|
 |
 |
|
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. |
June 30, 2004
| DOJ on the AWB |
The usual pro-gun lobby is railing against Noah Purcell's Assault Weapons Ban piece that came out June 27.
The typical response is that gun laws like the AWB are useless and only empower the criminals and thieves desperately trying to pry into our windows and ruin our families. There is, however, an interesting statistic overlooked by the NRA apologists and Noah himself.
A May 10 story published in the New York Times titled, "Mother's Day Rally for Assault Weapons Ban" says that, "Gun-related killings have declined in the past decade. The latest statistics available show that there were 10,808 in 2002, according to the Department of Justice. That is down from a high of 17,048 in 1993, the year before the Assault Weapons Ban was passed."
The gun lobby, whatever their motivations, is once again at odds with reality and the human condition. Seven thousand missing corpses is hard to ignore, it's time for the NRA gun supporters to buy a new angle.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:16 PM |
| "Fahrenheit 9/11" revisited |
More thoughts on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
Another reason to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" - all the criticisms I've read only cover the same select parts of the film, and much of that criticism isn't about the content but about the conclusions Moore reaches based on the content. The rest of the film, and indeed the facts in the parts that people criticize, are worth seeing.
The film has interviews with and footage of soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere that everyone who claims to support our troops should see. And in addition to the shocking, the horrifying, the sad, and the sobering, the film also has funny moments, and interesting stories, such as that of the patrolman in Oregon.
I mean, granted, it's no "White Chicks," but it's still a pretty good film.
To put it in a way conservatives can understand, I can point out that the Bible doesn't really say anything about Satan hanging out watching Jesus' torture while carrying a freaky mini-me. I can point out a couple of other creative licenses and questionable interpretations Gibson took with his film, "The Passion." But people went to see it anyway, if for no other reason than to be able to intelligently discuss it. And that film covered only a single subject.
Moore's film covers a lot more than just one man. And Bush is hardly as sacred or perfect as Jesus, even if conservatives are treating him that way when attacking this film.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:56 PM |
| Re: Ambushed |
Response to Karan Gill's blog, "Ambushed"
Jacques Chirac, France in general, and the rest of the European “elite” have for decades been trying to influence U.S. foreign and even domestic policy, especially through our Court system (a system which isn’t even supposed to make policy, let me remind you).
In fact, judicial experts have moved away from the question of “whether or not they are trying to do so,” admitted that obviously they are, and have moved onto the question of “whether or not we should listen to them.”
So why exactly is it OK for France to practice this for years, but President Bush gets blasted when he simply opines on a matter that does actually relate to the U.S. (Turkey being a member of the EU goes a long way to securing world security, which obviously affects the US)?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 04:48 PM |
June 29, 2004
| Re: "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
Response to Chris Collins' blog
I hope that conservatives like Chris will take their own advice. Just as they want Moore fans to wade through long anti-Moore articles to glean the facts about the movie, I hope that everyone will sit through Moore's anti-Bush film, and at least come out willing to ask some questions. To simply dismiss the entire movie and say that it is "completely illegitimate and has no credibility whatsoever" is to blindly believe in the perfection of Bush and the Republican party, and of the war in Iraq, and miss the larger points of the film.
If you're a Bush supporter, this movie won't change that. You'll apply the same reasoning to it that Moore did in making it. You will dismiss that which doesn't support your existing views, and focus on Moore's errors and mistakes. Fifteen minutes after walking out of the theatre, anything that made you uncomfortable, that caused psychological "dissonance," will melt away. But maybe not. Maybe you'll have some -- gasp -- questions, not about Moore, but about the war, or Bush, or even some social issue completely unrelated to Bush.
Are you so certain that those who oppose Moore have no ulterior motives or make no mistakes of their own? Are you guilty of simply seeking out reasons to dismiss Moore pre-emptively, or are you openly seeking the truth?
The movie does make some bad assumptions and leaps in logic, and focuses on those things that make the desired point. As does the Slate article. But the film also has many points and ideas that are worth knowing, thinking about, and discussing. It has many things that the Slate article did not, and probably could not, dismiss. Even if you ignore the stuff about Bush and the Saudis or bin Ladens, etc. it is still an important film in that it exposes you to ideas and images you won't get through the commercial news media.
