 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
December 31, 2003
| Earthquakes and hatred |
Many find it hard to believe that Muslims want anything short of the total annihilation of Israel and all Jews. Well, Iran’s government just set back the cause of proving that claim wrong by several years. Iran’s recent earthquake has killed at least 20,000 people. It is in dire need of aid, and fortunately, countries are providing that aid.
That includes Israel, a country that many believe is morally equivalent to Iran or Palestine. However, Iran flat out rejected that aid, saying it would refuse any help whatsoever from Israel.
Such an act is simply disgusting. This goes a long way in explaining why many, including myself, support Israel in the current Jewish/Muslim conflict. Israel is kind enough to offer millions of dollars of aid, even though they have no obligation to. Instead of using those resources to stop suicide bombings, Israel decided to support a country that is, at the least, partly responsible for those suicide bombings. Yet the blinding hatred Iran has for Jews clearly runs deeper than any hatred that the Israeli government has for Muslims.
These actions show that Iran’s government cares less for the lives of its very own sons and daughters than it does for seeing the death of every last Jew. It doesn’t care about a Palestinian state or anything else; all it cares about is a world without Jews.
These actions show why the time has come for the US to explicitly support Israel instead of politely sitting on the sidelines trying to act as some sort of referee.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 12:11 PM |
| Feds: Butt out of our classrooms |
The federal education law known as No Child Left Behind is getting sillier by the day. Besides the fact that the Bush administration handed down this behemoth soon after 9-11 when the nation's attention was elsewhere, it also conveniently decided not to fund it.
Further, two recent studies found huge discrepancies between states in student achievement on tests. For example, "three-quarters of children across the country would fail South Carolina's tough fifth-grade test, one study shows, while seven out of eight would ace the third-grade tests in Colorado and Texas," according to the New York Times article today.
Across the nation, there is no agreement on how much students need to know to be considered proficient. This could spell trouble for schools that don't meet standards under the federal law, including loss of students and mass reorganization--by the federal government.
This is not to say that the feds should apply blanket standards for students nationwide--they should not. Setting standards should be a state-by-state decision, with ample input from school district communities. However, what No Child Left Behind has done is to throw even more unfunded, bureaucratic regulations onto states, most of which have already been struggling to implement their own higher-standards plans.
In Washington state, our energies should solely be on seeing our own state Education Reform Act through, not buckling under the weight of yet another unfunded federal mandate. Teachers, parents and community and business leaders in this state began plans to boost education standards a decade ago in a thoughtful, research-based way. When times start getting tough--and they will when high schoolers will soon need to pass a state test to graduate--we cannot water down our standards and buckle under pressure.
The Bush administration has overstepped its welcome in the classroom. Most states had already done their homework and formed their own ed. reform plans--we don't need the feds telling us how it should be done.
Especially not when Texas--where Bush was formerly governor and where apparent progress on a state test in the '90s paved the way for No Child Left Behind--came in near the bottom in both studies.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 11:34 AM |
| You try finding a parking space |
So, I'm walking down 21st Avenue Northeast in the U-District last night, and I see a row of parked cars with tickets and orange stickers slapped down on their windshields. Imagine my surprise to learn that the City of Seattle does not allow cars to remain parked in the same spot for more than 72 hours. I'm not usually prone to criticizing government regulations, but give me a break!
The city's Web site reads: "Although some people may not use their vehicles on a regular basis (and therefore leave them parked on the street), they must still be moved every 72 hours and comply with posted signs announcing temporary parking restrictions that may go into effect after 24 hours."
OK...I could see this if the city were simply trying to prevent people from ditching junker cars all over the nicest streets on Capitol Hill, but this is the U-District. Some of us do not have parking garages, cannot afford street permits, and don't have time to drive around between classes trying to find a parking space when we already have a perfectly good one!
I don't drive more than once a week, which actually cuts down on pollutants. But the city punishes me instead of rewarding me or providing me with better transit options so I can give up my car for good.
Has anyone from the city government tried to find a parking space around the university while school is in session?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 10:14 AM |
| Sir Lance or Sir-cus? |
Lance Armstrong won five straight Tour de France titles. His record-tying feat was awarded On Sunday. Armstrong was honored as The Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year, the second straight year he's won the award. It is voted on by sports writers and broadcasters.
However, Armstrong’s legs apparently didn’t pedal fast enough to keep up with the media bandwagon. One day after the AP awarded Sir Lance for his extraordinary efforts, it announced that the Kobe Bryant case, even with his trial months away, was the story of the year.
So let me get this straight: One of the greatest athletic feats was accomplished by a man who battled cancer and overcame a divorce (exemplified by the media) and he was named the best athlete, but not the best story?
With a sports media that prides itself in the essence of the game, why is the biggest sports story not about sports?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 10:03 AM |
December 29, 2003
| Mad cow: The bigger picture |
I wonder if anyone out there is looking at the bigger picture surrounding mad cow disease, apart from those of us who already follow vegan or vegetarian guidelines. So far, the reaction has been limited to calls for regulatory changes from officials within the Department of Agriculture. While new proposals, including the expansion of livestock testing, are a step in the right direction, these ideas still overlook the roots of the problem, which grow out of the factory farming system itself.
Citizens should be alarmed because our system produces so many downed cows in the first place. Seattle P-I columnist Mark Trahant makes this point in a recent column where he writes, “So what are we not talking about here? The very way we raise cows (and other animals).” Trahant explains that Europe’s mad-cow epidemic not only encouraged consumers to question industry regulations but also caused some nations to aggressively pursue organic farming. Europeans asked why it is acceptable for people to feed animal byproducts to vegetarian animals—do you really want to eat a chicken that’s been eating cattle?
Eating certified organics, or abstaining from meat altogether, strikes at the heart of the mad-cow problem, which is less about faulty regulations than it is about the inhumane road animal products travel on the way to our tables.
We stuff livestock full of antibiotics because they are raised in cramped, unnatural conditions that make them weaker and prone to disease outbreaks. The factory farm industry breeds animals to gigantic sizes that their frames cannot support—those pardoned Thanksgiving turkeys are so bloated that they typically die within weeks of being “saved” by our presidents. Pigs often live on easily cleaned slatted floors that can damage their feet severely—but it’s OK, because they’ll die before the deformities become crippling.
Mad-cow is symptomatic of the factory farm problems. But whether or not Americans decide to address the full scope of the problem remains uncertain.
As of Monday, here's the latest related Seattle Times article .
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 05:14 PM |
| No recount in '04 |
Much like his other tax cuts, when President Bush announced his dividend tax relief package almost a year ago, the mainstream press and many on the left criticized it as useless and a gift to the rich. Just as the other tax cuts have proved them wrong and led to an economic upswing, the dividend tax cut has also proven them wrong.
