|
 |
 |
|
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. |
April 30, 2004
| Money talks |
Who says you can't put a price on justice? Former NBA star Jayson Williams was acquited of manslaughter charges earlier today and was found gulity of several lesser crimes that will likely result in probation, or a slap on the wrist.
Nevermind that he shot his limo driver in the chest, then apparently instructed all the witnesses to tell police they were downstairs at the time they heard the limo driver kill himself. Hmmm... sounds shady to me but hey, I don't have millions to throw around on expensive lawyers. I just don't understand the way the judicial system seems to buckle when applied to wealthy criminals.
American justice has a price, and that's a poor reflection on our judicial institutions and legal system in general. So much for guilt and common sense -- if you can afford it, you have a free pass to kill. Just ask OJ.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:33 PM |
| Fantasy camp |
John Hieger's recent response to my post, "A summer of discontent?", is just another one of a long line of fruitless, and often factually inaccurate, accusations that seem to be representative of the left's campaign strategy this year.
But bless them for trying -- campaigning for a dolt like John Kerry would also leave me to abandon him, and just attack the opposition.
Now, I wish I had the time to read and respond to all the novels written by leftist NEXT writers/bloggers, but I don't. So forgive me if I fail to address an issue that deserves a response.
Ridiculous quote No. 1: "The Facist Censorship Machine," Yes, I know it must be disheartening to not be able to get your precious smut during the Super Bowl anymore. But isn't the FCC an independent agency? And since when has it been a civil right to show one's breast(s) over the public airwaves?
As for the typical "Bush lied" crap, well, add President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary of State Madeline Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to that list also, because they also suggested or flat out declared that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "But they didn't take us to war..."
Ridiculous juxtaposition No. 1: Bush is beholden to his billionaire "homies" yet also wants to turn America into "a big Christian Wal-Mart." Now I know Bush may not be "jiggy with it" enough for some of you, but pick one or the other. Either Bush is a right-wing, religious fanatic who supports the average consumer, or he's a corporate swine who lives off the fat of the rich. But he can't be both.
Well, maybe in the world of the left he can be, but we're talking about reality here -- not Al Franken's Fantasy Camp.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 04:22 PM |
| Medals and ribbons and b.s. |
Karen Hughes, one of the President’s advisors, is “very troubled” by the act of Kerry throwing only his ribbons, not his actual medals, in protest of the war in Vietnam. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, she said “Now, I can understand if out of conscience you take a principled stand and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so, I think that's very revealing."
Is she serious? What is so “revealing,” Ms. Hughes? Ha, this is coming from a woman who advises a man whose military record is questionable, a man who never received any medals, a man who never faced a war setting, a man who did not see what went on in Vietnam, and a man who had the opportunity to volunteer to go to Vietnam but chose not to.
Oh, I can see the argument: “He honorably served in the National Guard and would have went if he was called.” Get the story straight. According to ABC News, “Of 2.5 million Americans who served in Vietnam, fewer than 25,000 — 1 percent — were in the National Guard. Of 58,000 GIs killed in Vietnam, about 100 were in the National Guard. That's about 0.2 percent.”
If our "honorable" president wanted to go to Vietnam, he could have. He did not; Kerry did. Kerry served honorably, is a war hero, won purple stars, silver stars, saved lives, etc. And he came home and was now against the war, stood by his beliefs, and threw his "symbols of war." Oh no, but it wasn’t his actual medals -- how revealing!
It sickens me that the issue of whether Kerry threw ribbons or medals is an issue to take away from his impressive military record. It sickens me. How is this issue even relevant to the campaign? It’s not. It’s all a ploy from the machine of Karl Rove to shy attention away from Bush’s own record. This is their comeback to defend the fact that Bush has a hole in his military past, and now they think Kerry does, too.
But Kerry has fallen into the Karl Rove trap: he was irresponsible and rude on the Today show, has gone back and forth on medals or ribbons, and now will be called the infamous “flip-flopper” once again on an issue that has nothing to do with him being the right person to be the next president.
Unbelievable...I just hope the American people do not fall into this trap. I just hope they can see what truly has been revealed.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:04 PM |
| A WASL rant |
Not sure how many of you had to suffer through the WASL last week, but here's just one comment: Standardized testing is a worthless waste of time.
Most standardized tests, especially the WASL, measure only one part of a student's skills: the writing. If you can explain, you can pass. This, however, leaves right-brained students in the dust. The question becomes, how effective can a state-wide test be if it only looks at the knowledge of, say, half the student population?
And now, "by 2008, the state will not allow students who fail to meet Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) standards to graduate."
As students, we do not deserve to be measured by a fill-in-the-blank test. We are all unique learners. And to take that a step further, graduation should have no connection whatsoever with a state-issued standardized test.
Our teachers have a much more intimate and accurate look at our learning abilities. They should be the ones deciding whether or not we're getting a diploma -- not some paper-pusher in some Olympia office.
I repeat: standardized testing is a waste of time. It should have no influence on our future, and especially not on whether we're going to graduate.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Hana Kawai at 03:53 PM |
April 29, 2004
| Pentagon parrots |
From now on, I'm keeping a saltshaker handy whenever I read the New York Times. Taking their news with just one grain of salt isn't going to cut it anymore -- especially when it comes to war coverage.
Wednesday's front page had a headline reading, "Hussein's Agents Are Behind Attacks in Iraq, Pentagon Finds." The article goes on to state that "many" of the Iraqis killing and maiming our soldiers are members of Saddam Hussein's "secret service."
Whew. For a while there, it looked like there were all sorts of hostile factions in Iraq, with different agendas and different tactics, ganging up on U.S. troops. A real mess, getting messier. But not to worry -- the Pentagon's looked into it, and we're still mostly fighting Saddamistas. As we all recall, there are no complications when it comes to Iraq's former regime: it's evil, and nasty, and worth every single sacrifice we incur along the way.
Of course, this is the same sort of military intelligence that told us yes, there are WMDs in them thar dunes -- and we even know where they are! This is the arm of government that had Paul Wolfowitz forecasting flowers and cheers for American soldiers instead of, say, rocket-propelled grenade attacks. And, of course, it's the same military intelligence that lowballed how many troops and how much money this excellent adventure would require.
To be fair, the article does mention that "other important assessments of American intelligence on Iraq have been challenged and even proven wrong." I think that little nugget belongs in a subhead, not the 4th paragraph, but hey, why take the air out of a nice, attention-grabbing headline? The most revealing detail of the story is that Saddam's secret service "planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad."
Gee, not a bad idea. Looks like when a tired, old figurehead -- in this case, Saddam Hussein -- was deluding himself on the probable outcome of an American invasion, his underlings went ahead and planned for the worst. Makes you wish we'd had some of that same foresight, even if our own deluded figureheads were convinced everything would turn out lemon-fresh.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nate Puckett at 04:47 PM |
| William Hung clarification |
I have received a ton of letters on my William Hung story, which is on the NEXT website. Much of the feedback has been positive.
