 |
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. |
February 27, 2004
| Bush's beliefs |
Bush is not a man of deep thought or great foresight. He is a man of strong belief. He basically says what he thinks, believes what he believes, and does what he does, don't bog him down with complexitiness-ness.
That is why he had tunnel vision on Iraq, and why he is opposed to gay marriage. It's just what he believes. He probably believes in the many technologies, jobs and space weapons that an active space program could bring, and coming from Texas he almost certaintly has personal feelings on the Mexican immigration situation.
At the same time, Bush is influenced by political maneuvering. That's just what politicians do to get elected and re-elected. That or use daddy's name, money, advisors and influence.
Daniel Thies's point was valid in that Bush opposing gay rights does appeal to the far-right voter base that has been alienated by Bush's immigration proposal, his high discretionary spending and deficits, etc. Likewise the Hispanic vote, an increasingly desirable constituency, certainly had at least some influence on the immigration proposal. And Bush's economic policies clearly favor the short-term profits and interests of his core Republican financial base.
So while Bush is, indeed, politically motivated at least in the timing and details of what he does, he also acts out of deeply held beliefs--either his own, or those of his short list of advisors. The problem comes from the fact that Bush's beliefs tend to be very narrow if not ill informed, and usually represent the most extreme right. That would be fine if he were a conservative editorialist, or some annoying uncle at a family reunion. But Bush is the President of the United States.
The president has incredible power, and is supposed to balance, represent and protect both the immediate and long-term needs and interests of all Americans, not just those who support his or her party or think like him or her. Whenever possible, the president has an obligation to consider all options, expert opinion, and all consequences before making decisions that shape our nation and our future.
No president does this perfectly, of course. But Bush, with his cowboy attitude and blatant ideological narrow-mindedness, fails almost completely. And in doing so, he fails the nation that almost elected him.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 09:32 AM |
February 26, 2004
| Re: Enough already |
The rather simplistic suggestion that the outrage from us "liberals" toward President Bush is based only on a general disliking of the man himself is pretty
naive. Sure, it's easy to disregard my criticism of the president's stance on gay marriage as nothing more than meaningless liberal angst. But when the president starts tossing around your civil rights like a political football, and threatens to make discrimination against you the law of the land, you cannot begin to understand the anger this generates.
My right to be treated as something more than a second-class citizen is at stake here.
What's at stake for Mr. Bush? A second term in office.
It's been true of almost every president, Republican and Democrat alike. Not one policy decision is made without considering the impact it will have on your chance at re-election. Most political analysts will agree: November's election could very well be decided in the south. Bush knows that without the backing of the Christian right, he will not do as well in the south as he needs in order to win the election.
Instead of allowing the matter to play out in the legal system, a course that a number of Republicans are said to prefer, Bush has chosen to pander directly to
his right-wing base--a group whose support he will rely heavily upon for re-election. That, my friend, is a political ploy.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 05:51 PM |
| Re: Enough already |
Nigel Stark writes in an earlier blog: "This is not about whether the president is right or wrong, I’m just getting tired of those who don’t like the man always saying that every move he makes is politically motivated. Simultaneously moving to the middle (immigration) and to the right (gay marriage) isn’t usually considered good politics. You either do one or the other."
You're right--the president is the master of poor political choices, the pinnacle of political inexpedience, and all around just a confusing political leader. It's pretty impressive when one can alienate both regular old liberals like myself and die-hard conservatives like some of my friends.
So you're absolutely correct--it's not good politics. I'd like to make a follow-up suggestion: let's elect someone who can perform the job better.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 05:43 PM |
| Affirmative action bill dead |
It appears that Senate Bill 6268 died in the higher education committee this week. It would have amended I-200 to allow race to be considered as a factor in the admissions process for state colleges.
Unfortunately, the death of this bill simply maintains admissions policies that don’t look at students holistically. Currently, state colleges are prohibited from considering a student’s racial identity in the admissions process. Yet, ignoring a student’s racial identity eliminates consideration of a characteristic that for many students is important to their overall identity and experience.
Ignoring race as a consideration in admissions processes creates an uneven process in which characteristics of an individual’s identity are only selectively considered.
The fact remains that state schools like the UW don’t have student racial distributions that accurately reflect that of the state or the nation. I-200 only perpetuates this problem, making it more difficult for schools to ensure an academic environment that produces a diversity of thought and experiences.
Ultimately, I-200 only maintains larger economic and social inequalities along racial lines.
Voices of the university communities aren’t being heard. Students at the UW, for example, seem to support affirmative action policies--their representative body, the Associated Students of the UW, officially supports affirmative action.
The University of Michigan case affirmed the legality of affirmative action policies and their benefits to public schools. It’s time for us to re-evaluate I-200.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 05:37 PM |
| Howard Stern got the boot |
I'm shocked it didn't happen sooner. Howard Stern officially got taken off the air in six US markets today, and--not surprisingly--blamed someone else (Janet Jackson of all people) for his own vulgarity.
If the rest of the non-cable media outlets have to comply with FCC decency rules and not air sexually explicit and "potty-language" material from 9 am to 10 pm, then Howard Stern's radio show should have to comply as well.
If Howard wants to do his thing, he can go ahead--just not during the hours when I might happen to overhear his verbal filth in a store or blasting out of someone's car, because I sure as hell am not going to be voluntarily tuning in.
In defense of Mr. Stern, though, Clear Channel's censors could have done a heck of a lot better job at what it is they're supposed to be getting paid for. As far as I know there's a 3-7 second delay on all "live" radio broadcasts. If the censors heard a swear word, racial slur or anything else that could have been deleted easily, they should have done so. I think it's idiotic to blame Mr. Stern for the comments of one of his callers and not give a hoot about the censors dropping the ball on this one.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Elana Azose at 05:24 PM |
| Christina's "Beautiful" worth watching |
Christina Aguilera’s hit song, “Beautiful” is amazingly powerful; it fights against several narrowly defined cultural norms.
She sings, “We are beautiful no matter what they say / Yes, words can't bring us down / Don't you bring me down today.” Though the lyrics themselves are empowering, they are even more so when combined with compelling images in the “Beautiful” music video. This video completely stunned me because of its controversial, progressive, un-mainstream attitude.
You should DEFINITELY watch it.
In the video, the camera flashes between shots of Christina and various marginalized individuals. It shows a gay man dressing up in a bra and putting on makeup, jewelry and a dress; an anorexic girl in her underwear, critically examining her painfully thin body in the mirror; two gay men making out on a park bench, with passerbys looking at them disapprovingly; a teenage girl being beaten up by “popular girls” because of her braces; an African American girl staring at magazine pictures of thin girls; a boy on a bus, dressed in black with spiked hair, with all the seats empty around him; a skinny boy trying to lift weights to get big. Amazing, powerful images in a quick sequence.
In the end, with Christina singing “Don’t you bring me down today,” these individuals arrive at personal strength. The anorexic girl smashes the mirror; the African American girl throws magazine pictures in the fire with a satisfied smile; the transgender man, gay couple, girl with the braces, boy dressed in black and skinny boy all smile, despite the efforts of others to degrade them and convince them that they are not “normal.”
Christina skillfully addresses a variety of cultural norms--body image, fashion, homosexuality, popularity--in a single video.
I hope other artists follow her example in the future. She has shown that music is power.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:19 PM |
| Avril celebrates virginity |
In “Don’t Tell Me,” Avril Lavigne embraces an incredibly positive message and upholds the value of virginity. This is a pleasant surprise, considering that popular culture promotes casual sex without considering the consequences.