If nothing else, you should see it for the same reason you may hate it without having even seen it yet. While you may not like Moore trying to tell you his version of the truth, you should not just rely on others to tell you their version of the truth either.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in his book Utilitarianism, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."
When you fall into a rut, and just accept whatever is fed to you by one side, you ain't Socrates baby. But heck, who takes philosophy seriously anyway?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:54 AM |
| Ambushed |
George Bush continues to alienate allies in the international world with his arrogance and talking in places where he should not have much voice. Yes, America is the most influential country in the world, but that does not make it okay in attempting to boss around the European Union.
Over the weekend, Bush went to Turkey to compliment them on their Muslim democracy and said, “as Turkey meets the EU standards for membership, the European Union should begin talks that will lead to full membership for the Republic of Turkey."
Mr. Bush, what are you doing? It is not your place to say who will be admitted to full membership of the European Union.
President Chirac, the President of France, quickly took the opportunity to call him out, "If President Bush really said that in the way that I read, then not only did he go too far, but he went into territory that isn't his. It is not his purpose and his goal to give any advice to the EU, and in this area it was a bit as if I were to tell Americans how they should handle their relationship with Mexico."
As relations just started to get better with anti-war France, while they have agreed to help the new Iraqi government and its security forces, Bush again continues to take jabs. Why? Honestly, I think he sometimes believes he is the leader of the world -- instead of just the president of one nation.
Yes, Mr. President, we understand that you don’t ever “need a permission slip,” but c’mon, quit pissing our allies for your own amusement. We need these allies -- please quit with the BS.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 10:47 AM |
June 28, 2004
| Re: Republican blame game |
Karan's right, politics in America has turned into a "hate game."
I usually don't directly criticize my fellow NEXT bloggers, but there should be some house rules enforced here. John Heiger's broad generalization and stereotype-inducing comment that conservatives simply aren't creative and are in the "shallow end" of the general talent pool is disturbing.
Replace the word "conservative" with any minority designation of your choice and this blog would be a blackhole for strongly-worded letters from any number of organizations.
That's my first criticism: saying most Republicans are basically money-horders and incapable of any creativity is simply a stereotype. (By the way, not all conservatives are Republicans, myself included. So using the terms interchangeably is misleading).
My second criticism is that Heiger's generalization is false. He asks, "Where is the Republican feature length answer to Michael Moore?" Though I don't think I would endorse this documentary, go to http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com for the answer.
Also, I suppose Mel Gibson's religiously-conservative "The Passion" was an artistic flop?
Doesn't running a business successfully at least indicate some level of creativity? Without creativity, innovation and discovery, businesses fail. So one could say that many of those money-hoarding heartless Republicans who decided to do such horrible things like make widgets, create jobs and raise the standard of living are actually using vast amounts of creativity and ingenuity.
Basically, once you get into a psychological rut that tells you all Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or liberals are generally one thing or another, that should raise some serious red flags.
Some generalizations can be just common sense. No one would call me racist for saying people who live in Africa are, in general, black. But many generalizations are simply false. For example: Most conservatives are stupid and hopelessly without talent.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:53 PM |
| "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
For the latest analysis on Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," read this Slate article that completely exposes the movie's internal contradictions and factual innaccuracies.
There's likely more analysis to come that will, I'm guessing, point out some slick editing skills that completely take events and speeches out of context or blur them together, as Moore did to Charlton Heston's speech in "Bowling for Columbine."
For Moore fans who are reading this, please wade through some of the name-calling Slate writer Christopher Hitchens pours all over this movie. Take note of the important points he makes, instead. There's some real truth out there that fans of this movie need to deal with if they are to see it as a legitimate political expose.
Alternatively, if the argument is, hey, it's just art (Or another variation: Hey, it's just Moore's opinion), then please, please, please recognize that the movie is completely illegitimate and has no credibility whatsoever. So let's not treat it like it can contribute to our understanding of the political world or the Iraqi war.