An on-air CNBC report stated that since the inception of the president’s dividend tax relief package (and largely because of it), several hundred companies have increased their dividends or started giving dividends for the first time. This certainly has a positive impact on the general economy as it pumps more money back into the consumer’s hands, but perhaps more importantly, this specific tax cut is especially good for senior citizens.
Many senior citizens look to stocks with high dividends for a supplemental income. Understandably, they are averse to the higher risk involved with straight investment into stocks, so they gravitate to these companies with high dividends because at the very least, no matter what the stock price does, they know they will get that dividend. This strategy of dividend investing has become a major source of income for millions of senior citizens across America.
Now, because of President Bush’s dividend tax cuts, these senior citizens will not only be paying less taxes on their dividends, but they will now be getting higher dividends from the company in the first place. All that means is mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.
The 2004 election is a long way away, but after seeing President Bush’s move with the dividend tax cut and Medicare reform, it's becoming obvious that he is the best candidate for the elderly. Unfortunately, there has been little “bragging” by the GOP to alert seniors of how much this dividend tax cut package has helped them. Only time will tell if Republican strategists will fix that error. But for now, it seems like President Bush is determined to win Florida--without recounts this time.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 05:04 PM |
| More on “College prep in high school is A-OK” |
Angela and Elana recently argued that Advanced Placement (AP) classes aren’t for everyone. A schedule chock-full of AP classes, they say, can be too much, too soon, for some high school students.
I agree. However, even if high school students don’t choose the exact same path I followed – seven college-level classes in two years – they can still benefit from as little as one AP class, taken any time during high school.
Students enrolled in just one AP class would not be excessively stressed out. Instead, they would begin a gentle, gradual transition to college-level work, which requires deeper analytical skills, a faster reading pace and increased independence. As a result of this early exposure, students would not feel overly apprehensive and frustrated as college freshmen.
In an ideal world, we could immediately correct other, deeper issues that cause lack of student motivation and preparedness for college. We could address faulty parenting, lack of adequate public school funding, and huge class sizes.
But for now, the easiest and most immediate solution is a single AP class.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 11:52 AM |
December 26, 2003
| More on: "College prep in high school is A-okay" |
In response to Christina and Angela's recent blogs, I have these three words: May 14, 1996.
That day will forever be emblazoned in my memory as the day of my junior year AP bio exam. I don't remember the date I graduated college, my friends’ birthdays, or my parents' anniversary -- and yet every time May 14 rolls around, I inwardly shudder at the memory of that hellish day.
I congratulate anyone who managed to dig their way through hordes of AP courses in high school. A bunch of my friends who did so went on to be pre-med in college, further capitalizing on their masochism.
I, however, had it up to here with one AP class junior year, and two my senior year. And I’m no slacker.
I’m lucky my high school realized how difficult it was to make it through a regular course load, and apply to and get ready for college. They knew how oodles of AP’s on a transcript would impress those college admissions officers; but they also realized just how far a 16-year-old could be pushed before going insane. And so they restricted the amount of AP classes we could take each year.
Thank you, Harvard-Westlake.
Rather than overwhelm myself during high school, I took courses at the local Community College over the summer in between years of college. One college class at a time was a breeze, I still had time to do an internship, and it only cost $13 a unit. Huzzah!
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Elana Azose at 10:57 AM |
| France and terrorism |
This is how Sept. 11, 2001, should have gone. Massive counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering efforts should have been in-place to begin with. A centralized high-profile federal department should have been there issuing code-orange warning. And quick action should have halted suspected flights.
Thankfully, that's what happened Wednesday, it seems, for Air France's flight 68.
The event raises an important point: Isn't it ironic that the possible terrorist attack would have originated in France, that hard-nosed country so firmly opposed to the war in Iraq and other elements of the War on Terrorism? How would France's president Jacque Chirac have felt if many French had died in this terrorist attack?
Needless to say, one can't escape global terrorism forever. Perhaps it's time for Chirac to redirect some of that European staunchness toward capturing al Qaeda members that apparently operate within his own country.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 09:16 AM |
December 24, 2003
| Re: College prep in high school is A-okay |
I don't know about Christina's argument.
I don't think that the only reason high school seniors are unmotivated and underscoring is because they're not challenged enough by typical course work.
Perhaps class sizes that are too large, inadequate access to technology and texts, ineffective teachers, and unsupportive communities and families are effecting high school students, too. For motivated students, AP classes in high school can appear attractive as they add a degree of impressive prestige on a college application and can chop off thousands of dollars in college tuition money.
Nevertheless, these programs aren't for everyone. Maybe some students can't deal with a work load junior year that is more intensive than a university one.
It's great that Christina was a successful student in high school. But the avenue that she took toward her success just isn't the road for everyone. There must be some way of helping all students on the learning spectrum be prepared for college.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Angela Balinbin at 12:26 PM |
| The KKK and the Univ. of Louisville |
Get this: The Ku Klux Klan think the University of Louisville should pay their Imperial Wizard $11,000 to speak on campus as part of the university's diversity series lectures. Hmm.
Apparently, the KKK wants to be taken seriously. Hmm. Let's take a look at what their spokesperson James Kennedy wrote to a U of L VP concering the last diversity lecturer, Sister Souljah:
"These remarks onley (sic) instigate rage & encourage the black populous (sic) to commit violent acts against European-Americans based on thier (sic) ethnicity."
First of all, KKK, I don't think y'all should be talking about violent acts committed against individuals based on "thier" ethnicity. And secondly?
Way to spell. You rockstars really know how to impress a university VP.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Angela Balinbin at 09:15 AM |
December 23, 2003
| She’s back! |
After three years of relative silence, the New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is making waves again by speaking out on a range of issues from the distribution of antiterrorism funds in New York to military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although she is a hawk, she has begun to challenge Senate Republicans on other issues like unemployment insurance benefits. Hillary even phoned a New York radio show to make her own corrections after a caller made false accusations about the Clinton White House’s policies on troops in uniform.
I don’t agree with Hillary about everything, but I like her chutzpah, her intelligence, and her ability to play the political game without yielding control to the good ol’ boys of Washington. If she can stay active without succumbing to the obnoxious incivility that politicians from both parties have displayed in recent months, she will have even more of my support.