Avril addresses the stupidity of losing one’s virginity to the first guy who comes along. She sings, “Don’t think that your charm and the fact that you arm is now around my neck, / Will get you in my pants, I’ll have to kick ass so you’ll never forget / I’m gonna ask you to stop, but I liked you a lot / But now I’m really upset / So get out of my head / Get off of my bed, yeah that’s what I said.”
These are refreshing lyrics promoting girls' strength and good morals--a change from Britney and other singers who advocate sex at first sight.
Tween and teen girls should listen to Avril’s new album, an alternative to music that erodes personal, traditional values.
Further, I hope other artists see Avril as an example of the successful singer, who has not resorted to sexually explicit lyrics and a sexually suggestive image. Britney could definitely learn a lesson from Avril.
Listen to "Don't Tell Me."
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:13 PM |
| Enough already |
In the past few months, I can’t recall a policy President Bush has spoken of which the liberals on this NEXTopia blog have not called a “political ploy.” Immigration policy? Check. Going to Mars? Got it. Campaign Finance? Yup. Budget concerns? Of course. And so many more.
The latest one is the president’s position on gay marriage. This is not about whether the president is right or wrong, I’m just getting tired of those who don’t like the man always saying that every move he makes is politically motivated. Simultaneously moving to the middle (immigration) and to the right (gay marriage) isn’t usually considered good politics. You either do one or the other.
What, would you prefer that President Bush do nothing whatsoever? You may be whispering “yes,” but I know that if he actually did do nothing, the same liberals in this blog would be yelling about the president sitting on his hands, not taking action, being lazy, only focusing on his campaign, blah blah blah.
Unless some actual evidence starts to arise that one of the president’s plans actually is only a political ploy (just a reminder, no evidence other than “Terry McAuliffe said so” has arisen yet), can we please refrain from all this nonsense? It’s starting to get as annoying as all the conspiracy theories coming from the left.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 09:39 AM |
February 25, 2004
| College kids' unhealthy habits |
“The majority of U.S. adults are overweight, nearly one in five are daily smokers, and one in five consumed at least five alcoholic drinks in a day at least once in a year, according to government's national health survey,” said today’s Seattle Times.
College students participate in many of these unhealthy activities, and live incredibly unhealthy lifestyles overall.
First, dorm food comes in gigantic portions and includes an array of delicious, though fattening, options--ranging from jumbo burgers to greasy onion rings to giant cookies, for relatively cheap prices. The “freshman 15” is definitely not a myth. The process toward obesity and heart disease, if not begun in childhood, probably starts in college.
Secondly, college students are generally inactive, with few exceptions, spending time in front of the TV and computer. AIM and e-mail become second language; exercise becomes nonexistent, a chore rather than leisure.
Third, drinking and parties lead to frequent alcohol binges.
Fourth, the demands of homework and the attraction of fun activities result in little sleep at night and frequent naps during the day.
The solution is a healthy balance between junk food and exercise, activities and sleep. I personally choose to abstain from all alcohol, but for those who do drink, moderation is key to long-term health. Personally, I don’t want to become another sad statistic in a government health survey.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:50 PM |
| More on: Bush's gay marriage amendment |
C'mon, folks. Don't be fooled! President Bush's recent endorsement of an amendment banning gay marriage is nothing more than a political ploy. Over the past few months, the president has been carefully tip-toeing around the issue, stating that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but stopping short of endorsing such an alteration to our Constitution.
His newly found resolve on the matter is nothing more than an attempt to distract pubic attention from growing doubts over the Iraq war, his weakness in
certain economic areas, and his overall poor polling numbers against his likely Democratic rivals. This move is also sure to appeal to his right-wing base, whom he nearly alienated as a result of his recent immigration policies.
Bush will undoubtedly defend his position by preaching about the sanctity of marriage, and how this institution must be defended at all costs. But he knows as well as any intelligent person that issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples poses absolutely no true threat to the institution.
While the president may be trying to claim some kind of moral high ground here, it becomes apparent that his only true conviction is to commit to something he believes will get him re-elected. There are serious matters to be debated--ones affecting the daily lives of every American. But rather than face a
public discussion on these issues, Mr. Bush wants to drive a cultural wedge into the national debate, and make this election about a social issue that is only of any true consequence to a small contingent of our population.
It's been pointed out many times, but an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution would be the first amendment ever to specifically deny civil rights
to a minority group. President Bush, as well as countless other right-wing figures, have proven time and again that there is no length to which they will
not go for their own political gain.
As we once witnessed with the impeachment of president Bill Clinton, an amendment banning same-sex marriage would amount to little more than the rape of the United States Constitution.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 05:42 PM |
| Re: Bush's 'de facto' amnesty |
In response to Randy Henderson's argument that we should be more concerned about how to handle illegal immigrants once they get in than how to make sure we filter illegal immigrants from getting into the U.S. in the first place: I can say that ensuring border security is something we cannot ignore, obviously. So we should, in fact, be very concerned about making sure we can substantially control and monitor who is crossing our borders. To say otherwise would invite trouble.
The reason I didn't like Nancy Pelosi's politically-motivated call to check 100 percent of all imported containers is because that solution is entirely impractical. I am, however, in favor of checking the 3 percent of containers that we do check now. In the same way, I wouldn't want us to simply put down our guard or make concessions to border controls, though building Great-Wall-of-China-like barriers would be impractical.
Respond to this blog |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 05:29 PM |
| The next Nazi? |
Rod Paige, the Department of Education Secretary, called the National Education Association a “terrorist organization.” This prompted Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) to call Paige’s claim “neo-McCarthyism at worst.”
The irony here is that in response to a greatly flawed analogy from Paige, McCollum makes an equally flawed analogy by comparing Paige to a man who blacklisted individuals for their supposed Communist views. Paige obviously was way out of line calling the NEA a terrorist organization, but he was making a wild analogy, not actually claiming they were terrorists who would physically attack innocent people.
Gut-reaction analogies to historical catch-phrases of evil and deceit are rampant in today’s political world. Everyone’s a Nazi or the next McCarthy or a Hitler or a Stalin or part of a Taliban wing or is waging a jihad. It’s getting out of hand. It’s time politicians and public figures showed a little more maturity.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:49 PM |
| More on: Bush's gay marriage amendment |
The constitutional amendment debate has hit me hard, delivering a sucker punch that's left me reeling. I feel sick, sad and disgusted that the argument would even receive enough legitimacy to be discussed at a national level.
How, precisely, are we protecting marriage by saving it for the Britney Spears and Bill Clintons of the world? Divorce rates are through the roof, starter marriages have become a cultural phenomenon, and no one I know is getting hitched for the sake of procreation--even though it's being defined as the purpose of matrimony by some in the religious right.
After all, marriage should not be a means to an end (children), but a gift unto itself.
As a straight woman, I could technically get married anytime I feel like it. I can visit the courthouse with the man of my dreams, or I can pick the Joe I met last week who's kinda hot and who would be fun for a year or two. How is that any more palatable to you than a pair of women who have been faithful for decades? When I hear about a couple getting married after 51 years of fidelity, my heart sings. They are role models to me; their sexual identities should not detract from the shining example of devotion they embody.
And how hypocritical of conservatives to scream that the government better "stay out of my life!" when it comes to guns, taxes, the environment, education, retirement funds...anything, apparently, except issues that conflict with their unique moral perspectives.