I want to clarify, however, that I don't think there are a bunch of white supremacists behind this joke, or that the racial stereotypes are the main driver behind the joke. But rather that in so far as they have become part of the joke, they are then promoted and made "okay" in the public consciousness.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:37 PM |
| Re: Summer of discontent? |
It's hard to look at John Kerry and not feel like the Democrats are compromising with an uninspiring leader who was seemingly launched to the forefront of the Democratic ticket due to CNN deeming him "the most electable candidate."
Regardless, he has no record like President Bush's catastrophic blitzkrieg of our civil interests over the past three-and-a-half years.
Since 2000, Bush has managed to roll back environmental laws 30 years with key language to his energy bills being written by the likes of Ken Lay and other energy industry swine. He's turned the FCC into a facist censorship machine while deregulating media laws so that a couple of boneheads control most of the mainstream media. And he lied about a deadly war and encouraged corporate powers to exploit common Americans with minimal reprise.
Kerry may be wishy washy, but for those of us who still pay attention, he hasn't totally disregarded the American people for a handful of his billionaire homies. Bush wants to turn America into a big Christian Wal-Mart, and that's not my vision of liberty.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:26 PM |
April 28, 2004
April 27, 2004
| Bush on a stick |
Prosser Police Chief Win Taylor needs to get a life. Apparently some 15-year-old student there drew a picture of President Bush's head on a stick and some other less-than-flattering pictures of the president shooting missles, and the
police decided to contact the Secret Service.
Doesn't Prosser have a major meth problem? Why are Prosser police shaking down kids over drawings? Small town cops may tend to have little on their hands, but any cop who believes that a kid's drawing seriously poses a threat to our president isn't fit to be a cop. If Chief Taylor really wanted to do his part to protect national security, he wouldn't waste the Secret Service's time by having them nag some kid about insignificant images.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:11 PM |
| Update Higher Education Act |
There is an urgent need to update the federal Higher Education act of 1965, which is on schedule to be reauthorized this fall. According to a recent New York
Time's article, "Help Students, Not Banks," the Pell grant, which used to cover 80% of public college tuition now covers only half of that; in addition, federal college loan programs are not being run as efficiently as they could be.
With college application numbers dropping and tuition skyrocketing, it is imperative this act is updated and utilized with maximum efficiency.
The reauthorization of this act is integral to the success of higher level education in the nation. Already colleges are struggling to employ full-time professors and maintain the quality of the education they provide. The college experience should not be allowed to become too expensive for middle and lower class applicants.
Higher level education is teetering dangerously on the edge of spiraling downward; the last thing we want is to fall into some Dickensian standard of education where students have no idea where their money goes for what they get.
Pay attention in the fall for the federal Higher Education Act -- it is the first step in reviving the institution across the nation.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 04:04 PM |
| Where's justice in America? Gone hunting. |
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia really should recuse himself from the decision on whether Cheney will have to disclose the information on his infamous energy commission meetings.
As CNN points out, Scalia and Cheney are long-time buddies, and "Scalia, the vice president and two of Scalia's relatives flew together on a government jet to Louisiana for the duck hunt at a camp owned by an oil rig services executive."
This seems an even more clear-cut case of conflict of interest than when Scalia led the decision to make Bush president even though his own son worked for the law firm representing Bush.
Scalia insists he can be impartial, but come on. This is a decision that could affect the career and reputation of his good hunting buddy. He won't even be a little bit influenced, even subconsciously? And even if he amazingly could be truly impartial, his participation will still cast doubt on the decision.
But in the end he won't recuse himself, and I'll make a wild prediction that, as in many other cases, the conservative-majority Supreme Court decision will miraculously turn out to be along party lines, 5 to 4, in favor of the Republicans.
Of course, disclosure or no disclosure, the results of the meetings are obvious. Most of the Bush energy and environmental policies actually increase pollution and poisons in our air, land and water, and reduce costs, restrictions and controls for energy companies, especially in the heavily favored oil and coal industries -- industries Cheney and the Bush family have personal history, interests and connections in.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:27 AM |
April 26, 2004
| Sensitive side |
A reader responded to Leonceo Angsioco's story, "Gringos gone wild," about American tourists on spring break, to say:
Angsioco wants to know the answer behind Americans' "cultural insensitivity." It's probably because that's what Americans see foreigners doing in the U.S. all the time. They see Christmas being attacked and taken out of public displays because Jews, Muslims, or Hindus don't celebrate it. They see Christopher Columbus Day being replaced by Cesar Chavez Day or Native People Day. They see Halloween being put on the back burner while Day of the Dead festivals get front-page exposure. Schools are being criticized for "Eurocentric teachings." And don't forget the erosion of the English language. Maybe America's youth are just copying what they see.
Randy Henderson answers:
Well, if they are living in the US, participating in our schools, contributing to our culture, our taxes, and our overall language, they aren't foreigners. No, we can't tell all them thar Jews to go back to Israel, or all them blacks to go back to Africa, and take their customs with them. They are, in fact, Americans every bit as much as the white Christians who came here and took the land from the Native Americans, and have just as much right to contribute to our great, ever evolving culture.
Columbus Day? Columbus was an Italian working for Spain who stumbled on the American continents by mistake, then contributed to the exploitation of natives for gold. He wasn't even part of the history of the United States. And anyway, I hadn't heard that we were replacing our celebration of this sacred foreigner with that of another.
If some people choose to celebrate Cesar Chavez day instead, or the Native peoples and their culture that Columbus ultimately helped to decimate, that's their freedom as Americans. Same for any other holiday. To each his or her own.
And it's not like Christmas, Halloween, and the rest aren't a mixture of traditions borrowed from many cultures and pagan religions already, or that they haven't been heavily commercialized anyway.
As for the erosion of the English language, I'm sure the English will happily tell you that even "proper" American English is an erosion of Queen's English. And are we talking Southern White Gentleman English, or Bronx English, or Texas English? Are those pesky foreigners sneaking into our schools and altering our English books? Or are you referring to kids these days with their crazy hip hop African slang, all that sizzle my lizzle, bling bling my da' bomb stuff? Yeah, that's totally, like, gag me, ya' know? Like, it ain't even good English and stuff like white dudes use dude...and s#!t.
Can people get a little too politically correct sometimes? Yep. Can change sometimes involve overcompensation before a middle-ground is found? Yep. But do we need to evolve socially and be more inclusive and considerate of other cultures and religions? Yep.
Just as we moved past white males being the only ones who could hold office or vote, just as we moved past slavery and segregation, and work to get past open discrimination and mockery of other racial and ethnic groups in our country, we continue to grow past the narrow, white, Christian patriarchal monopoly on what everyone in the nation may officially celebrate, say or do.