Respond to this posting
_________________________________________________ |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:35 PM |
| Re: Campaign rage |
Response to Randy Henderson's blog
I'm glad Randy is keeping an eye on the two Bush and Kerry campaign sites. Bush's latest TV ad is a low blow, that's for sure. I always thought that you can tell when someone has reduced their tactics to ad hominem attacks when they start throwing in the Hitler card.
Honestly, the campaign managers behind the scenes of both Kerry's and Bush's
campaigns probably have more to do with the guerrilla TV ads coming out their respective camps than the actual candidates.
But both Bush and Kerry need to show some presidential leadership and taste by stopping such outlandish attack-ads. I was honestly surprised that Bush's campaign would take such a low blow by littering Hitler clips in with an anti-liberal attack ad. In reality, the Hitler clip is just another example of the liberal pessimism the ad advertises. It's still a lame attack ad, but at least it's not as
lame as I initially thought it to be.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:06 PM |
| Mars and Venus |
So Lewinsky is saying that Clinton lied about their relationship, that he over-trivialized it basically by claiming it was more of a physical thing than a real relationship, or that it was based on opportunity not mutual passions, interests, etc. and so forth.
Gee, the woman thought the affair was more a full, emotional relationship and the guy thought it was a casual sex fling. What a shocker. Almost as big a revelation as that two people may feel differently about a relationship.
Hate to break it to ya' Monica, but I don't think Clinton is lying. Doesn't make what he did any more right, but his truth is simply different than yours, as hard as that may be for you. I mean, gosh, didn't you learn anything about relationships hosting "Mr. Personality?"
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:38 PM |
| Re: Campaign rage |
Clarification on the Hitler ads, since I am sure someone who reads my blog will try to point out that the Hitler clips came from ads apparently aimed at Bush.
The ads in question were not created by anyone associated with the DNC or the Kerry campaign. They were two amateur ads submitted along with over 1500 others online to a 30-second ad contest on MoveOn.org. As such, the creators optimistically, and inappropriately, even added the MoveOn logo at the end. But they were rejected by MoveOn as inappropriate and never even made it to the finals of the contest, let alone were they ever aired by any Democrat-friendly source. But not before the RNC made copies of them.
The only place these ads actually lived on, and the only reason they received national attention, was through the Republican National Committee website and through the RNC, Drudge and others who then started a media uproar over them. In the uproar they glossed over the fact that these were amatuer ads never actually sponsored, supported or aired by MoveOn, Kerry, or the DNC.
The Bush campaign, on the other hand, actually is using the Hitler images in national, official campaign advertising to attack their opponent. I wonder if the RNC and Drudge are going to rip into Bush now? Somehow, I doubt it.
Frankly, there are a ton of both liberal and conservative websites out there that do some pretty hilarious, tasteless, or offensive things to make fun of the other side. But we should expect better of our national leaders. We shouldn't expect them to go combing the internet for the worse, extremist, individual examples and then using those as actual campaign ads.
But if I had a nickel for every time I said "Bush shouldn't be lying like that," I'd be so rich I'd have to consider being a Republican.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:34 PM |
June 25, 2004
| Re: Republican blame game |
Somehow, the argument that Republicans simply aren't creative doesn't jibe. I've known artistic people who were also conservative Republicans.
If I had to try and generalize, which is usually a bad idea, I would say that those attributes that tend to lead toward a more liberal view - empathy for others, or a willingness to be open-minded and (the antithesis of conservatism) open to change, etc., also tend to run strong in what you would probably consider classically artistic types.
However, as with most things, it is not black and white. It is a matter of degrees. There are plenty of liberals who aren't artistic, and plenty of conservatives who are. Heck, look at O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh - they are hugely popular fiction writers.
It is also important to remember that people adhere to specific parties or ideologies for different reasons. So while there are certainly a lot of people who are conservative Republicans for fiscal reasons, there are plenty of rich Democrats as well.
A person may be poor and be Republican for no other reason than Republicans oppose abortion. And that person may be really creative in making huge posters of aborted fetuses to post up on church lawns in front of busy roads to traumatize passing children (like at the church next to my home).