As usual, the Times reports that every move Hillary makes is being gauged by pundits as a “will-she-or-won’t-she run for President in 2008” tactic. Personally, I hope so. At a time when the Senate still has less than 10 women in its ranks—this after even Pakistan had a female political leader—I’m just glad to see her back in action. My friends and I talk about this a lot; some of us believe we would consider voting for a Republican female presidential candidate over a white Democratic male just to send a signal that it’s time. I’m sick of the pedantic arguments about how female could never manage a country, fight a war, or balance the budget. How would we know when we’ve never elected one into the nation’s ultimate position of power? Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary call the shots quite well when they are able.
It’s a little embarrassing that young girls like myself grow up without having more than a handful of female political role models.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 05:10 PM |
| Your next President... |
Will the next battle for US President be between New York cop John McClane and The Terminator?
In September Bruce Willis visited Iraq and told US troops, “If you catch him, just give me four seconds with Saddam Hussein,” and offered a $1 million reward to the person who nabbed him.
Willis told Bill O'Reilly in October that rules prevented military personnel from collecting his bounty, but explained, "If it does happen through military sources, I intend to donate the money to either a school or a hospital."
So after Willis High is built in Baghdad, Arnold and Bruce can run for president together on the platform “Say no to violence!” This mix of celebrities and politics is like a drink that says bad hangover all over it.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 04:07 PM |
| Orange alert |
A few important points do need to be made about the jump to code orange.
Though the brunt of many jokes, the Department of Homeland Security's threat-alert status really does serve us well: it's a basic way of creating more awareness of potential terrorist attacks on a public level and mobilizing local security.
The system has come under criticism for suffering the boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome. But in recent months, Homeland Security officials have said they will only raise the level if they are seriously concerned about a terrorist threat.
Also, President Bush gave the nod for going to "high risk" and possibly put a damper on worry-free consumerism during this key economic period called the holidays. Maybe this administration really is more concerned about security than votes in 2004.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 02:24 PM |
| College housing: a crash course in reality |
According to an article in TIME magazine, luxury dorms are increasing in popularity. These indulgent rooms feature glass elevators, leather sofas, Jacuzzis and panoramic views -- all attached, of course, to an exorbitant price tag.
My dorm at the UW couldn’t be more different. Mercer Hall – known for being “eccentric” – initially scared me. Constructed of dark red brick, with ivy climbing up the outer walls, the darkness and antiquity were creepy.
Furthermore, forget a Jacuzzi! Mercer showers are notoriously faulty, with only one on the entire floor with water that isn’t scorching hot. Add tiny halls, rattling walls, matchbox rooms and an even tinier kitchen – and you’re automatically enrolled in Real Life 101.
College isn’t about being pampered. It’s about realizing the value of money, gaining a renewed appreciation for home and being grateful for the bare necessities...the simpler things in life.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:54 PM |
| The Nutcracker |
Ah, "The Nutcracker": one of the staples of the Christmas season. I would just like to agree with Brangien Davis when he says it is all about magic -- not a dancing kitchen utensil.
Yes, I grant you the idea of a little girl receiving not a doll, but a handy aid to crushing the hard shells of nuts and dancing around and dreaming about it does not immediately seem like a Christmas classic, however, the beauty and artistry with which it is done, somehow makes it work.
Perhaps it is in how Tchaikovsky wrote the music down to the certain number of measures to suit the dance, or the rich tradition associated with such a classic ballet which keeps wowing crowds even in this age of streamlining, modernizing and mainstreaming. For me, it will always be one of those special holiday treats.
Furthermore, hurrah for all those who have made it a yearly event. In the age of movie sequels, one would think we would be at the Nutcracker 187 by now, but crowds do not go to to the Nutcracker to see what hasn't been done, they go to relive the magic of it snowing on the stage, the growing Christmas tree and the entire Nutcracker experience.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 10:53 AM |
December 22, 2003
| Teachers should be evaluated, too |
According to an article in today’s Seattle Times, “Many states, including Washington, fall short when it comes to...teacher-quality requirements,” according to the Education Trust, a non-profit organization.
Most of my high school teachers were extremely knowledgeable and respected. However, a few were notorious for constantly being under-prepared for classes, lazy at grading and returning assignments, and unable to discipline/control their students.
At the UW, professor evaluations are completed at the end of each quarter. Teacher evaluations in elementary, middle and high schools would be useful for both the teachers themselves AND higher authority to judge the quality of each class.
Ultimately, evaluations would motivate teachers to be more responsive to students’ needs.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 02:49 PM |
| Young voters, lament... |
Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish recently complained about the diminishing importance of citizen voters in our country's presidential elections. He argued that presidential candidates from both parties devote little attention to states with late primaries...I completely agree. Although I find the fact that February 7th is considered late to be rather alarming.
Neither party takes our state seriously, which is particularly insulting because none of my friends feel that we were ever given an opportunity to choose a Democratic candidate. Parrish writes, "Washington is hardly unique. In state after state, the Democratic nomination boils down to a media-anointed "favorite" -- usually Dean -- who will either gain or lose "momentum" depending on his showing. Only a handful of states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, California -- will have a chance to bestow such momentum before the nomination is a fait accompli."
Now, candidates from both parties are competing for big donor dollars, beyond the reach of student constituents who only have a few bucks to spare. Is this representative government? As Parrish says, ditch the Electoral College and change laws to give alternative parties greater power.
I am sick of our two party system because neither group speaks for my views. Bring on a system where the party receives a number of seats based on the percentage of the vote they earn. Bring on candidates who campaign to the people; not to the porked-up interests of a few wealthy donors. Pay attention to small opponents -- did you know Bush is being challenged by 13 other Republicans?
Even though they do not have the political clout and experience, this is supposed to be a government for the people - so give people who run a little air time, even if their names aren't familiar party stalwarts like Bush, Kennedy or Clinton.
Finally, slash the presidential campaign time in half; it is ridiculous to have our general election candidates chosen for us nearly a year before the vote. Until then, no one should be surprised that young people feel disenfranchised.
We are.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 10:49 AM |
December 19, 2003
| The Ridgway sentencing: deja vu? |
I found myself reminded this morning, while reading the story about Gary Ridgway's sentencing: why does the Northwest seem to be a breeding ground for high-profile serial killers?
I found an old P-I story with a comment from Ann Rule, a local famous true-crime writer (of whom I am a huge fan), saying that the area isn't any worse than other regions across the country.
Apparently, according to Rule, police detectives are simply able to track serial killers better here.
Interesting.
To look at some of the serial killers with connections to Washington state -- Ted Bundy, Robert Yates, Lee Boyd Malvo, John Allen Muhammad, and now Gary Ridgway -- you see a large sample of some of the most infamous serial killers in recent history.