And none of what you cited in such a culturally enlightened and "sensitive" manner excuses the kind of behavior Leonceo was criticizing.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:15 PM |
| Cease-fire? |
What's this talk about a cease-fire?
Did the Bush boys throw that word out there hoping that somebody might actually believe that things are getting better? You can't have a ceasefire if nobody has ceased to fire. It just doesn't work.
If anything, this nonsense about an imagined ceasefire just confirms that we are attempting to bargain with the insurgents, who can't be just small factions if they are keeping our military forces at bay.
To bring you up to date, 114 US Troops have been killed so far this month. That's one less than the amount killed during the initial 2-month invasion to topple Saddam. That was over a year ago. The math tells you this thing is getting exponentially worse.
Bush's favored "course" that he insists on staying has become a river of American blood, yet most people here support his foreign policies, failure or no failure. The blind continue to lead the blind.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:03 PM |
| Re: An American Hero |
The sad fact is that lots of people have given their lives not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but elsewhere, and not received so much press and praise and hero worship as Pat Tillman. So in the end Tillman is being celebrated not so much for giving his life for his country, but for sacrificing those things Americans truly worship and hold dear: celebrity and millions of dollars.
This doesn't take anything away from his legitimate patriotism, heroism or sacrifice. But it does say something about our culture.
Further, I fully expect a spat of books and made-for-television movies on Tillman. At least this time it will be more legitimate than the deliberately staged "rescue" of Jessica Lynch from a safe, civilian hospital where she was being cared for by staff who had already tried to return her to the American troops.
But as in the case of Jessica, those who underwent the same experience but aren't so photogenic or perfect for our mainstream media consumption (like, say, Shoshana Johnson) will not get million-dollar book deals and endless lauding on talk shows.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:58 PM |
| More on: Marijuana: better and safer than Ritalin? |
It is very true that no drug is completely free of side effects or potential dangers to the wrong people. Some people are allergic to aspirin. Some people have adverse reactions to cute cuddly kittens. Some people already vulnerable to schizophrenia may suffer ill effects, so should not be given pot. Nor should pregnant women, etc.
The loss of motivation is perhaps the most legitimate concern. However, to a certain degree this is a chicken and egg question. Are these people lethargic, unmotivated or rambling because they smoked pot, or is smoking pot just another thing that these naturally unmotivated, lethargic and rambly people do? Is smoking pot just another symptom of the same biological, social and psychological factors that are the real causes of those other symptoms?
Personally, I tend to think it enhances natural tendencies to be stupid and lazy in people that would be stupid or lazy anyway, but it doesn't cause them to be stupid and lazy. They'd find something to waste their time and brain cells on. Like television. Talk about something that enhances laziness and kills brain cells!
It's like those anti-drug ads that show teammates or children being let down because the person they were relying on was smokin' up. "Just tell them you were too busy getting stoned." But the pot didn't cause the person to skip the swim meet, or blow off picking up the kid. The person is just irresponsible. Whether they blow off their obligations to play video games, to meet someone at a motel, to go fishing or to smoke pot, these things are the results, not the cause.
Reply to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:55 PM |
April 23, 2004
| An American Hero |
Pat Tillman, an American hero, died yesterday while serving in Afghanistan. An Army Ranger and former NFL Safety with the Arizona Cardinals, Tillman turned down a promising pro football career to join the Special Forces after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
He never sought publicity for his decision to leave the NFL and is, in my opinion, a true, unadulterated hero. God bless and let us all hope to live with his passion and desire.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 05:01 PM |
| Re: Marijuana better and safer than Ritalin? |
No, I'm not saying it means you're a worthless person if you smoke pot; it just means you're not going to be as likely to be a high energy go-getter if you smoke regularly, like the majority of pot users.
A couple of studies by a couple of institutes don't close the door on pot's benefits or consequences as a whole. I've also read that marijuana use stimulates the propensity for schizophrenia among users with a genetic history of mental illness. It isn't fair to paint a drug as entirely beneficial, when there is an obvious downside.
Ultimately 10,000 stoners can't be wrong. I went to Hemp Fest last year and outside of the random assortment of ammusing characters, there is a noticeable glazed-over, comatose vibe to the sedated crowd, which is fine if that's your thing. But then you have to suffer through the rambling speeches of marijuana advocates who have been hitting the chronic for a little too long and it becomes ever so apparent that the drug does take an obvious toll on the brain and its cells.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:43 PM |
| A real sports hero |
There are not very many people in this country that would turn down a $3.6 million contract to play in the NFL, and instead fight for their country. Well, there was a young 25-year-old who did do that. Patrick Tillman was killed today in a firefight in Afghanistan at the age of 27.
What catalyzed him to walk away from millions of dollars when in today’s sports worlds athletes are complaining about not making enough money? September 11th, when the country was in peril, he put her first and walked away from a huge amount of self-serving cash.
This is the definition of sacrifice, to walk away from a comfortable life to fight in a war zone for your country. Yes, hundreds of soldiers have died and they all have sacrificed, but to walk away from a luxurious life to put your life in danger is a different circumstance. He also didn’t want any publicity when he left the NFL to fight in Afghanistan, and he declined interviews. This was not self-serving -- something unheard of in the current day of the sports world.
He should now be looked upon as a hero in the sports world. The sports world should now understand that money isn’t everything, endorsements aren’t everything, and publicity isn’t everything. I hope this will open the eyes of some of those selfish athletes to see that sacrifice, courage and bravery are not all about what you can do on the basketball court, on the baseball diamond or the football field. This was an example of great sacrifice, and I have nothing but respect and honor for Patrick Tillman.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 03:57 PM |
| More on: Closed cargo |
In answer to Randy Henderson's questions:
We typically pay a small free-lance fee to people who submit photos that we publish. In this case, the person who took the picture didn't want payment. In retrospect, that is probably just as well because some readers might have felt she had a financial motive for allowing us to publish the picture.
Written by Michael Fancher, executive editor of The Seattle Times
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 03:05 PM |
| Re: Closed cargo |
I tend to agree with John: pictures of coffins are a necessary reminder of the real cost of the war. Shots of guns and tanks and bombs are all fine, but whether a war is just or not, going well or not, we should never forget that it involves real human lives.
I would put two caveats on that: one, that the coffins are anonymous, and two that the picture is not used to promote or sell something that the people who gave their lives would strongly protest.
On a side note, and not to bite the hand and all that, but I'm curious as to why the Seattle Times didn't pay the photographer. It ran on the front page of the Sunday Times, is an incredible photograph not easily come by, and is a nationally debated photograph giving the Times a lot of press. You'd think it would be worth a few bucks at least.
Are there policy, legal or ethical reasons? Would paying for it be somehow different from simply accepting and running it? I'm sure there are others beside myself who, upon learning that the photographer and her husband were both fired over the picture, might wonder the same.