If they paused to think about how voting for Republicans for supposed Christian reasons actually hurt the poor, the sick, the environment, and all the other things Christians should probably care about, they might change to being a Democrat, and make huge posters of starving and abused American children instead. But probably not.
As for the whole liberal media thing, I see stock reports on every news show, but rarely a labor rights tracker, or a health care gap update. I hear all kinds of news on interest rates and GDPs, but rarely news on poverty levels or prison populations. The media isn't really liberal, though many members of the media are. The media isn't overly conservative either. It is a product. It is a business. It sells what sells. Fear sells. Scandal sells. Sex sells. Making people feel good about themselves or our "great nation" sells. The illusion of middle-class America sells. News sells, but too much truth is often a hard sell, especially if it implies we might have to make some changes in our country or, worse, our lifestyles.
Certainly, the Republicans have done a good job of establishing a strong hold on the media though. Fox News, conservative talk radio, media conglomeration, all good strategic moves on their part. People tend to believe what you spoon feed them, especially if it confirms what they want to believe anyway. The Democrats are only now catching on and trying to catch up. Go Air America.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:30 PM |
| Campaign rage |
Under the category of "I can't believe this guy has any supporters left," the latest George Bush attack ad is an attack on Democrats declaring that they are running on pessimism and rage - and it mixes sound bites of Democratic speakers with speeches from Hitler! No, really! Hitler!
This isn't some random right-wing citizen's web page full of personal opinion and creative, edited photos. This is the top of the page, headlining piece of the official George Bush election campaign. This is being emailed to all his supporters. While the Kerry site continues to focus largely on Kerry's positive plans for America, the Bush site continues to be literally filled with inaccurate, pessimistic, rage filled attacks on Kerry.
Our President has been reduced to a man whose best defense of why he should be president is because, uh ... the Democrats are Nazis?!
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:24 PM |
| Re: Republican blame game |
Karan's right, the whiny conservative rant about media bias is getting really old. If conservatives want to take the media over, they're going to have to qualify as capable of doing so. Unfortunately, there just aren't that many articulate, talented writers out there who identify with conservative politics -- that's just the truth.
My Republican buddies all gravitate toward sales and other money-hording enterprises, which makes sense, but maybe there's a general theme here: The
conservatives don't have the hearts to be good journalists. Of course they end up with all the money, so nobody's better than anybody else. Point is, Republicans can't dominate the monetary and creative world.
Have Republicans ever made a legitimate, creative contribution to the world of arts? Where is the Republican feature length answer to Michael Moore? Republicans, in general, appear to be bad at art and meaningful outlets of artistic expression, which maybe answers why they are so weak when it comes to writing and films. Look at the conservative players in Hollywood; they're all action-film jokes like Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarznegger.
If the Republicans could consistently write and produce decent, meaningful films, they would. Unfortunately they can't so they don't. It's not a conspiracy, it's a talent pool and they wade in the shallow end.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:23 PM |
| Ragin' Cheney |
While the Republicans' new campaign angle is to attack Democrats for being all about rage and pessimism, a rage filled Cheney used profanity in an inappropriate and unprecedented attack against a Democratic Senator on the Senate floor during the recent, usually non-partisan and peaceful event of the Senate class picture.
Which is really weird, because Cheney just got really good news from his fishing buddy Supreme Court Justice Scalia - the Supreme Court decided (surprise surprise) that Cheney didn't have to disclose the documents from all his private meetings with energy corporations (like Enron) that shaped our national energy policy. You'd think he'd be, well, optimistic and happy.
But then, I've never really seen Cheney in what I'd call a good mood. Except at fundraisers, of course. Poor guy. I think maybe he should retire, relax a bit.
Come on Republicans - if you really care about Cheney, help him retire before he has another heart attack.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:13 PM |
June 24, 2004
| Shop 'til you...drop |
Move over “naked sushi” London has you beat…sort of.
The Plaza shopping centre in London held its "first ever naturist shopping event" which even offered discounts to the nude shoppers. Sadly, only about 15 people came. I guess some people won't do anything for a bargain. The excuse the Plaza centre spokeswoman gave was that they lost all of their numbers to the Euro 2004 football (that’s soccer) championships.
