county prosecutor out of office” was nothing more than an on-going discussion between Steve Cates, Sandy Blunt and Mark Armstrong about the possibility of starting a petition to have the prosecution of Blunt reviewed.  Such a petition is afforded for under North Dakota law (it requires 50 signatures of county citizens), and certainly it is within the rights of citizens like Armstrong, Cates and Blunt to engage in such activity.  Zaleski himself even admits as much…

Corruption is not too strong a word to describe the attitudes reflected in Armstrong’s journal. His defense – that it’s his right as a citizen to discuss petitions against a county official – is true. But in the context of the WSI turmoil, his remarks constitute a condescending insult.

...but calls this so-called “conspiracy” corruption anyway because…it constitutes a condescending insult.  If any of you can make sense of that logic, let me know.

But speaking of condescending insults, check out what Zaleski has to say about Cates and Fargo radio host Scott Hennen:

Cates’ involvement is no surprise. He’s a mossback ideologue whose credibility among thoughtful North Dakotans is about as sound as O.J. Simpson’s. The name of Fargo’s WDAY talk radio host Scott Hennen also appears in the journal, not as part of the plot but as a source of information for WSI insiders. No surprise there, either. Hennen has been a cheerleader for WSI managers. He’s routinely savaged Forum reporting and critical editorial comment about the agency. . . .

As for conservative activist Cates and talk show host Hennen, they dwell so deep in the holier-than-thou realm of the rabid right that they can’t imagine their ideological soulmates guilty of anything.

Cates is a “mossback ideologue,” and both he and Hennen “dwell” in the “holier-than-thou realm of the rabid right.”  That Zaleski issues these opinions just after grousing about condescending insults represents a level of irony few political commentators have ever been able achieve.  Talk about “holier-than-thou.”  One wonders if Zaleski actually even cares about the WSI issue, or is just using it as an excuse to scribble insults about people like Cates and Hennen who he doesn’t like.

Zaleski ends with this:

Oversight of WSI has failed. The board is a self-serving rubber stamp for a rogue agency. The Legislature’s Republican majority has been rolled by a business lobby eager to minimize official misconduct and duplicity as long as workers compensation rates are low.

Return oversight to the governor’s office. The governor – any governor – would demand accountability and performance. Anything less would reflect badly on his office. Reliable oversight and accountability make sense for the governor, the agency, the Legislature and the workers and businesses WSI serves.

Now, I actually agree that WSI - if it isn’t to be privatized, which would be optimal - should be under the administration of the governor.  But in making this point, Zaleski simply goes overboard.  The “official misconduct and duplicity” he refers to has not been proven.  Nobody at WSI has been found guilty of any crimes.  Sandy Blunt remains as director of the agency.  All that really seems to have happened is a turf-battle between long-entrenched bureaucrats and an incoming director who they didn’t like.  That the flames of said turf-battle were fanned by agenda-driven interests (see: WSI lawyers who would like to see the agency turned into a cash-cow again) is hardly indicative of misconduct.  Or even “duplicity.”

Is this really the sort of analysis on North Dakota current events that we’re to expect from the Forum?  Editorials that are 2/3’s insults for the personal enemies of the author, followed by a weakly-made point at the end which is both obvious and thinly-argued?

If it is, North Dakotans would be better off finding their political analysis elsewhere.  Like here, for one.