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 03:00 PM |
| Re: Closed cargo |
John Hieger is right about the Pentagon's policy regarding images of coffins, even though he's incorrect to call it a "law." Someday, if John Ashcroft sticks around long enough, this definition may become accurate. Jon will then be correct, I'll be wrong, and we'll all have much bigger problems to deal with.
It's obvious who this policy is looking out for, and it isn't military families. When people get fired for taking pictures of coffins -- not bodies, but flag-draped coffins -- that's not a decision driven by the need for national security, or a desire to ease the pain among families of dead soldiers. It's a public relations move.
Sadly, in the context of our current administration, this isn't even a particularly egregious case of political P.R. taking precedence over that pesky little thing called the truth.
Just in the past couple of weeks, we've had the casket flap. We've had the Pentagon delete parts of public transcripts that are, shall we say, inconvenient for the Secretary of Defense and his boss. (Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld is on a covert mission to make satire obsolete. Whatever the reason, he sure keeps upping the ante.)
We've had the U.S. Treasury Dept. -- which is funded, incidentally, by every citizen who pays taxes -- reprinting talking points from the Republican National Committee, under the guise of "April 15th tax day reminders." And, since John's irony detector is in fine working order, we've even witnessed the Dark Pot himself, Dick Cheney, calling the kettle black.
There's a patten at work here, and it goes well beyond partisan politics. We obviously have a cadre of decision-makers (mostly men) who consider "protecting America" and "covering my own wretched, ideologically-driven posterior" to be the exact same exercise. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they happen to be working in the highest levels of our government.
Whether or not they actually believe the hollow claims behind their own wretched excess, or have instead just become terminally cynical, is academic. Either way, those are still facts being removed from the public record. That's still political propaganda being pasted into government documents. And those are still bodies being shipped home -- within the coffins, under the American flag.
Written by Nate Puckett of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:56 PM |
| Re: Marijuana better and safer than Ritalin? |
Worthless? Really? I know plenty of people who use it regularly, and worthless is not a feeling that I've ever heard expressed.
Relaxed, yes. Hungry, yes. Worthless? No. But as with all drugs, of course, results may vary, and it may be just enhancing feelings that already exist.
As for depression, marijuana is technically a hallucinogen, not a depressant. Studies, such as one by Gruber, Pope and Oliva in 1997 found that marijuana smokers reported reduction in depression and anxiety.
Whether it is real (biological effect), or purely psychological, is hard to say. Here's a little more info on the subject.
In point of fact, I've known people who were battling depression, as well as OCD and PTSD, and after being put through a wonderful series of legal drugs that destroyed their digestion, caused constipation, loss of appetite and sex drive, and had other fabulous short- and long-term side effects (just listen to the end of most legal drug commercials), found that pot did the trick.
Finally, the memory retention issue is largely another of those marijuana myths.
The NAS study found that there may be natural and understandable feelings of short-term memory loss during the period when someone is high. But pot does not cause any actual lasting effects on memory. You don't lose any memory, and aren't more prone to forget things outside of the high state.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT |
| Posted by kkim at 01:19 PM |
April 22, 2004
| Closed cargo |
The federal policy against publishing pictures of caskets is total crap. Bush Sr. imposed this visual censorship back in 1991 and today people still defend it.
The argument for protecting this inane law is that it protects grieving families from painful images. If the government is truly concerned about the emotional suffering of military families, they wouldn't leap into irresponsible military actions that ultimately result in American casualties. This law is about bad PR and that's pathetic.
Coffins aren't intimate, they are faceless reminders of the real cost of war. A government that shuns images of those who paid the ultimate price is a government that's ashamed of its cause. The rationale is out of sight, out of mind. Our government wants us to forget the real human tragedy of their lame policies.
The dead deserve better than to be hidden and forgotten.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:28 PM |
| Re: Marijuana better and safer than Ritalin? |
Responding to "Marijuana better and safer than Ritalin?"
I have a pretty good idea of what pot does and doesn't do, and while I laugh heartily at government propaganda marketing marijuana as the next plague, we have to be honest, a drug is a drug.
Is marijuana safer than alcohol? Yes. Will marijuana cure someone of their depression? Doubtful. It may put everything in a new light, but the drug itself is a downer and once the smoker is "poor baked" and the initial high is gone, they tend be left with an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness.
As far as curing ADHD, yes, it will chill the common speed freak out, but its value as an educational tool is laughable at best. Enhancing memory retention isn't one of pot's strong suits.
Oh, well, the more cases we can make to legalize that funky, little drug, the better.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:22 PM |
April 21, 2004
| Finally, I'm addicted to something! |
And I thought I was normal... silly me. I finally have some addiction to complain and sue about because it isn't my fault! A recent study has found that people can be addicted to such items as ribs and chocolate. The vital discovery was the link of brain activity when presented with a favorite food that was similar to the reaction of a coke addict getting ready for his next snort.
Wait a minute... I love ribs and chocolate! In fact, I have ribs and chocolate whenever I have a chance! No wonder I'm freakishly skinny with the muscle mass of a flying squirrel! I'm just waiting for the first silly lawsuit to come out of this.
Of course, my brain's going to be excited about a burger... I LIKE BURGERS!! Don't take them away, or I'll become very angry, maybe even twitchy. My fiance wouldn't complain too much, though... she hates burgers.
Obese people have something else to do now again besides exercise-complain about the additives Tony Roma's puts in those ribs which made them have to come back. Then the government can put warning labels on my Big Mac.
I'm curious what's next, sports addiction? Because I can't wait for the next World Series game (which, of course, won't include the M's, who by that time will have choked in August again) and am excited now I can be addicted to baseball.
Wow, talk about being addicted to punishment.
Seriously, people, please be reasonable about a study like this. Ribs taste great, and do not cause people to not exercise and not eat vegetables.
By the way, I'm also addicted to love and Jesus, it just hasn't been scientifically proven yet.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:21 PM |
| Hate sites a reason for web awareness education |
Hate sites are targeting youth, putting games and "educational" information up with racist and hate messages, and misinformation such as that the Jewish holocaust never occurred. Some sites are to recruit terrorists, some are just to promote white supremacist-type agendas.
Students today rely heavily on the web for their information, and do much of their research online. I know I do. Unfortunately, not everyone knows how to determine the accuracy of information given, or to validate sources. And a lot of students don't even care to, as long as they get their paper done. This especially becomes an issue on sites like the racist site that poses as a legitimate educational resource on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And few people stop to assess the psychological or sociological impacts of a simple shoot 'em up game where all the victims are black or Jewish, or to wonder "how is this game subtly influencing my overall world view."