Judges aren't activists when they try to post the 10 commandments on their front lawn, or when they work to overturn Roe v. Wade, but heaven forbid they make the perfectly logical argument that "separate but equal" is nothing more than discrimination masquerading behind a veil of semantics! If civil unions were really equal, we should junk "marriage" altogether and let the former term cover everyone regardless of sexual orientation. But no one likes that, do they?
What frustrates me most is that religious organizations have no place meddling in the civil arena. After all, even if the entire nation legalized gay marriage, churches could still refuse to perform matrimonial rites for them. That's one of the advantages bestowed by the separation of church and state.
Consequently, I resent hearing that my Church has been lobbying for this amendment when they are protected already. Couples aren't going to beat down the Holy See's door demanding to be married when they can celebrate in civil courts that welcome their presence. What's happening in San Francisco isn't scary or awful. It's remarkably routine, quietly hopeful.
Gay marriage is not some chimera lurking at the nation's door. It is a new beginning, a chance to demonstrate that everyone does receive equal access to our culture's most celebrated rites. Other countries have welcomed same-sex marriages with grace, and they seem better for it. I look forward to the day when we can follow their lead.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 10:16 AM |
| Goofy scholarships |
In a previous blog, I talked about an all-white scholarship offered at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I. I commented that the scholarship was blasphemous. It looks as though there are scholarships just as intriguing, but in a positive light.
A recent CNN article discussed a number of “Offbeat Ways to Pay for College.” The article speaks of a number of unusual scholarships based on left-handed people, last names, wool clothing, speaking Kligon, ability to communicate with animals, and height. It is amazing how much financial aid there is out there for outlandish traits and abilities. Your worst downfall could potentially be your way to earn money for school.
I no longer want to hear money as an excuse from my peers on why they don’t go to college. I am well aware that some are not afforded the same opportunities as others, but if you are willing to put forth a little bit of effort it seems as though financial opportunities exist for everyone. I mean everyone.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 10:00 AM |
| Bush's gay marriage amendment |
I cannot understand why permiting gay marriage would sever marriage from its "cultural, religious and natural roots," as President Bush seems to think. Gay relationships have become an integral part of our culture and allowing gay couples to marry does not in any way "change the most fundamental institution of civilization." If anything, gay marriage strengthens the institution by making it more universal and inclusive.
Some may argue that gay marriage goes against tradition, but just as our country has developed from 200 years ago, so has our culture, and it must adapt and evolve, or we will be stuck in an outdated society.
Whether it is an election tactic, or a personal belief, this potential amendent is fundamentally unconstitutional. I agree with Anthony Romero, who says President Bush is trying to write, "discrimination into the Constitution."
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 09:55 AM |
| Racial terms too broad |
Terms such as "White," "Hispanic," "Black," and "Asian" are too broad.
When I read Leonceo Angsioco’s recent blog, I noticed something interesting, though not directly related to his argument.
“In 100 words or less, write why you are proud of your white heritage and explain what being white means to you,” directs Mattera’s parody scholarship for whites.
Why does the media lump racial groups together? The term “white” actually refers to a diverse group, whose roots hail back to several European countries. “White” is not a single, homogenized racial group. Many subgroups of “white” exist, with different cultures and religions.
Christianity and Judaism share similarities, but have several different holidays and values; Irish dancing and ballroom dancing are distinct from one another; the Swiss and French may have different political ideals. They cannot all be summed up in one word.
The word “white” is not the only excessively general label. What about “Hispanic”? Countries in Middle and South America speak a variety of local dialects and have unique, colorful, dynamic cultures. And the term “African” or “black” may refer to an individual from one of 53 countries on the African continent. Lumping all these countries together in one broad category is ridiculous.
And instead of calling someone “Asian,” try “Japanese,” “Chinese,” “Filipino," etc. Not all Asian countries are similar; just look at the history of hostility existing between Japan and China, and you’ll know that they are not one and the same.
It’s time to change the way we think about racial groups. Instead of making overarching generalizations, we need to pay attention to subtle but important distinctions.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 09:49 AM |
February 24, 2004
| Re: Unleashing the monsters |
I despise viruses as much as the next computer-dependent teen. But I disagree with Sharon Altaras’ call to regulate the creation of viruses.
“People who create viruses and then publish them online, should be held responsible for the ensuing mayhem that results, even if someone else unleashed the monster,” she wrote in an earlier blog.
This sounds like a nice, tidy call for action. By punishing the creators of viruses, users should have less trouble, right?
Wrong. Practical enforcement of a new virus regulation policy would violate the privacy of programming hobbyists. I can imagine government agents searching computers for virus programs; along the way, they might stumble upon-–gasp!-–downloaded music. Or a downloaded game, movie or book. What started as a search for a virus program could turn into a full-blown violation of privacy.
Or, government inspectors might potentially confiscate a perfectly innocent game that a programmer is creating, mistaking it for a virus and taking away hours of precious, painstaking work.
Viruses should be fought against, but not through direct government regulation. Instead, we should use improved anti-virus programs, and work to quickly detect and inform users of new viruses.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:27 PM |
February 23, 2004
| Unleashing the monsters |
A bumper sticker I saw the other day read: "We are responsible for the monsters we create.”
That's an interesting concept in an age when individual freedoms are prized so highly. People have the right to disseminate ideas, create artwork and speak their mind. And, unless their actions will cause tangible detriment to someone else, they're protected.
But should this same protection be applied to the creators of computer and network viruses?
In a recent New York Times Magazine article, Clive Thompson interviewed several young programmers of so-called "malware." Some said that by creating virus codes, even publishing the recipes online, they’re not the ones causing harm to others; rather, it's malicious or stupid users who disseminate the virus that should be blamed for wreaking billions of dollars of havoc.
In other words, the virus creators refuse to take responsibility for the “monsters” they gave life to, referring to their codes as intricate (if ugly) works of art.
But when such art projects have the potential to delete hard drives, slow down online business and cost entities billions, they’re not really a harmless means of expression.
People who create viruses and then publish them online, should be held responsible for the ensuing mayhem that results, even if someone else unleashed the monster.
Written by NEXT writer Sharon Altaras
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:29 PM |
| More on: Bush's "de facto" amnesty |
Are all men created equal ... as long as they fill out the proper paperwork?
Legal immigrants like Nigel Stark may think it's a slap in the face that illegal immigrants didn't go through the proper application process. But is that a reason to be upset, or a reason to be grateful that legal immigrants were able to get in by filling out paperwork rather than crawling through deserts and rivers and working low paying difficult labor jobs for years just to, maybe, achieve the same privilege?
Bush's "amnesty," while an imperfect fantasy I don't fully support, wouldn't be a "free pass" but rather would be earning temporary citizenship through proven contributions to our country. Illegal immigrants just put in more sweat, less paperwork.
And somehow Chris Collins, no, I just can't feel too worried about illegal Mexicans working at McDonalds. What are they going to do, make the food high in cholesterol and salt? Steal our jobs? Most illegal immigrants only get the jobs nobody else wants or could live on, with no benefits or protections. Or were you trying to somehow hint that if they can get in, so can terrorists? Well, bad news -- short of some high-energy force-field bubble, there's no way to seal off an entire nation. Weren't you and Nigel the ones rightly mocking Pelosi's "check 100% of containers" remark post-State of the Union? Same idea here.