At this point, I’m not sure if I should talk about the off-the-wall stunt of having a scheduled nude shopping event, or whether I should glower with envy at the acknowledged ferocious enthusiasm for soccer overseas. I’ll try to focus.
In this age where almost nothing is shocking, it seems little by little, comfort zones are being whittled away to nothing. Events like “naturist shopping” are starting to pop up more and more. Is this a sign of tolerance, acceptance and society trying new things? Or is it merely a publicity stunt based off shock value?
Either way, it seems this time the gamble flopped.
But just because it did not succeed this time, does not mean events such as these are gone forever. If the trend continues, I may soon find myself arguing that I don't want to go to the "naturist day" at Safeco Field.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 05:39 PM |
| Blah, blah, blog |
Allow me to get a little post-modern by criticizing blogs through a blog. I’m not against blogs per se, I’m just troubled by the role people expect them to play.
As we approach the 2004 elections and all the media blitzing events that pave the way to November, blogs are looking to make their jump into journalistic respectability.
Why blogs? Because the information is supposed to be raw and uncut, and usually without the perceived corporation ties that make people skeptical of more mainstream media outlets. But just as a blog’s independence is seen as a virtue, it is also a danger. The truth is in the eye of the author and only the author. Just as I wouldn’t read a diary and call it a historical biography, I tend not to view most blogs as news.
But yet, I still read them. That is, I read them when I’m not totally overwhelmed by them. Just when I would figure media saturation has hit critical mass, blogs are trying to fill some void that was never there.
I don’t expect blogs to disappear, even if no one is reading them. But blogs won’t be the difference in this election or in any election in the future. For more on the whimpering blog revolution, check out George Packer’s Mother Jones article.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 05:20 PM |
| Summer reading |
The hoopla around Bill Clinton's new book, "My Life," is starting to remind me of the Reagan Death Bonanza of several weeks ago. Tons of partisan swooning while no new revelations are made, just an excuse for the faithful to flex and honor.
In tune with doing my part as a card-carrying liberal, I must mention that Rush Limbaugh said Clinton's autobiography should be titled "My Lie". This would be funny if it wasn't coming from the biggest liar on two swollen feet. I'm still waiting for Limbaugh's follow-up book tour titled, "Pills are My God."
I'm not holding my breath.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:13 PM |
| Republican blame Game |
It is amazing to me to see how Republicans attempt to blame the media and changing times when anything that would really hurt the re-election campaign of Dubya comes out. The al Quaida/Iraq link is the latest piece of lie/exaggeration to come out of the administration so we have all become used to understanding that it is their time to make excuses for damage control.
On a CNBC exclusive interview, Vice President Cheney was very upset with the New York Times because they are writing stories that shows there is no link between al Quaida and Iraq, calling the story “outrageous” -- basically, he’s upset they told the truth, which hurts the administration.
He added, “The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said.”
Well, there is a split, the bi-partisan commission says there is no relationship and he says there is “overwhelming evidence” of a relationship. The Vice President is lying, not the media.
He went on to continue his lies, “first of all, on the question of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.” Well then show us the evidence.
Thus far, the not-so-overwhelming evidence has shown out to be not true or could be true.
Then he continued his rant against the New York Times and how they are against the administration and how they constantly overexaggerate stories...you know, to take off the heat. Have to blame someone right?
I was also trying to watch Scarborough Country (Republican-based show) on MSNBC, and again, Republican strategists were blaming the media for anything that goes down against the administration. And again, the New York Times was targeted and blamed for setting the trend for other papers around the country to follow their spin tactics against the administration because the New York Times, as he says, is the most influential paper. Blaming the New York Times for your lies. Give me a break.
Also, one Republican strategist was on the show and said that Michael Moore is ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’ with his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which will be out in theatres Friday and should be watched by all Americans. Go see it.
Anyway, like I said, Michael Moore is being accused of aiding the enemy by using his right of freedom of speech. That is outrageous! It would be aiding the enemy if you restrict his freedom of speech, censorship is un-American buddy. And wait a minute Mr. Republican strategist...what about aiding Saudi Arabia, which has proven they harbor terrorists? Our own President is doing that! I guess you forgot to mention that.