This will sadly contribute to the erosion of what progress has been made in civil rights and social awareness. It will help perpetuate the creation of groundless fears, hate groups, terrorists, and even the acceptance of and blind eye towards "respectable" leaders with thinly veiled racist, sexist, and homophobic views like Trent Lott and Rick Santorum.
Should the internet be censored, or controlled? No. But basic education today should emphasize the unreliability and dangers of getting information from the internet and drill students on how to verify any information found there. This is being done to some degree, but not consistently or on a level equal to the reality of how central the internet has become to research and information seeking.
Students don't go to their library or encyclopedia for info. They go to Google, and Google doesn't screen out the BS from the truth. That is something the user must learn to do.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT |
| Posted by kkim at 05:09 PM |
| Marijuana better and safer than Ritalin? |
Yet another positive use of pot - a treatment for ADD and ADHD. Add this to being a cure for nausea, insomnia, depression, helping cancer and AIDS patients, and more. Further whittling away at the reefer madness myth.
Sadly, government officials continue to be ignorant of, or else are misrepresenting, their own facts. The comprehensive 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences (the government’s official scientific advisory body) on marijuana actually showed that the supposed health risks of pot are less than many common foods we eat, and certainly less than other drugs or even alcohol. No proof of brain damage, gateway drug effects, or the rest of the doom and gloom.
Yet we continue to get statements like the one by Jennifer DeVallance, spokeswoman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy: "It flies in the face of responsible medicine to advocate a drug that had been known to have over 300 carcinogens and has proven to be as damaging to the lungs as cigarette smoking,"
In point of fact, the NAS study found that while pot does have carcinogens (anything you burn and inhale would), most people smoke pot on occasion, unlike tobacco cigarettes, which are often smoked at a rate of 15-60 a day, every day. So even when you take away all the chemical additives in cigarettes, you'd have to be a millionaire and chain smoking Cheech and Chong sized joints to get anywhere close to the same level of carcinogens.
In the end, the NAS study found no evidence that smoking pot led to increases in lung cancer.
And of course, teens with ADD or ADHD wouldn't have to smoke pot, so guess what? No carcinogens. Next excuse?
I find it encouraging that this was the best argument that they could come up with. Maybe they are finally running out of excuses. It will be nice when we can get past the cycle of conservative BS. Of course, as long as the very people who promote the misinformation control whether or not pot can even be studied or used in order to prove them wrong, and as long as a part of the DEA's funding relies on pot being illegal, that could take a while.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT |
| Posted by kkim at 05:01 PM |
| Re: The Buck Stops Where? |
Responding to The Buck Stops Where?
Bush doesn't need to have a relationship with the press. He rarely dares to answer their unscripted questions, period. He does deign to give us carefully prepared speeches full of empty rhetoric every now and again, but almost never actually opens himself up to real inquiry. And when he does, he generally sounds like ... uh... look, it's like this ... that is ... what he... or I ... that is, I think I've made myself clear here. Evil doers. Freedom and democracy. Stay the course. Thousand points of ... no, er, I mean ... evil evildoers. Yes, next question?
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT |
| Posted by kkim at 04:48 PM |
| Re: New improved goals |
A reader responds to "New improved goals":
Randy, Iraq already was a breeding ground--and a feeding ground. Terrorists could both recruit there and expect the government to support or at least tolerate them. Sure, Iraq isn't the only country that has supported terrorists. But it is one less. And it shows the others that we are serious about going after terrorism where it lives instead of waiting for it to come to us.
Some countries have already started to respond. Libya, for example. Pakistan did the same thing, and without their support it would have been pretty impossible to attack Afghanistan as we did. (For an example of this in the news, click here.)
Meanwhile, Iraq has become very central to the war against radical Islamists. That war is going in the right direction.
Response from Randy Henderson:
First, it is true that Iraq supported terrorists. Saddam supported terrorist fighters against his neighbor and enemy (which was also our enemy), Iran. He also supported "terrorist" rebels in Turkey.
But did Saddam support al Qaeda? No. Supporting radical Islamic groups would have been counter to Saddam's secular dictatorship and his brutal oppression of the Muslims in his own population. Was Saddam involved in 9-11? No. These are important distinctions.
As the reader points out, other countries support terrorists. In fact, it would be more accurate to say most countries do, including America. We trained, supported, and supplied Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and their fighters when their interests aligned with ours. Then they were "freedom fighters." Now, they are "evil doers" and "enemies of freedom."
But we did not attack other countries that support terrorists bent on attacking America. We focused on Saddam, a dictator who was bent only on expanding his local power.
True, Libya has changed. But their collapsed economy and desparate need to be re-accepted into the international trade community had more to do with that than Iraq.
What did I get out of the link the reader supplied? The fact that "it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast... In addition to Shell, other British firms have already begun tapping the opportunities in Libya." Afghanistan, and to an even lesser degree Iraq, may have hastened the decision a little, but they did not cause it.
As for Pakistan, that is a bit of flawed logic saying Iraq influenced their supporting us in Afghanistan since Afghanistan happened before Iraq.
Yes, Bush has made Iraq central to the war against radical Muslim--unfortunately for the Iraqi people. He has created conveniently located targets out of our troops, so the radical Muslims can now come to Iraq to attack Americans--and they are.
Through poor post-war planning and a prolonged U.S. rather than U.N. occupation, Bush has contributed to the level of anger against America--and the civil strife and upheaval between classes, political groups, religions, and ethnicities in Iraq. And he has made Iraq a recruiting ground not just for local fights, but for Islamic extremist groups abroad.
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:33 PM |
| Re: Where's the diversity? |
From a reader responding to "Where's the diversity?"
"...is picking someone just so your team looks politically correct really the best idea, especially in cases where there are more qualified white candidates?"
So, kinda of like how the Democrats are putting forward John Kerry instead of Howard Dean, who is the whole reason the Demo's have a shot this year? As I recall, the main reason many voters gave was Kerry's 'electability', a word I didn't even know existed until this year.
I'd also guess that you aren't a huge fan of affirmative action, eh?
The answer is, yes, people pick politicians to be politically correct, and Kerry so far is dropping the ball on the issue. It's just the way our country is right now. White isn't always right. I can say that, I am white.
And, seriously, if Kerry is going to let Bush, of all people, be seen as putting forth diversity more then he is...for shame.
Written by a NEXTopia reader
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 03:26 PM |
April 19, 2004
| Re: Where's the diversity? |
Responding to "Where's the diversity?"
True, the article points out that the inner-circle of Kerry's primary campaign staff is all white, though he has multiple advisers who are not. As the article also points out, Kerry has yet to form his general election staff, let alone set up his administration -- and is committed to making those racially and ethnically diverse.
Out of curiosity, since the article is comparing Kerry's primary campaign team against Bush's administration, I would also like to see the makeup of Bush's original primary team from the 2000 elections, as compared to his current administration.