I can understand why the association with serial killers can be made to the Pacific Northwest, and I can't imagine there are other regions with the same track-record we have. The Northwest is a breeding ground for serial killers. For what reason, I don't know.
But I don't think its the weather.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Cal Blethen at 11:00 AM |
December 18, 2003
| An alternative to fair trade coffee? |
A federation of Columbian coffee growers are taking matters into their own hands. They plan to start their own coffee shop chain.
In doing so, they hope to give farmers a larger percentage of the profits from the coffee they grow, and give them what they rightfully deserve, a decent wage.
With coffee shops on almost every block in some neighborhoods, Seattleites contribute to how the coffee industry works. Thus, we need to take a look at how our morning coffee kick affects the livelihoods of local farmers internationally. Does it contribute to maintaining the low level of their wages or help to increase them?
The politics of something as ordinary as coffee calls for us to at least look into alternatives including fair trade coffee or visiting coffee shops that strive to change the current inequitable situation that these growers face.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 04:19 PM |
| Reader comment on "The alleged conspiracy behind Saddam's capture" |
A reader's response to my last posting:
While the criticisms of Congressman Jim McDermott are not without merit, it is worth noting that the current administration has given the American people little reason believe in their credibility, especially with respect to the Iraq war.
In particular, the current administration has offered a host of lies to further justify it's fraudulent case for the war with Iraq. From the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, to claiming Saddam has nuclear weapons, to claiming Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members, to trying to connect Iraq with 9/11, to claiming thet knew where Iraq's WMDs were; these have all been proved false.
Now whether the Bush administration knew it was putting forth outright lies is another question, but I don't see any reason to trust this administration further than I can throw a piano. McDermott might be blinded by his hatred for Bush, but he is not without justification for that hatred. And while McDermott may not have "any sort of evidence" about the timing of Saddams capture, neither does the current administration for the claims it puts forth.
So now that we captured Saddam, is there anyway we can get back to the real war on terror?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 12:58 PM |
| Re: The alleged conspiracy behind Saddam's capture |
I agree with Nigel Stark's comments. Saying that Bush planned the timing of Saddam’s capture is pretty ridiculous. Both Republicans and Democrats unfortunately have a few embarrassing and extremist members who get a little too carried away in the ideological and political party wars.
I think it’s equally extreme and only contributes to the problem, however, when we take their antics and apply them to all Democrats, or all Republicans. More importantly, I think that there are several important aspects of Saddam’s capture to consider.
Bush is getting a boost in popularity right now. And if he is lucky, Saddam’s trial will occur during election season 2004. Then, Americans will be reminded of what a murderous jerk he was, and Bush will get credit for removing him from power.
The problem is that Bush didn’t take us into Iraq to save the Iraqi people. If he did, then surely we’d be moving on to save all those other countries that are currently under equally brutal leaders.
No, Bush told us we were going after terrible Weapons of Mass Destruction ready to reign death upon our heads. His evidence was later proven false, exaggerated, or forged. Bush implied links to al Qaeda that were also later proven false.
Bush took us into Iraq because of the unrealistic, neo-conservative vision of democratizing the middle-east. Bush took us into Iraq because it has oil. Bush took us into Iraq because of the history our nation, and maybe his family, has had with Saddam.
But ever since the war, when the WMDs and al Qaeda links failed to materialize, when it became clear we had ignored the UN's wishes, efforts, and plans (the very crime Bush accused Saddam of) to launch a pre-emptive invasion of a country that was not threatening us, the story has been changed.
Now, we went in there to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed and brutalized people. And Bush is their savior. Never mind that American troops are paying the price of his decision to go it virtually alone, and American taxpayers are bearing the heavy burden of fixing the messy aftermath. Never mind the same goal could have been acheived smarter and safer.
Bush got Saddam. Yea for Bush.
Written by Randy Henderson,
a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Cal Blethen at 09:09 AM |
December 17, 2003
| Celebrity appeal |
On MSN’s homepage recently, there was a big glaring feature on how our society is “Obsessed with celebs.”
The Irony of this centerpiece feature is that the Web page commonly displays some story or “new” gossip on American celebrities. This begs the obvious question: Isn’t a media like msn.com perpetuating this unhealthy attraction we have with every detail and nuance of celebrities’ lives? And now they’re asking, why are we obsessed with celebrities?
It’s true, though, as explained in today’s feature, that there are a number of reasons our society tends to delve so deeply into the lives of celebrities. I’d have to dismiss the theory discussed in the article that because of our evolutionary instincts, we are concerned about the breeding status in our culture. That’s ridiculous.
But it is true we care more about high-profile break-ups between celebrities than high-profile break-ups between nation’s diplomatic relations.
Why? Well, it comes down to how we, as individuals, tend to not be concerned about the world, and how many media promote this obsessed-with-celebs culture.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 05:04 PM |
| College prep in high school is A-okay |
“Most high-school graduates are not prepared to enter college,” according to a recent Seattle Times article. They lack problem solving and critical thinking skills, experts claim.
By taking AP classes in high school, I gained 57 credits -- making me a sophomore at the University of Washington. I remember reading 140 pages of history each week, studying derivatives and writing creative essays in Spanish. Most importantly, I remember thinking; and actually learning.
My Autumn Quarter grades are right where I want them to be. Furthermore, I had more homework my junior year of high school than I do now, as a college student.
I owe part of my academic confidence and intellectual curiosity to my experiences at good ol’ Issaquah High School.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:56 PM |
| NFL answering Horn’s call |
One thing regarding my last post, 'It’s the play stupid' and Nigel Stark’s reply, yes Joe Horn was slapped with a penalty, which was assessed on the kickoff after the touchdown. But it looks as though someone was on the other end of his cell phone. Joe Horn's phone call will prove costly, as the NFL plans to fine the Saints receiver $30,000 for his cell-phone celebration.
It is already humiliating to be scored on, and a celebration afterwards is like rubbing it in. I believe that there are celebrations that are too excessive, such as Terrell Owens dancing on the opponent’s logo on the 50-yard line after scoring a touchdown in their stadium.
However, the entertainment value of the NFL is huge. I do not condone the actions of Owens, which are actions blatantly directed towards the opposing team. A problem with all of this is that people believe that it is detracting from the integrity of the game. It could be if we let it.
If you don’t want someone celebrating after a touchdown don’t let him score. This is an entertaining league full of athletic talent, but the media highlights these so called negative antics. How often are you going to have a sports discussion on NPR? The question is: is this a problem with the actual sport, or the agenda of the media and fans who continue to forget Joe Horns four touchdowns?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 11:49 AM |
| The alleged conspiracy behind Saddam's capture |
It didn’t take long for Democrats to try and spin the capture of Saddam Hussein into their own advantage. Our own Congressman, Jim McDermott, apparently believes that this is some sort of conspiracy.