The reality is that it is simply impossible to stop illegal immigration. Acknowledging this isn't "shrugging your shoulders," just facing facts. Of course we should do our best to monitor and secure our borders. But bigger walls, more guards and looser applications would be a bandage, not a solution. The question isn't how do we stop them from getting in, because we can't. The question is how do we treat them once they are here? Taxing them would benefit us even as recognizing their contributions and treating them like humans, not indentured servants, benefits them.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:28 PM |
| More on: Bush's "de facto" amnesty |
From a NEXTopia reader:
My objection is with this line of reasoning in Chris Collins' blog:
If we object to Mexicans legally entering the United States because we don't want to deal with their cultural influences, their political views or their willingness to take up all the blue-collar jobs, then that's a problem. That's borderline racism.
Personally I love Mexican culture, lived in Mexico, married a Latina and have Spanish speaking offspring. I'm less of a racist than many people I have known who complain loudly of racism against their own race but turn around and are racist against Caucasians or Asians or some other group.
I was frequently shocked at the racism that many Latinos have against African-Americans or that light-skinned African-Americans have against darker skinned
African-Americans. I even think that people like Clarence Thomas are racist against African-Americans in general. But immigration isn't a race issue, it is one of human and labor rights.
What if the political views of immigrants include the acceptance of being rightless and living in fear of deportation for so much as questioning the neofascism that grips this country? Is a union that objects to "scab" labor being racist? Is the left too blind to see that the goal of the right in this country is to replace the middle class empowered workers with rightless importable/exportable serfs?
The rules should be really simple: if you work here, you can vote here and organize here without fear of deportation. If the right wing is unwilling to allow
immigrants to vote, then they should not be entitled to enjoy the fruits of immigrant serf labor.
Immigrants should be assimilated into an empowered middle class, not used to destroy it.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:42 PM |
| Nader: a conservative conspiracy? |
Is Ralph Nader in George Bush's pocket? I'm begining to think that Ralph Nader is Bush's ace in the hole--when the going gets tough, when the race is tight, confuse the super liberals and throw in Nader to kiss those vital votes away.
The Democrats should have learned from 2000 that we need all our votes in one place. Nader is a genuine guy, and an honest man, so he should realize
that he has no place in Washington D.C.. He'll never get elected, the idea of a third party candidate doing anything other than humoring Republicans is a joke.
So why is his name surfacing? It must be a conservative conspiracy. Somehow Bush has spent the last several months brainwashing Nader down at a secret lab on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. This must be it. I don't want to believe that Ralph Nader is in this mess again.
There are just enough ill-informed liberals out there that this curveball of a presidential candidate can garner enough support, i.e. divert enough votes to reinstate the incumbent sleaze ball. Damn you Nader.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 11:24 AM |
| Re: Girl scouts gone wild |
Regarding Hans Zeiger's girl scouts blog, thank God the Girl Scouts have come a long way. It is not 1912 anymore, and we should all be grateful that we are not being stifled by the sexual perversions and rampant gender oppression of the Victorian period.
As a literature and history student, I can report that these days were not a beneficial period for women. First, the Victorian era took place largely during the 19th century, from 1837 to 1900 (the time of Queen Victoria's reign). Girls who grew up during these days had few social or occupational choices. Technically, this means that the Girl Scouts came a bit after, but if the organization did grow out of the Victorian era, woe are we.
At that time, the Cult of True Womanhood reigned supreme among Western cultural ideologies and taught women that they should adhere to four ideals: piety, purity, submisiveness and domesticity. The overall lesson consisted of: prayers are good because they keep your weaker minds occupied; love affairs will bring insanity, poverty, and death; your role is to submit unquestioningly to God and your husband; the world at large is male, but the world of the female should consist of her home's four walls.
I sure as hell wouldn't want my daughter being instructed by a school of thought founded on such antideluvian theories. Today's Girl Scouts of America program espouses four principle goals for girls: developing self potential, relating to others, developing values, and contributing to society. Yep, those sound pretty threatening to me--after all, we wouldn't want any non-Christians or lesbian girls finding self-esteem and learning how to advocate for issues that affect their lives.
Coincidentally, the GSA hasn't made abortion, religious or sexuality issues the focal point of their political involvement. Recent activities have centered around "girls issues" like their views on volunteerism, their relationships to families and communities, and their thoughts on the world after 9-11. From this non-scout point of view, the GSA has wisely kept its values centered around its girls, striving to address the issues that are important to today's kids.
Social involvement, community building, and yes, even gender roles and sexuality, are big things for girls today. I know because I was one of them, and I'd rather have my daughter being taught how to navigate through this complex world by a time-honored group of female leaders than relegate her to the ranks of stifled Victorian women. There's a reason Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft spent most of their lives screaming on behalf of their silenced sisters--I don't think we want to return to that.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Megan Matthews at 11:18 AM |
| No to Nader |
I'm all for a third party candidate. That's how things eventually will get done in this country. As a nation we need to step away from the two party system that ultimately limits progression and takes us away from an actual
democracy.
That said, I am in complete disagreement with Ralph Nader running for president in this election. He announced his plans to run for president on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday.
Unfortunately due to circumstance, this election is not about changing the
political structure of America. It's about removing a presidet who's raped us of
civil liberties, lied to our faces and completely absolved our national budget,
turning it into a horrendous national debt.
Nader is undermining the Democratic campaign and posing a serious threat to not only the Democrats but the nation as a whole. I would like to see Nader put
his political rallying to use and get behind the campaign to oust George W. He has an uncanny way of collecting votes from those who would not normally go to the polls.
So, Ralph, how's about letting go of your pipe dream this year and doing something for America? Tell us all how you've decided to forgo running as an independent and tell your followers to get behind whichever party leader has a
chance of beating Bush.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Matthew E. Gano at 11:07 AM |
February 20, 2004
| More on: Bush's "de facto" amnesty |
Let's make a clear distinction here between xenophobia and a legitimate desire to regulate the borders.
If we object to Mexicans legally entering the United States because we don't want to deal with their cultural influences, their political views or their willingness to take up all the blue-collar jobs, then that's a problem. That's borderline racism. But if we're concerned that the incentive to cross the borders legally and safely is diminished by Bush's pseudo-amnesty plan, then we're talking practical sense. That's smart domestic policy.
With that perspective on the Henderson-Stark debate, let's tackle this issue again. Nigel has a legitimate point: it's insulting to current legal immigrants to see illegal (i.e. "undocumented") immigrants get a free pass. If there is a bureaucratic maze that needs to be straightened out in order to open the doors to more legal immigrants, then let's work on that. One thing we shouldn't do is shrug our shoulders and believe that illegal Mexicans working at McDonalds can't do us any harm, so why worry.
There are legitimate reasons for monitoring our borders and the people who are trying to cross them, so let's address the issue with common sense - not gut reaction.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 10:51 AM |
| Re: Doesn't add up |
Regarding Nigel Stark's account of campaign finance, first, the idea that more money equals more ads equals more chance of recognition and acceptance is elementary marketing, not some misguided conspiracy. So Bush’s extra money does give him an advantage, just as Dean’s did.
Rather than looking at the fact that Dean had more money but lost, look at the fact that this unknown, stiff necked, verbally challenged man was able to compete against known war hero politician Kerry for the highest office in the nation at all. He was able to do so in part because he had the money to offset his negative factors. Kerry has fewer negative factors, so needs less money. Bush has a lot more negative factors, so needs a lot more money.
Plus, in addition to his own performance, Bush is down in the polls in part precisely because he isn’t spending a lot of his money right now, while the Democrats are and are getting extra press due to the Democratic caucuses.
