Everett City Council member Mark Olson will return to office while prosecutors consider charging him with rape:
Olson, who is facing pressure from fellow council members to resign, was granted an extended paid leave of absence Sept. 19 ... He's denied allegations that he raped an acquaintance in June at his downtown Everett law office after a night of drinking. Olson admitted sexual contact with the woman, but said it was consensual, according to a police affidavit.I'm guessing the woman was not Mrs. Olson.
The Everett Council is officially non-partisan, but Olson is probably affiliated with one major party or other. In recent news reports about politicians and sex scandals all of the naughty politicians seem to be Republicans, but this article doesn't name Olson's party. Hmmm. Let's figure it out!
Three clues: This 2005 article says he's endorsed by the Democrat county executive; his campaign contributions are almost entirely to Democrats; The newspaper doesn't name his party!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 01, 2007 11:40 AM | Email ThisVW
Posted by: Violence Worker on November 1, 2007 11:54 AMWhat a stretch.
Posted by: lol on November 1, 2007 12:02 PMVW
Posted by: Violence Worker on November 1, 2007 12:11 PMRemember Curtis thread down a few posts. No way and no how was Curtis condoned for soliciting and nowhere was there ever a reference to Craig being anything other than stupid.
Why are you so sensitive? Stefan has been onto something for some time now. When it is an R that does something stupid, it is known the guy is an R, but when it is a D, no mention is made. It was only a week or two ago, when the curmudgeon and Postman declared Velazquez as non-affiliated and made it seem party affiliation shouldn't be brought up anymore. And they were right, until the next R showed up on the radar.
From orbusmax, it appears the investigation has gone on forever. You would think it would be a simple matter to resolve. This drunk thing is the worst of the lot we have seen on SP for the past few years, though. And that is at the best.
Kind of funny though, where the council wanted to impeach the guy one minute and now they have clammed up.
I also noticed the guy was Director or ViceChair or something in ST and was forced to resign. In time for the election?
Posted by: swatter on November 1, 2007 12:21 PMYou notice they do the same with Stemcells.
They never say what type it was until your half way through reading it.
Got to wonder. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 1, 2007 12:29 PMBut Stefan is reasonable in identifying Olson as a Democrat based on his political contributions almost exclusively to Democrats.
Olson was a deferred prosecution for a 2003 DUI arrest when re-elected to the Everett Council in 2005. This meant that Olson had acknowledged his guilt and had entered treatment for alcoholism.
All the more reason NOT to elect (or re-elect) candidates who are facing DUI charges that are strongly supported by credible evidence, but refuse to admit guilt or seek treatment.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 1, 2007 12:53 PMEverett Herald, Stefan has just busted you....
Posted by: Michele on November 1, 2007 01:13 PMIt appears from a quick Google Search that the guy was going to run for County Council this year. I wonder if this situation had anything to do with it.
Posted by: swatter on November 1, 2007 01:20 PMO.K. guys, it seems from the article in the IHT that Mr Curtis was in Spokane for a Republican Party Retreat. My friends in Spokane say that the place he was staying is far and away the most expensive hotel in Spokane. So the question I have is was the tab for this being paid by the Republican Party. Look I stay at Super 8 when I travel, if money tthat people have donated to the Party is used to put people up in the most expensive hotels in town, you may want to consider that when teh Party asks you for money.
Posted by: JDH on November 1, 2007 01:21 PMNice to see you here and commenting. I read your blog through my RSS feed so it's rare that I actually visit. But read every post, I do.
back on topic
Posted by: jimg on November 1, 2007 01:46 PMIf anyone here has any interest in living in reality, I can provide a list of links to newspaper articles about Jim West that do not mention his party affiliation.
Posted by: thehim on November 1, 2007 02:13 PMAs with most liberal posters, you seem to lack any fundamental logic skills.
1. Is it forcing morality on people to have laws against murder? Should conservatives oppose murder, rape, theft, etc because it is government intrusion on private matters? No. And neither should we apologize for wanting to stop the murder of the unborn children.
2. School prayer was forced OUT of schools by government mandate. When a valedictorian cannot mention her faith in her own speech, it is an infringement on faith. You have the argument backwards. (No surprise)
3. Gay rights. The liberals are trying to change the laws to grant new rights, so the conservatives are not trying to impose any new restrictions. Again, backwards.
4. You have no specific proof of your claim that bizarre behavior is a result of oppressive moral strictures nor that it occurs more often with the conservatives than it does with non-conservatives. A basic technique used by liberals that pretty much make them a joke when they attempt to argue points.
You are factless and baseless in your claim. The fact that a few people turn out to be sexually unfaithful to their ideals does not imply that all conservatives are the same. In fact, the rate of sexual "perversion" among the conservatives appears to be far below the celebrated numbers of supposed homosexuals and adulturers in the community at large, so your point is worthless. I would expect that one out of every 10 republicans are found to desire homosexual sex if the liberal "numbers" are to be believed, and I also think that infidelity runs at about 30%. How many US congressmen are male republicans? How many of those have been caught in infidelity and homosexuality? Do the math (If you no how.)