And I would like to see Kerry's administration be nationally representative, so that it can be, well, nationally representative. By that, I mean it would be important for Kerry, or any president, to have people close to him to keep him in touch with the real issues and concerns of all Americans, not just WASPs. Even though that's what polls, interest groups, and our votes supposedly do.
On the other hand, is picking someone just so your team looks politically correct really the best idea, especially in cases where there are more qualified white candidates?
Take Condi Rice. Assuming she were chosen because she was best for the job, would African Americans say that Rice necessarily represents them? Conversely, if Rice were chosen in part to show that the Bush Administration is inclusive, was Rice really the most qualified person for her position?
How often will picking the best person for the job turn out to conveniently result in ethnic and racial diversity? How often will picking a staff to look ethnically and racially diverse result in the best possible job being done for America?
It's complex. But in the end, it is politics, so whatever the answer, I guarantee Kerry's administration will be diverse.
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:57 PM |
| New improved goals |
Brent Ludeman states that we have been largely successful in Iraq because we have captured Saddam, killed his sons, captured or killed most of his key Baath party officials, and there's a new Constitution.
The problem is, this is not really success. Let's ignore the poor post-war planning, continued fighting, American deaths and the fact that you and I are going to be paying the lion's share of this "success" in taxes for years to come. Even then, to say we were successful you have to be measuring success against the premise that our entire reason for going into Iraq begins and ends with stopping Saddam from being mean to his own people. That is not why we went.
We went to Iraq as part of a war on terror. And as a result, Iraq is now a breeding ground and recruiting poster for terrorists. We've lost billions of dollars and scores of American lives to create a political mess, when we could have been securing our infrastructure and giving greater support to hunts for bin Laden and al Qaeda cells. Success? Really?
True, once the evidence for WMDs and terrorist links started falling apart, as documents turned out to be forged, intelligence false, and leads empty, Bush started to really play up the chest swelling, tear producing rhetoric about America bringing freedom and happiness to a brutally oppressed people.
But if we wanted to be in the business of knocking down brutal or oppressive regimes, or bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed peoples of the world, we'd be invading countries left and right. We aren't.
We only invaded Iraq, because Iraq has always had a special place in Bush's heart and the long-established plans of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Too bad we have to pay such a heavy price to prove the folly of their half-baked neo-con vision of pre-emptive war and democratizing the Middle-East.
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:50 PM |
| Censoring Cheney |
Dick Cheney got a taste of his own medicine in Bejing last week when portions of a speech he gave at a Chinese University were later edited in reproductions.
The Chinese are about as intolerant as -- dare I say -- our own government these days when it comes to political dissention of any sort. So it makes perfect sense that when Tricky Dick Cheney started spewing empty rhetoric about "the desire for freedom is universal," the Chinese censorship machine went into overdrive.
The Chinese aren't fond of anything regarding "indivudual freedom" much less when it comes from a censorship maniac like Dick Cheney. Ironically, Cheney was too enveloped in his own hypocrisy to see the humor in censoring a censor.
The New York Times reported that, "American officials say that to the best of their knowledge the Chinese side lived up to the letter of their agreement on Mr. Cheney's speech, but expressed frustration that the record was later expunged."
Poor Dick, I guess it sucks when your own ideals regarding limitations on expression come back to bite you in the butt. It reminds me of something Justin Saint Claire wrote about in his column this weekend in NEXT: "It's good to have right-wing, conservative, disconnected individuals who seek to hold people to standards they themselves wouldn't meet if facing similar circumstances."
Sounds about right.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:40 PM |
| Re: Here's to free speech |
I agree with John Hieger on the need for both teams to try and actually win something here -- the Sonics are already realizing (as the M's should too) that the fans will only come if the product is worth watching. The Sonics were young, immature, irresponsible, and should be put down. If I'm supposed to pay 50 bucks for a seat close enough to recognize the players as more than insignificant specks, then they sure better decide they want to at least try to make it close.
I recommend another solution, perhaps a little more extreme than Mr. Heiger. If an overpaid millionaire is playing far below his potential, we could take his contract to a fan vote (renew vs fire). It could be a made-for-TV primetime special, maybe with me in the Donald Trump role. I'd love to look in Jerome James' face and say, "You're Fired!" -- even though I do lack the toupee to really pull it off.
Basically, both teams suck right now, and I'm holding out hope for the Seahawks -- before they throw my optimism in the garbage as well.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:33 PM |
| Re: The Commission, Clinton and Clarke |
"Bush hater"...ah, the infamous two words people who disagree with Bush constantly hear, and will hear until November. The "Bush haters" are perceived to hate Bush and have no basis for what they are saying. The truth is these people don't hate Bush, but they do hate his policy.
I myself actually like the president's personality; it's never bothered me. He seems like a guy I can hang out with, have a drink with, whatever. But, that does not qualify one to be a good leader for this country.
Yes, as Brent Ludeman points out, maybe some "Bush haters" are watching too much Michael Moore. But it's more probable that the "non-haters" are watching too much Fox News...no wait, Fox is "fair and balanced," never mind.
Ludeman's latest blog points out that our President has sent Al-Qaeda running. I agree, he sent them running -- straight to Iraq!
Iraq has become the new camp and new breeding grounds for their terror organization and many more. The most recent CNN/USA Today poll: 64% Americans believe Al Qaeda is involved in Iraq; 26% don't believe Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Our soldiers have targets on their backs with lunatic suicide bombers, insurgents, loyalists, militia, and probably more random people after them. Our president has done a poor job on terror, and he has made the terrorists' goals easier by putting our soldiers in harms way and not keeping us any safer.
How are we safer than before the war? The most recent CNN/USA Today poll: 48% believe we are less safe; 41% believe we are more safe. There are no weapons of mass destruction. It is so sad when I hear Bush's strong point for this election is his fight on terror. So sad.
Yes, John Kerry did vote for this war. But these conclusions were reached from the misleading of our Commander in Chief and his administration. In our democracy, we elect a leader to make responsible decisions for the best of our country. We believe that and we expect Congress to support our leader.
We don't expect to be misled, but we were. Many supported the war at first, but now many of these same supporters know that our leader has misled us. And one of the many people who were misled will appropriately be the next president of the United States.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:28 PM |
| Re: The buck stops where? |
Responding to "Re: The buck stops where?"
It's a little incredulous to think that reporters want to maintain a good reputation with President Bush by asking him softball questions. The media/Bush relationship is already shot. Remember during the 2000 campaign when Bush called a New York Times reporter a "major-league asshole" (and the retorts from journalists are a lot worse)?
Anyone who spends a few months inside the Washington, D.C., environment (or, for that matter, is a regular observer of media reports) will recognize the
hostility that exists between the Bush administration and most journalists. This is true to some extent for every presidency, but this round the relationship is hostile, to put it nicely.
What investment do reporters have in "staying on Bush's nice side," anyway?It's not like Bush (or any president) sees the media as a cohort of friends and pals who are willing to help him spread his message.