And who has the most money is not the only campaign finance concern. Where campaign money comes from, and what politicians do to keep their donors happy, is an equally, if not more important, problem.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 10:33 AM |
| Whites-only scholarship |
At Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I., Jason J. Mattera founded the campus’ College Republicans. In order to stir a debate, Mattera’s club created a parody of scholarships available only to minorities. He said he thought of it after he learned the university had compiled a list of such scholarships.
"If you are a white student on campus, you don't have anyone helping you, there is no one compiling a list of scholarships just for you," Mattera said in the New York Times. "Why is it that only students of color have this?"
The $50 scholarship is only available to those who are white, asking, “In 100 words or less, write why you are proud of your white heritage and explain what being white means to you.”
I want change, but is this really a constructive way to form a debate? Does anyone remember the bake sale that occurred in front of the HUB at the University of Washington a few months ago? That was supposed to stir discussion about affirmative action, but I don't hear anyone talking anymore.
I’m a minority, but I’ll admit I don’t like affirmative action. I believe that any categorization of peoples, even if it seems to promote good at the forefront, only continues to show inequalities. When we keep proclaiming differences between races and continue to promote one race over another, we will never overcome this problem.
It’s interesting to note that Mattera received a $5,000 Sallie Mae Fund scholarship for Hispanic students. That is typical, people using the system while preaching that the system is ineffective. It’s good that Mattera tried to stir a debate, but his outrageous actions and lack of credibility ruin the discussion. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 10:24 AM |
February 19, 2004
| Re: Bush's "de facto" amnesty |
Oh my GAWD! Nigel Stark is right! People are rushing into our country to pick our vegetables, scrub our toilets, and mow our lawns for barely enough money to feed themselves! What a “HUGE threat to our country!” Can’t we just nuke Mexico?
There’s certainly no easy solution to the immigration “problem,” or the need to secure our borders. The government can’t control contraband getting into a walled and guarded prison, so how can it realistically seal off an entire country? And the hope of being treated like normal human beings rather than exploited servants may indeed have given Mexicans, and others, yet another reason to come to America.
So let's keep perspective here. How many more Mexicans are really trying to immigrate now than before Bush’s ploy to secure the Hispanic vote? Probably not “90%” more. Probably not even 20% more. They may give Bush’s promise as the popular reason for their crossing today (especially when prompted by the question of whether “Bush’s amnesty proposal” was their reason).
But Bush or no Bush, most would have still been seeking a better life in America. They always have, and they always will until opportunities in their country equal those here.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this blog
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 05:20 PM |
| Bush's "de facto" amnesty |
A few weeks ago, President Bush announced his plan of “de facto” amnesty for illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant, I was not happy with the plan and wrote about it in a recent NEXT article. In that article, I predicted a sudden surge in attempted illegal border crossings.
Unfortunately, it looks like I was right.
As this article describes, not only has the number of attempted crossings increased, but many of those illegal immigrants are claiming they did it because of the president’s program.
Currently, border officials are required to ask all border crossers if they entered the US illegally because of the president’s “de facto” amnesty plan. At one Texas crossing point, an astounding 90% of all illegal aliens caught at the border claimed they came because of amnesty!
90%!! That represents a HUGE threat to our country, not to even mention the drain on social services, the slapping in the face of millions of legal immigrants and military and border personnel, and the flagrant ignoring of the rule of law.
It doesn’t matter if this policy hasn’t been enacted yet or if it technically isn’t amnesty. What matters is that Mexicans think it's going to be enacted and that it is amnesty. As long as they continue to believe that, they will continue trying to cross the border.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 01:44 PM |
| Doesn't add up |
To all those who think that money automatically buys elections, especially primary elections, I hope they’ve been paying attention to the Democratic primary election. Once again, evidence has arisen that money doesn’t have nearly the “corrupting influence” on politics that campaign finance reformers argue.
If you remember, Howard Dean was destroying all his Democratic competition in regards to how much money he could raise. Dean was setting all types of records for fundraising. According to opensecrets.org, Howard Dean has still raised about 50% more than Kerry and almost three times as much as Edwards, and that includes the respective downfall and rise in the Dean and Kerry campaigns.
According to the logic of campaign finance reformers, Dean should have sailed through the Democratic primary. But he lost, and he lost big.
President Bush has raised over four and a half times as much money as Kerry has, yet many polls show Kerry with a lead over Bush and the polls that show Bush winning also show the race to be very close.
Something is obviously wrong here, that is, if you believe the likes of John McCain and other campaign finance reform supporters. According to their theory, Howard Dean should have wrapped up the Democratic nomination by now but should be trailing huge to President Bush. Reality just doesn’t agree with the misconceptions of the campaign finance reform movement.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 01:39 PM |
| Re: Take your pick: sex or war |
As usual, Nigel Stark and John Hieger have engaged in black and white, all or nothing arguments. Nigel would like us to believe that ALL Democrats don't care at ALL about sexual infidelity or morality. John's all or nothing phrasing on Clinton's sexual acts unfortunately plays nicely into Nigel's own extremism, even while Nigel ignores John's larger and valid point regarding the war.
I'm generally a Democrat, and I know what Clinton did was wrong in a personal sense. But what is really important (or worse, depending on your slant) in terms of the duties and power of the presidency, and what we should use valuable federal resources and tax dollars investigating?
On one hand, we have a man who lied about sex between two consenting adults.
On the other hand, we have a man, and an administration, whose possible lies, personal agendas and abuse of power have (arguably) led to American deaths, billions of dollars in costs, and distraction from the real war on terror.
This is the same president who possibly engaged in various acts to undermine the presidential election itself, whose administration had possible meetings with the Taliban and favored energy company buddies in shaping our nation's energy policy, etc., etc.
Neither is right in a general moral sense. But arguably, one is more wrong in the context of a president's duties. That is what has John so angry, and it does not make all Democrats morally bankrupt; it just means we have different priorities for what makes a good president, or what deserves federal investigation and impeachment.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:37 PM |
| Re: Dems: the party of the rich |
There are several problems with Nigel Stark's argument that Forbes' historical report on the richest presidents shows the Democrats as being the party of the rich.
First, we have to remember that the two parties did an almost complete role reversal during the 60's. As I stated in an earlier editorial, Democrats did use to be the party of railroad barons and millionaires as well as of the pro-segregation South. Even as they became liberal in their taxing and spending under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they remained largely conservative in their social agenda.
Then progressives in the Democratic Party increasingly supported ending racial segregation, validating women’s equality and protecting civil rights, all of which threatened conservative Southern Democrats. Many of these “dixiecrats” like Strom Thurmond moved over to the increasingly conservative Republican Party, and their agenda is now carried on there.
Simultaneously, Republicans increasingly became the party of the rich based on their tendency to give tax breaks and special considerations to the wealthy and corporations. It is this that makes them the party of the rich -- what they do with our money and who their policies favor, not how much they or their president has in the bank.
Most politicians tend to be wealthy, regardless of party. And yes, Kerry has plenty of money, much of it through his wife. But overall the sources of Kerry's campaign funds, and more importantly the ways he would use our wealth, are in my view far superior to Bush's.
Republicans are the party of the rich, in the sense that their economic policies, tax breaks, corporate welfare and environmental agendas more often and to a larger degree favor the wealthy and corporations who fund them--or are them--than do the actions and policies of Democrats.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:27 PM |
February 17, 2004
| Google's No. 1 "miserable failure" |
Today in my Communications class, before a class of 450 students, Professor David Silver typed the phrase “miserable failure” into Google. The first result was a link to President Bush’s biography on whitehouse.gov, generating widespread laughter. The second result was a link to Jimmy Carter’s biography, and the third to Bush’s dental record on michaelmoore.com, which alludes to Bush's questionable years in the 1970s.