Tell, me is the Folsom street fair a conservative fair? Pretty much blows your theory of perversion being generated out of sexual repression out of the water.
Why don't you try using a fact or two and maybe you could build up a smidgeon of credibility.
Posted by: Eyago on November 1, 2007 02:35 PMBeing a deviant is non-partisan. We should be throwing more of these bums out of office regardless of party. There are not that many politicians, the least we should settle for is some decent people who are above such deviant behavior, and especially while in the public eye.
I'll be willing to listen to any Democrat babble on the matter the day Ted Kennedy resigns.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 1, 2007 03:04 PMI was particularly impressed when he wrote "Do the math (if you no how)." His eloquence alone convinces me of the error of my ways.
Remember, these are the "freedom-loving" conservatives who actually want to AMEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS to criminalize the burning of the American flag in the privacy of your own home! If it is a private activity they don't like, the First Amendment shouldn't stand in the way! They are the traditional defenders of individual liberties, unless it is exercised in some manner they don't like. Why are these "family value" conservatives so obsessed with what happens in other people's bedrooms? Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
Posted by: Fred on November 1, 2007 03:27 PMIndeed.
Posted by: thehim on November 1, 2007 03:42 PM1. Since he doesn't refute it, Eyago must agree with my primary point: Mark Olson was elected to a nonpartisan office, so Sharkansky is more than a little disingenuous for criticizing the Everett Herald for failure to identify him as a Democrat.
2. Despite Eyago's assumption, I am not a "liberal poster." I am a traditional conservative, in the Barry Goldwater mold, who resents the moralists who have stolen the conservative mantle and are using it to impose their own morals on everybody else. (Remember, Golwater said he didn't care if a soldier was gay or straight, he only cared if the soldier could shoot straight.)
3. Yes, I agree with Eyago that many laws (i.e., murder) have a moral basis, but conservative principles are thrown out the window when purely private conduct is criminalized, as is often the case in private sexual mattters. Eyago and I won't agree on abortion laws, but how about anti-sodomy statutes? (That's why I used the flag-burning example. Do you disagree on that one?)
4. Sorry, but school prayer wasn't forced out "by government mandate." Unless you consider the First Amendment to be "government mandate." You have 18 hours each day (at home) to indoctrinate your children, you don't need the 6 hours at school to try to indoctrinate my children.
5. As for "gay rights," we aren't likely to agree that anti-discrimination laws grant "new" or "special" rights. See the Goldwater comment above.
6. As for Eyago's point that "perversion" is not unique to any political party, I will agree. But he misses my point. I didn't claim that repression causes "perversion" (whatever that means). My point is that behavior like Richard Curtis or Larry Craig (who claim to be heterosexual but engage in anonymous gay sex in strange places) is attributable to society's repression of homosexuality. That why Republicans have Richard Curtis, while Democrats have folks like Barney Frank (who doesn't need to have sex in public restrooms).
As Dan Savage recently observed on the Colbert Report, when asked about people like Larry Craig, responded, "Hey, Larry Craig is a self-identified heterosexual. Don't blame me for his conduct. He's on your team; he's not on my team!"
Posted by: Fred on November 1, 2007 04:36 PMMark Olson is a Democrat. He filed to RUN as a DEMOCRAT in the SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL race this year, but pulled out just prior to these charges coming to light. Oh, I Mean he "found out he couldnt be on the council and still practice law".
So there you have it, YES, a DEMOCRAT. NO, the paper wont mention that. YES he has contributed to Democrats, because he is one you morons.
Posted by: JG on November 1, 2007 04:45 PM1) I had no issue with whether Curtis was a D or not. My complaint was that your diatribe was laced with anti-conservative (social conservative, if you prefer) talking points that attempted to malign the entire group using fallacy rather than fact. Often that IS the bee that gets in my bonnet. I read nearly everything on SP, but I comment rarely. What often prompts me to do so is when I see attacks that are based on generalizations and light on facts.
2) Noted.
3) I am generally libertarian in my approach to government, so if it is not designed to protect the vulnerable I am not often in favor of it. Your attack was on abortion, not sodomy, so I present no apologies for my point. I am ambivalent on flag burning but lean against prohibiting it. There are worse "crimes" committed today than that with respect to our country by some of its members. I do find it interesting that the same ones who want to burn our flag also want to castigate those who might burn say, the Mexican flag.
4) Social liberals ARE indoctrinating the kids during the school day. Maybe you have not been paying attention. It's probably why I am a stronger supporter of vouchers than I might otherwise have been in the past. You did not answer the issue of the student who was barred from speaking, of her own volition, as a matter of free speech, at her graduation ceremony. Seems to me the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I was never a proponent of mandating prayer in school, but I am also not a proponent of prohibiting it either. It was not prohibited until about early 1960's or so (1964 comes to mind but the exact date is not critical, so I will not take time to cite the legal case)
5) You think sodomy laws are intrusive, what do you think of "thought" laws?