On Seattle radio on Monday, he said “there's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing that it happened on this particular day," and "I've been surprised they waited, but then I thought, well, politically, it probably doesn't make much sense to find him just yet.”
Let me remind you that this is the same man who fled to Baghdad to say, likely within earshot of some torture chamber, that the upcoming war was unjustified. Now he thinks we captured Saddam a long time ago; and have been waiting to announce this simply for political gain.
Is there any sort of evidence that this is the case? No, none whatsoever.
McDermott somehow believes that there must be something else about Sunday, December 14, 2003 that caused the Bush administration to release this information. There wasn’t. Its not like some court case involving sexual harassment and perjury was set to open on Sunday so President Bush wanted to deflect attention away from it by firing some missiles.
Whoops, wrong President. There was nothing significant about Sunday other than Saddam’s capture.
In fact, if the Bush administration were trying to milk every drop of political gain from the capture of Saddam by waiting to release the information, then why didn’t they either a) wait until some scandal arose, or b) wait until October 2004 right when the election is approaching. It makes no sense to release this information now if doing so is purely for political gain.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 09:26 AM |
December 16, 2003
| Re: It's the play, stupid |
I disagree with Leonceo’s assertion that broadcasters should somehow be blamed for focusing too much on Joe Horn’s antic after his touchdown, not his play on the field.
Leonceo is wrong in saying that “he did not even receive a penalty for the celebration” and how that somehow implies that “the refs at the time did not think (his actions were excessive) and he did not break any NFL rules.” To the contrary. According to ESPN, Horn’s team was penalized for excessive celebration, an in-game NFL infraction. That penalty gave the opposing team excellent field position and a good chance to score in what was then a relatively close game. Furthermore, Horn’s coach immediately confronted him on the issue, the NFL is set to fine him, and his own team may even fine him. This is the appropriate response.
Leonceo is right when he says the focus should be on the “play on the field,” but it is people like Joe Horn who are deflecting that attention away from the sport and onto their stupid antics.
The best way to stop this growing trend of misbehaving athletes is to punish them. Pretending like it is the broadcaster’s fault for focusing on this allows Joe Horn to avoid responsibility for his own actions.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 04:35 PM |
| Aces high |
The news that the Ace of Spades was captured by U.S. forces Sunday should be one more reason to be thankful that George W. Bush is our man in office.
Hussein, the mass murderer, has been caught; and my hope is that the tribunal trial will be televised -- probably the hottest event since the O.J. trials -- but I digress.
I was watching the local news tonight and was saddened by the lack of perspective regular folks had on the whole Iraqi process that hampered Presidents George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally GW. (I even remember discussing Saddam prior to the Gulf War when I was a little girl unable to grasp the concept of international conflict but able to realize that “Saddam” pronounced incorrectly had a cuss word as a suffix.)
Needless to say, Hussein has been a thorn in our side for years.
These local people interviewed on the street criticized Bush for not catching Hussein sooner, for not concluding the conflict before Christmas-time and getting the troops home.
Well, let’s flashback to the Clinton years when U.S. troops were sent on peacekeeping missions about as frequently and predictably as liberal professors proselytizing in college classrooms. Clinton cut the military but then expected the troops to cover more gigs and those often fell during the holidays.
What about those soldiers missing Christmas? The troops were in some ways forgotten. In many ways it’s common for troops to be abroad during the holidays. So, let’s just really appreciate what those troops are doing right now, but most importantly let’s not forget all their hard work when this Iraqi conflict desists. If you see a man or woman in uniform say thank you. They will appreciate it. And that’s my Christmas wish.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Vanessa Pierce at 02:14 PM |
December 15, 2003
| It's the play, stupid |
Ring, ring, ring...Joe Horn?
This past Sunday night's primetime football game on ESPN gave more evidence to my article in NEXT regarding the increasing sensationalism of sports in the media.
Sunday night’s NFL football game was a match-up between the New Orleans Saints and the New York Giants. In the game quarterback Aaron Brooks passed for five touchdowns, one shy of the NFL record for one game, while wide receiver Joe Horn caught four of those touchdowns. On his first touchdown reception, Joe Horn pulled a cell phone from the goal post padding and made an attempt at an acted-out phone call; I’ll admit a weak attempt.
Today’s coverage on yesterday’s game centered more on Joe Horn’s celebration than on his and Brook’s touchdown feats. One could argue that it's Joe Horn’s fault for having the cell phone and obviously planning the act. However, he did not even receive a penalty for the celebration. Now all the debate is on whether or not Horn’s actions were excessive or not. The refs at the time did not think so and he did not break any NFL rules. The issue for sports broadcasters should not be the cell phone, but the play on the field.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 04:53 PM |
| Covering 'em all |
Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun isn't singing "happy campaign trails" these days. Now that her "personal" ABC News producer has been reassigned and she only has a correspondent for NBC to follow her around, the lack of media attention is getting to her.
ABC News says it will also stop having producers travel full time with the presidential campaigns of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.
"If they don't want to help me get my message out, then I'll have to find alternative ways to do it," Braun said in the AP story. "I think it is a terrible commentary, however, on the state of the media, frankly, if their idea of a democracy is only relating to those candidates who have the most money."
By this standard, ABC News needs to stick reporters to the Socialist Party's candidate, the Green Party's candidate, and the guy running on a Nazi platform -- because I haven't seen any coverage of these campaigns yet.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:59 PM |
December 12, 2003
| Protecting what exactly? |
I'm sorry, but just what exactly are the UW's Incident Prevention Teams (IPT) supposed to prevent? Recently, the UW decided to continue IPT patrols until the end of the year. Each team consists of a UW officer, a Seattle Police Department officer, an a representative from the Liquor Control Board.
UW officials say they are quite concerned about student safety after September's so-called riot in which NO UW students have been implicated by police. However, while we've blown $6,900 of precious university funds to bust up parties and write jaywalking tickets, safety has actually become much worse.
Since the IPTs began roaming around the UW and Greek Row, they have done absolutely nothing to prevent a rape near the William Gates Law School, two stabbings at a fraternity, a gunpoint abduction from a school parking lot and an arson at Pi Kappa Alpha. Maybe my ire is up because I know many of the brothers at PKA, but I've been frustrated for a long time.
Lt. Sim Tamayo, SPD north precinct commander, said in a UW Daily article, “...the frequency of issues have been reduced tremendously. As problems reduce, then so does the staffing.”