How did this happen? “...members of an online community can affect the results of Google searches - called ‘Google bombing,’” according to BBC News . This occurs when individuals provide links to specific websites on their pages. Thus, “The search engine can be manipulated by a fairly small group of users.”
Not surprisingly, other pranks also slam Bush. Try typing “weapons of mass destruction” into Google. The first result links to a website that resembles the standard, “This page cannot be displayed” screen, except substituted with the message, “These weapons of mass destruction cannot be displayed. The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.”
How amusing.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:48 PM |
| Re: Girl scouts gone wild |
If Hans Zeiger were to attend a "modern" Girl Scouts meeting he might be shocked to discover that, in addition to progressing with normal social standards, the Girl Scouts have also abandoned a number of other Victorian era traditions in favor of reality. Those stuffy Victorian era dresses have gone by the way side, and it seems the Girl Scouts have totally disregarded the pillars of their moral dress code for the "convenience" of modern garb.
Anti-Girl Scouts probably regard today's organization as lesbian training camps, rampant with an assortment of anti-suppressive techniques and morals. These girls are no longer encouraged to pursue meaningless existences as sexual subordinates. In addition to multi-culturalists and immigrants, it appears as if Zeiger now has women to fear, another generation of enemies rising through the ranks.
Zeiger and his clan of time-stopping dreamers had better act quick, for this thing called contemporary American society seems to be legit.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:41 PM |
| Disney: Media's A-Rod |
One of the headlines in The Seattle Times business section recently read, “Disney board unanimously turns down Comcast offer” For the moment, Time Warner is the largest media company, but if Comcast and Disney merge, this will become largest media company.
I say for the moment because Disney is still leaving the door open if Comcast makes a higher bid. My family has stock in Disney and I wonder what a Comcast merger may do to my stock; last week it went up sharply but started to come back down.
This talk of a merger may go on for a long time, just like those ridiculous A-Rod talks with Texas and Boston. But who would have thought the Yankees would have picked him up? It’s a crazy world, and Disney may not have power to fend off suitor Comcast.
Of course, baseball isn’t the media. But one thing seems to be similar, “It’s all about the money.”
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 01:31 PM |
| Dems: the party of the rich |
Despite popular myth, there is more than enough evidence to argue that the Democrat Party is the real party of the rich. Well, Forbes.com just released even more information to back that up.
According to Forbes, of the top 5 richest presidents ever, 3 were Democrats while only 1 was a Republican (Herbert Hoover). If John Kerry were to become president this fall, he would come in tied for the #2 slot with JFK, making that 4 out of the top 6 richest presidents are Democrats.
Does this mean much? No, not really. But when John Kerry and the Democrats start calling President Bush and the GOP the party of the rich (which they inevitably will), it's important to remember exactly who the rich candidate is and who the rich candidate is not.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 01:22 PM |
| Take your pick: sex or war |
In regard to Nigel Stark's rant, who cares if our potential Democratic leader cheated on his wife? All politicians are inherently sleazy. Clinton recieved oral sex and the Republicans nearly lost their minds. The difference between Clinton's dishonesty about something relatively trivial and say, Bush's dishonesty about something massive, deadly and expensive, like the war in Iraq, is obvious.
At the end of the day, Clinton walked away from his lie looking a little sleazier, having emotionally hurt maybe five people at best (friends and family). Bush, on the other hand, is the master sleaze behind a lie that has resulted in the DEATHS of hundreds of good Americans. The difference should be obvious. Death means your dead, infidelity means you have an angry wife to answer to.
Bush, as a moral crusader and representative of true American values, is not only inaccurate but sad. What's so moral about a liar who has sent soldiers to an early grave?
If you make the argument that as president our nation's leader is obligated to represent a standard of higher American values, you cannot ignore the reality that our current president's lies have resulted in blood and tears. There's a big difference between sleazy sex and sleazy war. Sex doesn't kill, war does. Take your pick, I'd rather have sex.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:14 PM |
| Girl scouts gone wild |
Despite my love for Girl Scout cookies, I must be critical of the Girl Scouts, for it has somewhat rejected moral decency.
At a recent Nobody's Fool annual meeting held at Planned Parenthood of Waco, Texas, the Bluebonnet Council of the Girl Scouts of America bestowed on Planned Parenthood chief executive Pam Smallwood the title of "Woman of the Year." A local radio station launched a cookie boycott, and parents of nine Girl Scouts withdrew their daughters.
Sadly, more unfortunate positions have been taken by the Girl Scouts of America in recent years than parents and supporters may realize.
One might wonder why the Girl Scouts have been spared the painful attacks that have been launched upon the Boy Scouts by the Left in recent years. The reasons are simple: the Girl Scouts allow homosexuals and atheists to join their ranks, and they have become a pro-abortion, feminist training corps. See my full article on this subject.
While the Girl Scouts fit comfortably in the dire realm of political correctness, the organization should not fit so comfortably in America's network of moral education. Parents should be warned that the moral content of today's Girl Scouts is no longer based in the Victorian virtues that gave it life in 1912.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Hans Zeiger at 01:09 PM |
February 13, 2004
| Media consolidation dangerous to democracy |
The Federal Court of Appeals will decide on new rules concerning media consolidation in local markets, which include “relaxing limits of TV duopolies, permitting trigopolies, allowing more same-market TV/newspaper combos, and restricting somewhat the number of radio stations one owner can control,” according to Broadcasting and Cable.
Translated into English, this means that laws controlling media consolidation may loosen up, with the exception of radio. Overall, this allows for an oligopoly situation, in which a few firms control a region’s media outlets. Instead of hearing a diverse group of voices, we may be forced to listen to a dominant few.
Does this, in an indirect way, violate free speech by limiting our access to different voices on mainstream TV? Is this dangerous to the democratic spread of ideas? Instead of relaxing media consolidation, we should consider tightening it to give new, independent firms a fair and fighting chance.
Forget Janet Jackson for a moment, and concentrate on a much more frightening possibility.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:18 PM |
| Gitmo resort |
Guantanamo Bay was supposed to be a "black hole" of civil rights. A place where prisoners were tortured and where all human decency went out the window. Guantanamo Bay was supposed to represent the worst of the worst.
I would hate to suggest that a 15-year-old boy who spent 14 months as a prisoner there might know a thing or two more about how prisoners are treated there than the Red Cross or Al Gore, but that looks like the case.
Mohammed Ismail Agha was just released from Guantanamo Bay. Upon his release, Mohammed testified that he “had a good time” there and authorities “were very nice.” He was allowed to do school work, given good food, allowed to pray, taught English, given free books in his native language, and was even thrown a celebration in his honor with a send-off dinner and group photos.
All of a sudden, this kid is more prepared for the work force than most of the illegal immigrants President Bush wants to give all our jobs to.
Two things are wrong with this. First and most obviously, many on the left have been blatantly wrong in crying foul over Gitmo. It may be time for these liberals to stop trying to nit-pick every little thing with the war on terror and stop their whining.
The left, however, may be right about the need to take a closer look at Gitmo. Which brings me to the second problem: this is supposed to be a prison for some of the most wanted persons on this planet! Gitmo is supposed to be hard, yet some kid found it easy and said it was very nice there? Excuse me, but something is wrong with that. We shouldn’t be sending suspected terrorists to Cuban resorts.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 01:10 PM |
| Re: Is Kerry in trouble? |
Presidential hopeful John Kerry is in big trouble, and so is the Democratic Party, if Matt Drudge’s sources are correct.