Sure, journalists have connections within the White House, and there are relationships that have developed ("incestuous" relationships among media/government members exist if you ask Wall Street Journal columnist John
Fund).
But there's a balance of powers that gives great incentive for reporters to flaunt Bush's respect and favor: The adversarial, controversial, Bush-criticizing articles are what makes an interesting story and makes a New York Times or Washington Post editor smile. Not to mention, it promotes the ideological beliefs of most journalists. That's the way the media-president relationships have generally always been.
Note: Robert Novak agrees.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:13 PM |
| Limiting yourself |
I assumed by the title that Justin St. Clair’s Feb. 18 article in NEXT would be a critique of the limitations of a two-party democracy. Instead it was the same old rant about how the democrats need to get it together.
So what’s new? Anger at the lack of liberalism in the Democratic Party is the fuel behind the campaigns of Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Ron Sims and many others. The Dems aren’t going to get back to their core beliefs by becoming a new party, and waiting around for a “sleeper” savior won’t do much good either.
But the idea that American politics is suffering stagnation from the centering of the two political parties is something I agree with. Yet this is a concern of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
I guarantee you that there is an organized political party to fit everyone’s ideology (somehow it seems Pat Buchanan is evolved in half of them). From the extremely liberal Natural Law Party to the extremely conservative American Party and everything in-between--clearly when it comes to political parties if you believe it, they have organized a party around it. Just look at the choices.
We don’t need Clinton to go Green or Bush to switch to the Prohibition Party (which seriously still exists). We just need people to start voting beyond asses and elephants if we want more than two parties.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 04:05 PM |
April 16, 2004
| Re: The buck stops where? |
In response to "The buck stops where?":
As for President Bush’s ability to say a lot without saying anything, I would have to partly blame the press. Over and over Americans hear the constant drone of the Bush administration on TV and in newspapers about how "Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator and the world is better off without him." Well, okay. But we've already taken that information in and are hungry for something new.
Reporters will ask the president questions, good questions, but to no surprise he rambles off topic and leaves the public with nothing but the monotone we have heard before. It is up to the press to keep challenging him, and get in his face if he isn't answering their question. Many journalists back down after a non-answer answer, in order to stay on Bush’s good side.
Sure, there are eager reporters out there, but those people have not gotten their chance at our Commander-in-Chief. But before the public hears the explanation they want to hear, the news media will have to risk their good reputation with Bush for a better reputation with America.
Written by Kailani Koenig-Muenster of NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:15 PM |
| Where's the diversity? |
CNN’s Carlos Watson has an interesting article today about Kerry’s inner circle, which, for a Democratic presidential candidate banking on 25% percent of his vote coming from minority voters, is a lot like the town I grew up in… really really white.
Here are the positions in his campaign not run by either African Americans or Hispanics: campaign manager, campaign chairperson, media adviser, policy director, foreign policy adviser, general election manager, convention planner, national finance chairman, and head of VP search team.
This is in rather stark comparison to Bush’s administration, which has minorities in prominent roles.
As a swing voter who is still undecided, it appears more like a Massachusetts liberal campaign than an inclusive campaign. If Kerry wants to tell minorities and those who care about racial issues that he’s the candidate for them, I need to see it in action.
Al Gore’s campaign had an African American campaign manager, political director and finance director. Kerry should take a lesson from him, otherwise it’s just going to be one more issue that the Republicans can easily paint him in the “waffle” corner.
Written by Gavin Hesse of NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:08 PM |
| Here's to free speech |
Another dismal season of Sonics basketball was highlighted Monday when I spotted a single-prop Cessna flying circles over Key Arena pulling a banner stating, "Go Sonics! Fire Wally Walker!"
Now that's effective use of freedom of speech. Maybe the blimp stunt will be incentive for the Sonics to finally put together a contender.
Every failed leader should be held to such public scrutiny. Imagine our elected officials being subjected to visible displays of public hatred outside of the standard media routines. Blimps toting career-killing messages in neon print at 5,000 feet--now that would rouse the complacent. There's something beautiful about sticking it to unaccountable, millionaire failures.
That said, how about those Mariners? What's the average age on that team, 47? While Anaheim dropped some cash and made bold trades during the off season, the stingy Mariner management sat on its hands and produced the same under-achieving roster we watched fizzle last year.
At what point will fans realize that we're stuck with a bad product? The Mariners boasted some of the best fan attendance in baseball last year, despite missing the playoffs. Apparently the management could care less about winning; it just wants to milk our loyalty until we run this franchise into the ground.
Talk about your typical hit and run economics: make a quick buck and hope it takes Joe Public a while before he realizes he's been had. The Mariners are starting to smell like the Sonics, and there just isn't enough room in this town for that many over-paid losers.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:59 PM |
April 15, 2004
| To boldly go... |
Imagine. Starting Thursday, the best of the best in Science Fiction writing will be collected into one tiny hotel in our very own Seattle. They are here for the Nebula Awards, the highest honor in science fiction writing.
While this may not strike a particulary poignant chord with many of you, I happen to find it quite exciting. This is Seattle's first time hosting, since the award first started in 1965 and all of the top science fiction writers and editors will be here. For a mere $30 you can go for the panel discussions and mix and mingle with some of the SF greats.
While many of you are shaking your heads at me, imagining a girl obssessed with robots, spaceships and multi-tentacled aliens who reads SF as a way to escape my mundane existence, I would like to point out a few fun facts:
Science Fiction is not always parading around space and seeking new life-forms, though sometimes it is; however, it is always about speculating. It extrapolates about the progress in technology, culture and society. Whether it is about the future or simply a different type of existence, it is always asking the question "what if?"
By not having to adhere to the typical, modern conventions of literature, it is able to explore many relevant and serious topics like racial tensions and interpersonal relationships in a completely different context. This makes it no less serious or impactful than the "literary" novels which deal with the same subjects. Science fiction makes dreaming possible, but always with the chance of a reality-friendly "maybe it could, maybe it will."
So before you scoff, give Science Fiction a chance; its not all fluff. For the full emersion effect, look in on a few panels this weekend or go to the multi-author book signing on Friday. And the next time someone mentions the "Nebs" you might have more apprectiation for the merits of science fiction.
Resond to this posting
|
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 12:40 PM |
April 14, 2004
| The buck stops where? |
An interesting thing about President Bush: almost everyone seems to have a clear idea of exactly who he is and what he represents. If you support him, you see a straight-talking, hard-nosed fella--a man who's willing to take a stand and stick with it, regardless of the political fallout. Soldiers may die, deficits may grow, WMDs may go missing. But you always know where Bush stands. He stands by his actions.