What issues? Yes, kids are driving farther away to party, which, coincidentally, means they drive back after chugging a few beers. My girlfriends and I are afraid to walk across campus at night. The Pike fire could have been a terrible disaster if the flames had spread faster. Pardon me if I'm less than enthusiastic about these IPTs continuing, which punish college students while rapists and abductors go about their business.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 04:43 PM |
December 11, 2003
| Re: Supreme court supports ban on "soft money" |
Chris' comments on the recent Supreme Court decision declaring political speech (the very speech our founding fathers died for) is right on.
This new law is simply incumbency protection. The only chance a challenger used to have in defeating someone with as much name recognition as a Trent Lott or Ted Kennedy was to raise enough money to get his own name out there. But now some crafty politicians only looking out for their reelection have taken that possibility away from them.
Perhaps the scariest part of this law is the ban on "issue ads" during a certain time frame before the election. No longer can a group, in no way affiliated with a candidate or party, create ads to discuss issues of importance to them.
You thought that elections were dirty before? You ain't seen nothing yet. Since groups can no longer discuss policy when choosing candidates, elections will continue to turn more and more towards who has the better tan and who looks better on TV.
The Supreme Court essentially based their 5-4 decision on one of the most shaky of standards I've ever heard. They based it on this "appearance of corruption" standard that was first thought of in Buckley v. Valeo. Never mind whether someone is actually corrupt or not, all that matters is if some smart public relations department can convince America that corruption exists. The Supreme Court has taken the question of constitutionality away from the actual Constitution, and placed it in the hands of marketing firms.
I've done way too much research on this topic. For some reason I'm a campaign finance junkie, but with each additional book I read or the more I research the topic, it becomes harder and harder for me to justify campaign finance regulations.
Ironically, this law will probably help the GOP, but I don't care, the law is wrong for a million reasons and it is setting dangerous precedent.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 09:14 AM |
December 10, 2003
| Supreme court supports ban on "Soft money" |
In a crucial decision that will pave the way for greater restrictions on political speech in the future, the Supreme Court has upheld the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill banning soft money donations to politicians. And even more outrageous, the court, in a 5-4 decision, has restricted political ads in the weeks before an election.
It almost seems surreal.
How can the five members of the court upholding this legislation justify these restrictions on free speech? Now, because of complaints that political ads are harsh and vicious when election time draws near, the court has decided its better to just let the media have a monopoly on what can or cannot be said about candidates. Ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was foolish of Congress to pass this bill in the first place and it was entirely political for Bush to sign it. It's too bad Congress didn't filibuster the Democratic presidents' Supreme Court nominations in the past (oh yeah, that's right, filibusters of judicial nominees were unprecedented until the 108th Congress).
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 03:33 PM |
| Makahs should be allowed to preserve culture |
America’s treatment of Native Americans is one of the biggest embarrassments in our nation’s history.
It’s hard to determine how, and if, we can ever right past wrongs. At minimum, we should respect the culture Native Americans have left. The Makahs should be allowed to hunt gray whales. The last hunt in 1999 resulted in increased tribal unity and pride.
Furthermore, killing 5 whales per year -- out of an annual 17,000 to 26,000 -- does not significantly hurt the environment. Environmental groups should go after bigger fish in the sea.
Let the Makahs preserve their cultural heritage. It’s about time.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 02:48 PM |
| Response to Megan Matthews' Bush comments |
A reader's thoughts on the Bush attending funerals debate:
I think you're right. Perhaps the issue isn't whether Bush should attend the funerals of soldiers, since they don't -- but because that's what they should do.
But it can't be a meaningless token like Clinton's attendance of the funerals of the dead from the USS Cole. President Clinton did little to bring the perpetrators of that act to justice, nor did he order them killed so they would never do it again.
Indeed, it can be argued that Clinton's half-hearted efforts to confront Osama Bin Laden and his minions made the US vulnerable to an attack like September 11. After all, Bin Laden referred to the US as a paper tiger -- it might growl, but it never bites.
Remember the weak (and roundly criticized by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter) missile attack that Clinton ordered on Bin Laden's terrorist camps when his base of operations was in Sudan? I digress.
The point is that if President Bush can find the time to land on an aircraft carrier to celebrate our military successes, he can certainly fit a couple hours into his schedule to share the grief of the families of fallen soldiers and acknowledge our country's losses. You're right. As the nation's leader, the US president should pay respect -- on behalf of all of us -- to those who ostensibly die for America.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 11:27 AM |
December 09, 2003
| Re: On President Bush attending funerals... |
I can't imagine anyone who would expect the President to personally confront the face of his own failed policies.
The constant flow of dead American soldiers has become a daily part of life in Iraq. Of course death is part of the deal when waging war -- but when the war is a shady mix of greed and misplaced foreign policy, it becomes a little harder to stomach than, say, a legitimate war like the one that America entered a little over 62 years ago.
President Bush isn't interested in confronting anything that might resemble the ugly, under-belly of one of his short-sighted ventures. The war in Iraq is an expensive mess, and it is slowly amassing a consistent deluge of dead soldiers who were lost for reasons unknown. Bush would rather spout rhetoric about moving forward and ousting "evil-doers." He doesn't want America to think about the real tragedies unraveling as a result of his war strategy, lacking any sort of exit plan.
It's one thing to finish what you started (remember Afghanistan). It's another bigger step to man up to your mistakes and admit you've been wrong.
Bush doesn't know anything about accountability and has no time to acknowledge his failures...he's got money to raise and an election to blow. There's no time to worry about the men he sent off to die for his crusade in the Middle East.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:23 PM |
| My chocoholism isn’t my fault! |
The term “chocoholic” may be more accurate than we realize.
According to an article in the Dec. 8 issue of Newsweek, certain foods –- “including chocolate, cheese, red meat and practically anything combining sugar and fat” –- may actually be addictive.
These foods contain “druglike molecules of their own.” They also cause the brain to release chemicals that relax us and make us feel good. Perhaps, this is a survival mechanism gleaned from a time when man needed high-calorie foods for survival.
From this article, I conclude my voracious sweet tooth doesn’t come from a lack of willpower; I blame it all on evolution.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:21 PM |
December 08, 2003
| Kitsap County: Harborside Center, but no passenger ferry |
Kitsap County is Puget Sound’s forgotten county. However, the county is undergoing some serious renovation starting with Bremerton, headed by active Mayor Cary Bozeman.
With the Bremerton-Seattle passenger ferry gone, access to Kitsap County is limited. However, hope is out there. Pacific Navigation hopes to take over the Bremerton-Seattle passenger-ferry route.