The Drudge Report claims Kerry asked a former female intern to leave the
country after questions were raised about the senator’s relationship with
the woman. Drudge reports that General Wesley Clark apparently knew of the
relationship as well.
This developing story also explains why Howard Dean decided he would continue to campaign even if he lost Wisconsin – not because of all those Dean fans begging him to stay in the race, but because of a fresh new chance to regain the lead in the race for the Democratic nomination if Kerry plummets.
But there are a few questions that need to be answered about the validity of this story, of which the most confusing is: Why did Clark ditch the race if he knew about this scandal? If Kerry falls, it would have been a dash to the finish with Dean, Edwards and Clark.
Regardless, if this turns out to be true, the Democrats may likely end up with Dean as their presidential candidate. And, as most of us know by now, that would mean trouble for the Democrats.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:04 PM |
| Is Kerry in trouble? |
The conservative website, The Drudge Report, recently reported a story regarding a recent probe into the possible sexual affair between John Kerry and a staffer. Now, before you blow the story off because it came from Matt Drudge, remember two things: One, other more “reputable” news sites are backing him up, and two, you laughed at Drudge when he broke the Monica Lewinski story as well, but look at how accurate he was with that.
Regardless of whether the story about Kerry is true or not, The Drudge Report made one big mistake in claiming that this scandal would rock the Democratic primary. There’s no reason at all to believe that Democrats – especially the type who vote in primaries – care one bit about sexual infidelity. After all, they didn’t care about President Clinton’s sexual affair, why would they care about this?
Make no mistake: this isn’t nearly as bad as President Clinton. First, Clinton was in office; second, it was in the oval office; and third, he constantly lied about it.
If one thing became apparent with President Clinton, it’s that Democrats, in general, don’t really care about sexual infidelities. If this were a Republican primary, it may make a huge difference, but as far as the Democratic primary is concerned, I don’t see the results changing that much because of this story.
Prove me wrong, Democrats. Do what’s right, and prove me wrong.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 12:52 PM |
| Perfect plastic couple is no more |
Even the greatest fantasy relationships must end. "After 43 years of dating, Barbie and Ken have drifted apart," said Russell Arons, vice president of marketing at Barbie and Ken's parent company, Mattel.
Mattel says Barbie, born in 1959, will reclaim her identity as a California girl with a "carefree and independent look." The reasoning behind the break-up is it apparently allows Mattel to put a contemporary spin on the popular doll line.
With the popularity of the Barbie doll, I wonder if Mattel’s contemporary spin is really representative of society’s climate. “There are a lot of successful career women out there who don’t want to get tied down,” Arons said.
For those girls who aspire to be Barbie, the message is: Not only should your figure be perfect (though Barbie proportions are undoubtedly unrealistic), but when you become successful, don’t let a guy tie you down.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 11:06 AM |
February 09, 2004
| Times are a changin' |
In response to Hans Zeiger's recent column on the NEXT Web site regarding his corrupted suburban dream, there is no innocence lost in the suburbs. Just because the suburbs may be filled with wealthier white people doesn't guarantee social purity. As a product of Bellevue, I can attest to knowing plenty of bad people and dirty souls, many of whom were the products of affluent Christian families.
When I went to Eastside Catholic High School this became increasingly apparent. And older generations of fellow, former Bellevue residents helped solidify the reality that when they went to high school in Bellevue in the '80s, it was just as ignorant, material and drug-infused as it is today.
Zeiger is the product of Puyallup, hardly a suburb. His high school experience does not reflect suburban reality.
Zeiger seems to fear change, but change is inevitable. The world he yearns for resembles Kansas circa 1955. Like the old Bob Dylan lyric says, "Get out the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times, they are a changin'."
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:36 PM |
| An apple pie a day keeps the doctor away... |
...if the apple pie contains cinnamon, that is.
“After 40 days, 30 diabetics who had taken 1 to 6 grams of cinnamon extract daily reduced their risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Their mean fasting glucose fell 18 percent to 29 percent, their triglycerides 25 percent to 30 percent, their LDL (‘bad’) cholesterol 7 percent to 27 percent, and their total cholesterol 12 percent to 26 percent,” according to The Seattle Times.
Initially, scientists tried to determine which foods helped insulin function most effectively, which is crucial to diabetics. They discovered that cinnamon outpaced tea, cloves, bay leaves, turmeric and even broccoli. (Tell that to your Mom, who forced you to eat all your veggies!)
Although more conclusive studies are currently underway, a subgroup of the US Department of Agriculture has “applied for patents on the compounds in cinnamon responsible for the beneficial effects.” These compounds may be used in nutritional supplements and food additives.
However, there’s nothing stopping us from eating cinnamon right now – whether it be sprinkled on top of oatmeal, boiled in tea...and, of course, baked in apple pie. So eat up!
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:19 PM |
February 06, 2004
| Local American Idol |
I’m not a big fan of reality shows, but there is an interesting local story line behind this season’s show. Here is where I have to admit I’ve been watching bits of this season’s "American Idol."
Former Husky lineman Matt Rogers has successfully made it to the final 32 contestants. My roommate and I recalled times when Rogers would belt out country tunes in the weight room, and so seeing his face on American Idol was a surprise. In fact, you can read more about Rogers and see his face on the American Idol website.
Rogers gave proper shout outs to his UW teammates who won the 2001 Rose Bowl by flashing his victory ring. But when it was all said and done, his voice and determination allowed him to move on.
With all the current troubles facing the UW athletic department, it's good to see that Huskies can have success after they leave. Congratulations, Matt, you’ve allowed me to indulge in the guilty pleasure we call "American Idol." I’m watching purely for my Husky pride. I swear.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 09:44 AM |
February 05, 2004
| Homemade? What's that? |
“The proportion of dinners that came from a takeout counter or a grocery freezer increased by 24 percent in the past decade—and in five years is likely to overtake meals made from scratch,” according to Newsweek.
Some nutritionists attribute the growing popularity of take out to our nation’s growing awareness of “healthy” versus “unhealthy” fast foods. Ironically, as is typical of an increasingly lazy, sedentary population, “Americans have finally gotten the message that it's bad to eat a bucket of fried chicken larger than a wastebasket, so increasingly they're doing it at home where no one can see them.” Restaurants and supermarkets have kept pace with the demand, offering both exotic and fancy, high-end meals – complete with paper plates and plastic wrap.
Whatever happened to the quality, American family meal? Are we so far away from the days when children and parents could sit over homemade spaghetti, garlic bread and salad, and just talk? How long before the cookbook industry starts declining, and the work “homemade” and “fresh baked” are merely stickers on pre-made food bought at stores? –Christina Asavareungchai, NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 10:35 AM |
| Baby fat's not adorable forever |
Fifteen percent of American children and teens are obese, according to a recent Seattle Times article. Everyone knows that obesity is unhealthy, but in a child, it’s just plain scary! These kids weigh 200 pounds in elementary school, eat McDonalds as daily snacks and suffer from diseases, such as liver disease and type 2 diabetes.
Beyond the tried-and-true “eat healthy and exercise” solution, the question is how to help children who are already obese. First, parents need to stop being lazy and providing their children with cheap, nutritionally empty meals. Instead of serving KFC laden with fat and grease, parents need to cook meals such as salmon, green beans and brown rice. And instead of watching TV on Sunday afternoon, they need to take their children on hikes and biking trips.