Look, I understand that Michael Moore is just adding fuel to the fire between partisan lines, and that is discouraging. Politics in America has turned into a hate game, which is bad for our two-party system. It was not designed to split the country, one against the other. But this hate is also being fueled by the constant lies of the administration, which are being caught on red-handed by the media and then sent to the people.
What bothers me now is that the Republicans have no credibility and they are trying everything to get out of their mush and have decided to use their most convenient excuses in Republican pressing times – “the media is liberal” or “we are in a time of war.” It has gotten to the point where I am sick to my stomach of hearing the constant, day-to-day lies as a part of the Republican Party blame game.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:54 PM |
| Nude 'tude |
Women have been both praised and censured for posing nude throughout the ages. Countless paintings of nude women are deemed masterpieces for presenting the “glory of the female form.” However, when the issue of artistic nude photographs of women comes up today, it is deemed inappropriate and controversial.
Seattle Storm player Lauren Jackson agreed to pose nude for the Australian Magazine “Black+White.” The issue contains 35 Australian potential Olympic athletes equally highlighting both men and women, “in tribute to the upcoming Summer Games in Greece.” It is a great honor in Australia, equal to lighting the Olympic flame, according to Jayda Evans’ Seattle Times’ article, “Nude photos of Jackson may stir up a storm of controversy.”
Yet, Jackson is receiving much criticism for her decision to pose nude. Once again, the woman is the villain. What is the big deal? In the first place, it isn’t really our business. In the second place, she was not paid to do it and the photographs used will be “auctioned off to benefit charities.” This is not sex selling the Olympics- this is the human body at its best selling the Olympics- exactly what the Games are all about. It’s not as if the pictures will be on the front page of the newspaper and in every other magazine to advertise the Olympic Games. They are in the “Black+White” magazine which costs $40. Not exactly in-your-face.
Finally, who better to pose nude than a woman at the peak of her athletic ability? The Olympians used to compete nude remember. As Jackson states, “this celebrates the athletic body and how much work you put in. We do it the right way; we don't starve ourselves."
Move over, all you lollipop-shaped models- you are not the definition of natural beauty. Now an athlete at the height of her abilities- that is beauty.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 03:54 PM |
June 18, 2004
| Bush and Truman |
You know, I haven't heard a lot of comparisons between Bush and Truman. Which is odd. I'd think that, even with the differences, there are enough similarities to have sparked more comment.
Truman was a man known for acting on impulse, and just speaking what he thought, like Bush. Truman was paranoid about his perceived legitimacy and the power of the presidency, following in the footsteps of Roosevelt and not having been actually elected when he first took office. Bush was following in the steps of a successful president, wasn't elected, and had to struggle with the image of illegitimacy when he took office.
Truman exploited the aggressive moves of Stalin and created an almost hysterical fear of communism to push through his political agenda and for his party to win back Congress. Bush and the Republicans did the same with terrorism.
Truman exploited that fear of communism to take us into Korea, pretty much ignoring convention and just doing what he thought was best. Bush exploited fear of terrorism to get us into Iraq, pretty much ignoring convention and just doing what he wanted.
Truman and gung-ho warhawk MacArthur bungled in Korea when they didn't stop at mission accomplished (pushing the invaders back across the DMZ), and as a result got China involved and got a lot of Americans killed. Bush and gung-ho warhawks Cheney and Rumsfeld bungled the operation in Iraq (or perhaps by even going into Iraq to begin with), and poor planning after "mission accomplished" has led to more American deaths than would have perhaps otherwise occurred.
Truman's exploitation of communist fears helped open the door for McCarthyism. Bush's exploitation of terrorist fears opened the door for Ashcroftism, the Patriot Act, violations of the Geneva convention, and more.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:08 PM |
| Go Fox |
Just to be fair and balanced, I occasionally check out the Fox News site to get a little perspective on what the conservative world is thinking.
Two interesting points:
None of the site's major headlines mentioned anything about the 9-11 commission's conclusions, which in my mind, is one of the biggest stories in a long time.
And secondly, the commission was mentioned in a poll which asked if the bipartisan commission was basically a good thing or a political attack on the Bush administration.