But will it be enough to bring some respect to the county? The passenger ferry would cut travel time nearly in half...making access to Kitsap easier. As Bremerton is under going a facelift, one can only hope enough is done to bring back the passenger ferry as well.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 04:46 PM |
| On President Bush attending funerals... |
First, to the readers who have responded: thanks. Even though we disagree, I appreciate the time you took to compose your comments. It’s refreshing to see that the spirit of free discourse is alive and well on our little weblog. I am a stickler for facts and substance, but occasionally it is difficult to refrain from speaking strictly from my gut reaction to things.
That said, here are my musings on a reader’s suggestion to read a rebuttal of criticism about Bush’s absence at military memorials.
It is true that few presidents attend funerals, but I suggest that those who do earn new respect from all parties who disagree about the intent of wars themselves. President Reagan’s presence at the memorial service for Marines who died in Beirut was a powerful symbolic moment, as was President Clinton’s attendance of a service for victims on the USS Cole; when a president makes himself emotionally vulnerable by sharing firsthand in the grief and pain of soldiers’ families, it often does more to unite the nation than any powerful speech.
John Roberts, a former Reagan aide, wrote an eloquent, thoughtful piece in the New York Times. He argues that, as president of our nation and unifier of the greater American community, the commander in chief should be the person solely responsible for commemorating these deaths.
Roberts also suggests it is politically inexpedient for any president to forego attending at least one military funeral, when he has time for dozens of fundraisers. This, Roberts argues, sends a signal to military families that politicians would prefer to spend time with their own class, rather than stand in solidarity among middle and lower income parents.
Jim Spencer, a Denver Post columnist, makes similar points in a column where he discusses the reactions of one soldier’s mother to the absence of a prominent political figure at her son’s funeral.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 09:29 AM |
December 05, 2003
| Reader comment on "Re: The realities of war" |
A reader's comments about my last posting:
Mr. Devericks,
Let me get this straight: The title of your posting is "Re: The realities of war". OK.
Dead soldiers are a reality of war. OK.
But you, a journalist, are against other journalists showing soldiers´ caskets.
Wait a minute! Aren´t journalists supposed to show us reality?
But, you say caskets can´t be shown because the images, though they are reality and a sign of public grief, will nonetheless prevent families from grieving in private.
That is probably the dumbest thing I have read this week.
You sure you´re a journalist?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Eric Devericks at 12:02 PM |
December 04, 2003
| ...sans navel |
Jack Slater has no navel.
He has serious medical problems with his liver and had to have it removed. Jack Slater has an amazing sense of humor.
In the article, Jack explains the trials and tribulations of his health problems with a lightness and optimism that few could boast in such a situation. Perhaps it proves that laughter is the best medicine (even when one's tummy is bulging with mossy-colored fluid due to a failure of the liver to process everything).
Jack Slater, I commend you.
Jack is using his situation as an example to advocate for organ donation. He has turned a potentially dismal situation into a positive and inspiring example of courage in the face of adversity.
If nothing else, his story is unique and worth telling -- and will make you appreciate your belly button that much more.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 03:48 PM |
|
A reader's comments on my "More on 'The realities of war'" entry:
While you forcefully argue your points, they are woefully lacking in substance. To see a reasoned rebuttal of the critique of Bush not attending funerals, visit http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/003435.html.
Also, it must be pointed out that the American public knows that soldiers are dying and accepts that fact. And your paper courageously reiterates that fact by publishing that heartrending article from the Washington Post. Yet support for the war remains high.
It seems that you assume that if only people had the facts, they would think differently. You, along with those who share similar ideological leanings, refuse to accept that a majority of the American public disagrees with you. So in your mind it must because they don't have the facts. That's why you insist on more coverage of the war's dead.
That's why you dismiss Bush's visit to Baghdad as a political stunt, why you are blind to the fact that most Americans -- and clearly all of the soldiers there -- found it to be an inspring and courageous visit.
I do admire how passionately you write about those among us who have died. I say "us" because they're people just like you and me -- young Americans with hopes and dreams. The key difference, of course, is that they find their lives suddenly ended in a place where they are often resented and despised.
Keep that sense of moral outrage. But I implore you to make more direct arguments. No conspiracy theory, no assumption that the public doesn't know what's really going on.
Don't blame it all on Fox News (I'm assuming you despise that channel). If you don't think the war is worth the costs, say why. Don't merely point out that there are indeed costs, for that much is obvious.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 02:34 PM |
| And more on "The realities of war" |
In response to Megan's response to Eric's response to Megan's blog, I'm a little confused by how easily we start to question war as soon as we experience casualties.
Of course war is a horrid thing -- no one's going to deny that, especially not veterans. But if the legitimacy of this war is going to be debated, it should be based primarily on whether it is a just war and whether the benefits will outweigh the costs (just because there are any costs at all does not mean we should automatically disapprove of war).
In this case, Bush's solid attempt to take out a dictator, establish a democracy, and (hopefully) reform the Middle East is something definitely worth the price we are paying. Already, one of those goals has been accomplished.
Think about the hundreds of millions of lives that will be lived in freedom if the chaos in the Middle East can be resolved. Of course democracy and human rights standards won't make life perfect, and getting to that point of relative freedom may take years, perhaps decades.
But when children can live without fear of having their parents jailed and tortured for expressing dissenting opinions, when there is more than one option on the voting ballot, and when the daily briefings from the Middle East don't include the words "terrorists," "bombings," and "dictator" -- then we'll see if the price we are paying today is worth the lives of tomorrow.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 12:32 PM |
| More on "Bush eats turkey, too" |
A reader's comment on my last posting:
Avert your eyes, Nigel. This may be some subliminal message from someone who is against nucular plants, or, even worse, from someone who believes in evolution, or someone concerned with such a trivial issue as Mr. Bush´s intelligence.
It must be trying to go about all day with your eyes averted from unfriendly facts. You must be a little conflicted in trying to write factually while avoiding so much of the world.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 11:46 AM |
| More on "The realities of war" |
In response to Devericks' comments about my comments...
I actually don't think most people understand the cost of war, particularly since it's something that neither Gen X nor Gen Y experienced until now, unless you count the shoot-em-dead video games we played. I include myself in that statement, because it was one thing to read about casualties from previous wars and another to know former classmates who might die in this one.
I don't feel that the cost has been reported until now, and I certainly don't think that most of our officials are taking it seriously. I object precisely to its being used as a political tool, and the families of soldiers with whom I have talked say that they wish more attention was paid to what war is actually like on the ground. It doesn't help that many of my high school friends enlisted simply because they felt they had no other options. They are not thrilled to be in Iraq, anymore than they were to be sent to Afghanistan. Really, why should they be when our government is slashing benefits for veterans already? Moreover, soldiers who do complain are silenced - what does that say about the story we are told?