If you dislike him, many of the same qualities are equally apparent; they just morph into negatives. Straight talk becomes simple-minded rhetoric. The hard-nosed tenacity becomes hard-headed arrogance. And the fact that Bush stands by his actions, no matter what the real-world fallout may be, becomes the best reason to reject him in November.
So it was pretty disconcerting to watch his prime-time press conference on Tuesday--a decidedly circular performance of political contortion, distortion, and buck-passing that approached the Clintonesque. (Whether that last adjective is laudatory or slanderous depends on your own political sensibilities, and how much you admire the ability to talk without saying anything.)
In what amounted to an hour-long shrug, the president shrank from taking any sort of direct responsibility for both the past and present actions of his administration. The quick-and-dirty version:
Do we need more troops in Iraq? Um, Gen. Abizaid would know, and he seems to think yes, but, you know, he hasn't really said so. (In Bush's own words, Abazaid is "clearly indicating" that the general "may" need additional soldiers. Yup, crystal-clear.)
Who, exactly, will we be handing over the Iraqi government to on June 30? Gee, I guess you'd have to ask that Brahimi fella over at the U.N. He's working on that whole power-vacuum thing. It's a lot less complicated to knock 'em down than to set 'em back up. Can we get back to talking about knocking 'em down?
Are there any mistakes you've learned from so far? Um, well, it depends on what your definition of "mistakes" is. And "learn." But I sure do look forward to hearing from the 9-11 Commission, even though I initially opposed creating one, and then opposed meeting with them to testify. How about I hem and haw for a while, then mutter something about wishing we'd had a Homeland Security Department, even though I opposed creating that, too?
Ah, the no-nonsense wisdom of the Heartland. To be sure, there was some headline-grabbing tough talk about "staying the course" and "changing the world." Makes you wonder just how broad the support for a war to "change the world" would have been a year ago. But I don't think that poll ever made it to the public.
Not that the president cares about polls, of course. You see, he's just a plain-spoken good ol' boy who sticks to his guns. Even when his silver bullets turn out to be made out of lead, he keeps plugging away. Unless you ask him to take responsibility for his administration. Then it's tap-dancin' time.
Written by Nate Puckett of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 05:27 PM |
| Baby bonds |
What do you think of baby bonds? No, this isn't the next "Spy Kids" movie, nor am I referring simply to bonds under $1,000. I mean the social program whereby every baby in America would be given a small bond at birth, say $500 or so. Various versions of the plan include additional contributions of say, $100 at intermittent ages like 4, 7 and 11, or coupling it with government-matching tax-free savings accounts.
This bond gains tax-free interest until the kid grows up, and would be worth somewhere around $2,000. And the family adding just $5 or so a month into the account would double that with interest. Not a lot, I know, but to a teen from an impoverished family, starting off with $4,000 opens up a lot of doors not otherwise open.
People can only remove the money at ages 18 or 21 for specific purposes such as training/education, purchasing a first home, or starting a small business. In theory, this would ultimately reduce welfare rolls, unemployment, and impacts on other social programs, and increase higher education and vocational enrollment, small business startups, etc.
Such a program is being implemented in the U.K. I can see a lot of potential for such a program, and a lot of problems. I could see conservatives cutting future education grants, housing grants and other social programs under the argument that people can use their baby bonds for such things, effectively countering the full positive effects of the bonds. Or educational institutions raising costs to take advantage of the availability of bond funds, etc.
I could also see a lot of bickering over whether all Americans should receive the same amount, or if children of wealthy families should start off with smaller bonds than children of impoverished families. And I could see wealthy families using it as a loophole to stuff a bunch of money into for tax-free interest, though presumably such things would be regulated.
But would the good outweigh the problems? Have you heard good arguments for or against such a program? Other than just concerns over where the funding would come from, of course.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
|
| Posted by kkim at 01:43 PM |
| 9-11 Commission: The Perfection of Hindsight |
Could the Clinton administration have done more to fight terrorism? In theory, yep. In reality, probably not much. Clinton launches a couple of missiles to try and kill bin Laden and conservatives yell "wag the dog."
There just wasn't the public will or support to risk our troops' lives or billions of tax dollars in a "war on terror." Who cared about some Arab guy blowing up stuff far away when there were presidential sex scandals and O.J. trials to focus on? The only way you would have gotten a war on terror approved then is if it had an IPO attached: Destroy Al Qaeda.com.
Clinton's biggest error was not in his security policy, but in giving the Republicans a tabloid controversy to waste our time, tax dollars, and federal investigative resources on. His personal failings and subsequent loss of moral leadership may have restricted his freedom to pursue the most aggressive course, and definitely helped Bush Jr. get selected president.
Could Bush Jr. have done more? Again, in theoryland, yep, but in reality, probably not much. I'm certain the president is given tons of threat assessments every day, so focusing on any one memo or meeting is a little out of context and unfair.
Yes, Bush came into office dismissive of Clinton's efforts in almost every area, and surrounded by his dad's old cronies, embarked on a backwards-looking focus on nuclear weapons programs, star wars defense systems and alienating enemies and allies alike by taking a hard-liner isolationist approach before 9-11. How I pitied Colin Powell. Remember all the backpeddling he had to do in those days?
Regardless, Bush didn't have the public will or support for a real war on terror either, even if he had wanted one. It took 9-11 to bring terrorism to the front of the American agenda. The real crime is that once Bush was handed a united government and a surge of international support, as well as that necessary public will, he decided to ruin it and bog us down in Iraq to pursue a long-standing neo-conservative dream of democratizing the Middle-East.
Iraq was not the real war on terror. Instead, Iraq is rapidly becoming another breeding ground of terror, and of religious and ethnic civil war thanks to our attempt to force democracy by U.S. occupation. No WMDs, no real terrorist links- just American deaths and dire warnings from homeland security that Al Qaeda is still as big a threat as ever.
In the end, Bush should not be judged by his failures to fight terrorism prior to 9-11. He should be judged for his failures to fight terrorism after 9-11, when he had no excuses.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 01:12 PM |
| Re: The Commission, Clinton and Clarke |
Sounds like John Heiger's been watching too much television and listening to too many Michael Moore speeches. It must be difficult to base an entire line of reasoning on the assumption that someone's a liar. Nevertheless, let's break down John's main points.
First off, President Bush's response to terrorism has not been "illegitimate." Directly after September 11th the United States went after Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network, not Saddam Hussein. We disposed of the Taliban and have sent Al-Qaeda running and severely restricted its ability to function. Then we deposed Saddam Hussein on the premise that America would not tolerate another attack on our soil and that his regime posed an imminent threat. John Kerry reached the same conclusion as President Bush.
Secondly, our efforts in Iraq have been largely successful. We have removed Saddam Hussein from power and since captured him, killed his two sons and apprehended or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted members of the Baath regime. In addition, the Iraqis have drafted a new Constitution and 26 million people no longer live under a ruthless dictator. The recent attacks in Fallujah hav | | |