Second, communities and schools need to step up their efforts to expose children to a healthy lifestyle. Communities can provide low-cost after school fitness clubs and classes to children, exposing them to the fun side of exercising through yoga, kickboxing, pilates, dance, basketball or nature hikes. These activities are FUN, and attract hordes of children to summer camp each year. Why shouldn’t they be year-round?
Schools can also help by opting for whole grain products, fat-free dressing and mayonnaise, as well as a wider selection of fresh fruits and vegetables. Nutrition and exercise fairs, walk-a-thons for charity and running clubs can do wonders.
Parents, communities and schools need to realize that children aren’t just going through stages of “baby fat,” and pudgy cheeks are no longer adorable. Obesity is a serious, life-threatening condition, and should be treated accordingly.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 10:27 AM |
February 03, 2004
| Here we go again |
Bush will choose a panel to look into the WMD intelligence embarrassment. That is definitely a good idea. I just think it’s a little odd that he would be the one choosing the panel, given past choices of his administration.
For example, he selected Henry Kissinger, a man viewed by many as a war criminal and the master of political deceit and corruption, to investigate 9-11 and possible embarrassing connections to or errors by the government and Bush family.
And before that, Mayor Xavier Suarez, the man kicked out of office in 1998 due to absentee ballot fraud, was one of the men in charge of Bush’s absentee ballot effort in Florida.
I’m not saying Bush did anything wrong in either case, or the other suspicious things that have been handled internally. No real investigation will ever give us a solid answer one way or the other. And that’s the problem. I’m just saying that if Bush really wants to have us believe him about his knowledge and motives with regards to the WMD intelligence, he should let someone else pick the panel.
But I’m guessing that, like Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who went on a nice fishing trip with Vice President Cheney while Cheney’s case was before the Supreme Court, or who presided over the Bush election hearing even though his own son worked for the law firm representing Bush, choosing to recuse or excuse oneself from such responsibilities isn’t likely to happen as long as we just keep letting the good ol' boys club slide.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:02 PM |
February 02, 2004
| More on: Half-time show hurrah? |
A reader's thoughts on the Superbowl's half-time show:
The Bud ad that glorifies domestic violence against men infuriated me. Many Bud ads feature violence against men or the demeaning of men. Popular tool in advertising these days.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 01:53 PM |
| Re: Half-time show hurrah? |
So CBS isn't above premeditated acts of pop trashiness, as evidenced by the
Superbowl half-time show, which featured a bevy of tired pop stars lip-synching old favorites, culminating with Janet Jackson's exposed breast.
Thank God they know how to send a consistent message. One minute it's government sponsored drug ads, the next minute it's another Jackson family member assulting America with their oversexed hysteria. CBS is a portrait of class.
Considering the moment will never die in the archives of MTV, CBS will be
remembered as the network that aired the trashy SuperBowl half-time show.
They wanted to play it politically safe and they ended up looking sleazy--funny how that works.
CBS' festival of pop star shame won't be remedied by further public apologies; it just needs to get its message straight. Is CBS the moral crusader it claimed to be a week ago, or is it just the corporate joke many of us knew it was all along?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:10 PM |
| Thanks, Jennifer Dunn |
It’s a shame; one of my political icons is retiring. It’s not only difficult for me to see Rep. Jennifer Dunn leave her post as the senior Washington state representative, but it will be a loss for the entire state. She is a remarkable woman, and since there a few strong conservative Congresswomen, her absence will leave a void--a void for those who have looked to her for guidance and leadership over her six-term tenure.
This woman was at one point considered for a cabinet position and recently was asked by Bush to run for the Senate. She is admired and respected. I hope the
Republican Party can find a replacement who can fill her shoes. I appreciate all her good work as a public servant--a woman of principle, dedication and fair-mindedness. She will be missed.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Vanessa Pierce at 12:04 PM |
| WMD investigation |
In response to a reporter’s question on whether he would support an
independent review of prewar intelligence on Iraq (and he since has), Bush said Friday: "I want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq.”
Well, it’s not too hard to come to a rough conclusion on that analysis. We have found leads, hints and traces of WMD programs and material in Iraq, but nothing like what the world thought the U.S. would find after toppling Saddam.
Obviously, as the CIA-appointed David Kay announced Wednesday, "We were
almost all wrong [about how big of a threat we thought Iraq was] — and I certainly include myself here."
Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons inspection team, pointed to a massive
intelligence failure: "All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD," Kay said in his Wednesday testimony to a Senate committee.
As America adjusts to a paradigm shift in lieu of this news, officials and politicians need to come out and speak candidly with the country. That is exactly what is beginning to happen behind the scenes.
"I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world we were
finding was not the world they thought had existed and that they had estimated,” Kay said. “And never, not in one case, was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was often the limited data we had. I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that. We get rid of people."
The truth is now out there: Saddam successfully fooled the U.S., UN and European intelligence communities into believing that it had developed or was developing WMD. Bush, along with Democratic senators who had access to this prewar intelligence, all supported the war based on their trust in U.S. intelligence.
So Bush never lied or misled the country. Instead, the world was duped.
The huge news here is that our intelligence-gathering resources and/or
techniques need revision--make that an overhaul.
For a reasoned perspective on this news, read conservative Jonah Goldberg’s
insightful thoughts. I’ll give you a teaser: his first line is, “George W. Bush should just admit he was wrong.”
Links:
Kay comments
Bush comments
Goldberg editorial
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 11:55 AM |
| Re: Half-time show hurrah? |
Even without the Timberlake-Jackson “wardrobe malfunction,” the Super Bowl half-time show was utterly ridiculous and repulsive to anyone who holds the faintest moral standards.
After an all-star cast of movie and music stars gave their hopelessly unoriginal sound bites (e.g. Tom Cruise: “Choose to care”), Jessica Simpson essentially mocks the pre-produced intro with this carefree exclamation: “Houston, choose to paaaarty!”
Well, so much for choosing to care.
Then, of course, the world got to witness the best MTV has to offer--hypersexualized dancing, top-40 songs and lip-synching.
A high school exchange student from Uzbekistan told me he thought the show
was disgusting. In the previous months, he has had many great things to say
about America, but the half-time show was a definite turn-off to American culture.
Why has the show worsened over the years? Remember the days when just one artist performed? What was so bad about that?
My only comfort is that the NFL doesn’t want to see MTV put on any more of their shannigans. Maybe if the XFL returns, then MTV could find a venue for
its “performances.” That would be much more fitting.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 11:45 AM |
| Half-time hurrah? |
OK, I was just commending Janet Jackson on being almost dressed--at least mostly covered--for a halftime performing rockstar when suddenly, a very vital part of her costume ended up in Justin Timberlake's hand.
The Superbowl half-time show has reached a new -- I dare not say high -- well, a new degree of "oops!" The "wardrobe malfunction," as Justin Timberlake called it, is better described as the part where he ripped off the part of Janet Jackson's costume which covered her right breast on national television. Football watchers everywhere stared at their screens saying to each other, "Was that supposed to happen?" It was not. CBS is not happy.
It is difficult to say much about the incident, but what can be said is that accident or not, it made the game memorable, though perhaps for the wrong
reasons. Needless to say, CBS has made it quite clear MTV will probably not
produce another halftime show.
Well, if nothing else, there's another "shocking TV moment" to add to the
ceaseless countdowns on VH1.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 11:36 AM |
|
Back to top