I don't care whether you oppose or support the war, but the fact is that we rushed into it and now people are being killed. Even my pro-war father finds that troubling, and he is frustrated that more attention isn't paid to the amputees and wounded who were hurt for our cause.
With all due respect, we should show the dead some respect by keeping others from dying.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 09:26 AM |
December 02, 2003
| Re: The realities of war |
In response to Megan's comments, no one can dispute that the cost of war is difficult to bear. I wholeheartedly agree that every American should do what it takes to fully understand those costs.
Everyday I read stories, see pictures and watch news that detail the conditions and hardship that American families are dealing with. The cost in blood and treasure is high, and that message is being reported loud and clear. The article you read is proof of that.
It's obvious that you disagree with this president and this war...I can respect that.
But the fact is: the majority of the soldiers believe in what they are doing, and many are giving their life to prove it. To use the images of their flag-covered caskets, as a political tool to forward an agenda they didn't believe in, is a slap in the face to them and their families.
Don't patronize the American public. They know the cost of war. Good or bad let journalists report what they will, but show the dead some respect and let them rest in peace.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Eric Devericks at 05:19 PM |
| Re: Bush eats turkey, too... |
In response to Nigel's comments on the Bush trip to Iraq. As a liberal, I can tell you: it was a ludicrous political stunt.
If President Bush cares deeply about the plight of our troops, he would do well to attend the funerals of those who die for him.
Former President Reagan made a courageous decision to do just that during his time in office, and that action retains my respect to this day. So Bush spends two measly hours inside one of our compounds without visiting troops in other cities or even talking with Iraqis, which appears to have gravely offended them.
The trip was a nice photo op and little more, just like the now overplayed aircraft carrier debacle. I have much more admiration for the cadre of Washington Post columnists who traveled to our military hospital in Baghdad -- they presented the world with a much more realistic picture of what our soldiers are experiencing.
If Bush wanted to keep the trip a secret, he should have brought a small contingent of press representing multiple media stations, or he should have left them all at home. To invite only Fox officials smacks of favoritism, particularly since the station is hardly renowned for its fair and balanced coverage of world events.
By the way, liberals are not the only ones criticizing Bush's trip. All liberals do not despise Bush, and all conservatives do not adore him -- just look at John McCain.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 03:19 PM |
| Bush eats turkey, too... |
I've got my share of problems with President Bush, his ridiculous spending being the main one. But his Thanksgiving surprise visit to the troops in Iraq was a nice reminder of why I voted for him: he's restored dignity and integrity in the White House. This act was one of the noblest, classiest, and courageous acts of a President that I can remember. Its the sort of act that makes me proud to say that I'm an American.
However, liberals have already started complaining about it. Fortunately, they can't make up their minds on what exactly to complain about. There are those on the left who are already complaining about the act's secrecy and the relatively small press contingent that was allowed to accompany the President. They say that there should have been more press involved and the fact that there wasn't displays the administrations obsession of secrecy.
Then in the next breath, liberals claim that it was all just a photo op for an upcoming election. Clearly, these are the sort of people that get mad at the photos of the President eating turkey with the troops.
These 2 claims directly contradict each other though. Which is it? Either you increase the size of the press corps, which will inevitably lead to more pictures and more stories and make it look even more like a photo op. Or, you cut the number of the press to make the act look more genuine, but of course that leads to claims of secrecy. So which is it? Was this just too secretive or was it a just a campaign stop? Time to make up your mind.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 10:10 AM |
December 01, 2003
| The realities of war |
On Saturday, the Washington Post ran a story from a staff writer who spent 24 hours shadowing American military doctors at the 28th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad.
According to the article, doctors and nurses treat an average of 45 American and Iraqi patients each day who come in with the most horrific injuries staff members have ever seen. Over 1600 soldiers have been brought into the hospital since the war began. The wounded might head back to their units after being treated. Some are airlifted to a hospital in Germany for further recovery.
For others, the inside of the emergency room -- or the smoke from a homemade bomb -- is the last thing they see in their brief lives.
Many of the wounded are barely old enough to be legal adults. While we sit on couches working over the final drafts of term papers, kids our age are praying with chaplains or drifting away under the operating lights. I cannot get the Washington Post’s story out of my mind. Like the articles documenting the latest casualties in the war, or the television footage of mothers crying when they hear the dreaded news, the experiences of soldiers makes me wonder whether wars like this are ever worth their cost.
It is too easy for students to become numb to the daily death tolls, to become absorbed with our paper world and forget that people we grew up with might be crouched over their firearms in Tikrit or Sadr City.
That is why it is unforgivable for the government to tell journalists that they cannot film flag-covered caskets as they move into waiting planes, and reprehensible that President Bush spends more time with the living than with those who died for his war. Media crews should be tearing down the fences to film our dead, to bring those horrific images into the living rooms of every single person who lives in this country.
Our government should have to look at the bloody consequences and ask itself whether it is noble to send kids from our generation to their deaths to stop a threat that never manifested. Show us the pictures. If students are going to support this war, we damned well better know at what cost it comes.
Our troops certainly do.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 03:57 PM |
| Ne-vad-a, Ne-vah-da |
Apparantly Democrats in Nevada are so desperate for policy ideas to run an election on that they're falling back into the old "Bush is dumb" argument. A recent AP article in the Las Vegas Sun describes President Bush's recent trip to Nevada.
While giving a speech, President Bush "mispronounced" Nevada with the "va" syllable sounding like nirvana, instead of pronouncing the “va” so it rhymes with gamble.
Immediately, State Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, a Democrat, came out criticizing the President. Much like all the other Democrats, Titus focussed on something absolutely irrelevant and failed to present any sort of proposal to why Democrats are better and should be elected.
I don't do this often, but I'm willing to give Democrats some free advice here. If you want to win anything in the state of Nevada (however you want to pronounce it), start focusing on something stubstantive and stop whining about some childish issue.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 11:36 AM |
| Franklin High School counselors: a hilariously sad story |
According to an article in Wednesday’s Seattle Times, “three Franklin High School counselors inappropriately changed student grades in the 2002-03 school year.”
Oops, the counselors forgot to document grade changes, using an already-questionable grading policy conflicting with District policy.
The result? 200 questionable grade changes and a 10-week investigation.
Ironic, how three counselors trained in career and college success made such glaring blunders. In the process of bringing negative attention to their school, they managed to earn disciplinary action and mess up their own careers.
If it weren’t so sad, it’d be pretty funny.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 09:37 AM |
|
Back to top