I think marriage is a special institution, and we ought not mess with it because it does more harm than good to do so, and sometimes society makes those choices. I do not have problems with gay people. My favorite cousin is gay, and I spent many years with a gay coworker with whom I never felt the least concern when we shared the locker room.
6) Ok, I looked at your statement in light of your new presentation of the facts. I have to disagree on that point as well. Repression of sexual desires does not cause deviancy. Whether Richard Curtis always or only likes sex with men is not known, and we cannot categorically state that since he was married to a women but loved men that he was forced to hire a hooker to satiate his need. Nor can we say that Craig did bathroom sex because it was the only way HE could meet a need due to the "repression" of holding to the appearance of a "traditional" family marriage. There are too many non-married men who prefer the anonymous encounter for your logic to hold. In fact, it is well documented that many supposedly "committed" homosexual males still troll for anonymous encounters while ostensibly "monogamous."
I doubt there are any significant studies to show that repression generates deviancy. The point of fact is that each of these persons made their choice, made a vow and then broke it. That fact is almost universally condemned. However, if you take to the belief that we are either gay or straight and cannot change, than we have to hold these two gentlemen and other like them as examples of extra-ordinary strength for engaging in sex that is repellent to them for so many years. However, if you try to argue that they are bi-sexual in any form, you have absolutely no grounds suggest that being married is a "repression." If you then argue that they need multiple partners, then you are heading down the path of saying that commitment is meaningless and we should simply live the hedonist's dream and have lots of "friends with benefits." Which point are you arguing?
Do you understand what makes a perversion a perversion? Is there such a thing or do we say that whatever I "feel" like is what is right for me? Does one go through hetero then homo then bestial phases? Does one go through adult then child phases? Necro? Are we masters of our impulses?
Curtis and Craig succumbed to their desires in ways that are not appropriate, and I don't care if it was with men or women, it was inappropriate. If it had been with children it would have vile, but if you can clearly define to me why the desire for homo eroticism is any different than the desire for child eroticism in terms of the individual feeling the desire, rather than on society's reaction to the desire, I would like to hear it.
Posted by: Eyago on November 1, 2007 06:30 PM2. Trolling for gay consenual sex may get you in trouble with your God, your spouse, your family, and your constituents especially if they think you are being a hypocrite about politics and how you have presented yourself to them in regard to family issues. Still, if the actions are consenual, that is a whole different ballpark than forcing someone to have sex.
3. A rapist, no matter the party and no matter the title they hold is slime and there simply is no excuse. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but isn't there something like paid administrative leave on this one?
4. I guess Shick-Shadel will now have to offer a volume discount to all the pols accused of bad behavior after drinking.
Posted by: WVH on November 1, 2007 09:56 PMAnd that is why, I believe, Stefan has pointed out time and time again instances of hypocrisy in the MSM. Simple. This paper has a liberal and Democratic bias (after all, it is centered in Democratic headquarters in Snohomish County). Why not call them out?
Your comments were very emotional and heartfelt and I just wanted you to know, I agree with your ideal, but for the good of the country, the hypocrisy of the fourth or fifth estate (whatever) needs to be exposed.
Posted by: swatter on November 2, 2007 07:33 AMAnd, it appears the council have their hands tied, or they were threatened by the attorney to shut up or face a lawsuit.
This guy shows bad judgement; yet, he was vice-chair of Sound Transit when they were coming up with all those schemes we have to vote on.
Posted by: swatter on November 2, 2007 10:39 AM"Councilman Ron Gipson, who in September tried to block council approval of Olson's leave of absence, also declined to weigh in this week.
"It's up to the courts right now," he said."
So, if everyone was good to go with a leave of absense in September, what happened?
Since the jerk is innocent until proven guilty, if he voluntarily resigns and later the case falls apart, then he appears to be a victim. I wonder if he could voluntarily remove himself?
Anyhow, since bad behavior among pols and everyone is becoming more common, maybe state law for voluntary absenses needs to be adjusted. A potential rapist as a visible public official is just bad.
SWANKY is a good word for it. This ain't no SUPER8 folks. If you are ever in Spokane, try to go there for the brunch and afterwords take a free tour of the place. The Hall of Doges on the 2nd floor is particularly interesting.
I agree with the assessment that if the party is paying for this guy to stay there, it is wasteful spending. There are several reasonably priced hotel within block of the Davenport.
Here is the hotel's website for the curious:
http://www.thedavenporthotel.com
Posted by: pbj on November 2, 2007 02:37 PMIt is a well known fact that the media is overwhelimingly biased for liberals. Hardavrd just came out with a yet another study showing this to be ture:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Posted by: pbj on November 2, 2007 02:41 PM