To my surpirise, as of 11 am today, some 80% of Fox News readers/viewers/apologists consider the bipartisan commssion and its findings to be some sort of liberal conspiracy against the Bush camp. Not necessarily in those exact words, but if you check out the poll's results they speak volumes about the kind of information Fox's demographic is interested in hearing.
If it don't make Dubya look good, it ain't true. Amen.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:04 PM |
| Link? Nada |
The Bi-partisan 9-11 Committee has concluded what most of us already knew: there's no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks.
In light of the WMDs, or lack thereof, you could say this is a big strike 2 for Bush's credibility.
In reality, on earth, all the signs appear to indicate that Bush just really wanted to attack Saddam, reason or no reason. He conjured up lies, hoping something would materialize over time and now that the stuff is really starting to hit the fan, the Commander in Chief is blaming his haste and stupidity on the CIA.
Way to absolve yourself from your responsibilities as the nation's final voice on foreign policy, George.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:00 PM |
| Iraq scorecard |
Lets go to the Iraq Scorecard for a quick update:
Prevented distribution of WMDs to terrorists. Achieved? No. Stockpiles not found, nor has evidence of any significant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, though Bush continues to insist there were. It appears that the primary informant (Chalabi) was misleading us to achieve his own ends, and was working with Iran.
Reduce terrorist threats to US. Achieved? No. Arguably, terrorist threats have increased. Iraq itself is now becoming a terrorist battleground and recruiting area. U.S. actions in Iraq have contributed to Arab hostility towards U.S. And resources diverted from more effective attacks and security measures at home and elsewhere. Repeated terrorist warnings from Homeland Security. Some people like to point to Libya as a ray of hope, but Libya is only an example of a country wanting desperately to become part of international trade again.
Help the Iraqi people. Achieved? Inconclusive. While a brutal dictator was removed, and some of the destroyed infrastructure rebuilt, the future of the Iraqi government, and its people, remains uncertain. Many Iraqis have been killed in the war and aftermath. Increasing terrorist presence endangers citizens. Long periods of civil and religious strife, as well as economic instability and infrastructure recovery, will likely follow. And while helping the Iraqi people is a good goal, there are plenty of people in the world who need help, and there were plenty of other ways to help the Iraqis.
Iraqi oil will cover costs. Achieved? No. The American taxpayers are covering the cost.
Coalition of the willing. Achieved? In name only. The "coalition" support did not include significant manpower on the ground in Iraq, forcing American troops to bear the majority of the cost in lives lost. American taxpayers are bearing the economic costs. Worldwide protests broke records. And "volunteer" soldiers in our Army of the "willing" are being forced to serve past their military terms.
Go Bush.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:56 PM |
| What link? |
Bi-Partisan Commission responsible for INVESTIGATING 9/11:
According to CNN, members of the 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
The President who is up for RE-ELECTION:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
And yes, President Bush said this after the commission’s statements.
Running Mate of President who is up for RE-ELECTION:
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," said Cheney.
Uh...what?! Did the entire commission miss this "overwhelming evidence?"
Oh, and one more thing on the so-called link between al Qaeda and Iraq: One side (bin Laden and company) are extreme fundamentalists, and the other (Saddam and company) is a secular regime that kills their own people. Wow, they would get along real well.
Now, is there really an Iraq and al Qaeda link? C’mon, I’ve said enough.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:41 PM |
June 17, 2004
| A Pleasant Reminder |
With all the ups and downs of the heavily covered Tent City saga, Rev. Lawrence Minder shows us how to pitch a tent where we’ve pitched our opinions.
It’s easy to support the Tent City project, especially when it’s located far from our homes. By becoming a part of Tent City, Minder is doing more than simply supporting the project. His stance is modest and respectable. It’s nice to see that community leaders, and religious leaders specifically, can still inspire us.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 05:26 PM |
June 15, 2004
| Vein of shame |
Today's Times story about Halliburton being accused of inflating costs reveals a deep vein of shame coursing through the blood of House Republicans. Apparently these folks don't want the truth of Halliburton's wayward politics revealed and they're fighting House Democrats to ensure that the public will never understand the true scope of this administration's indifference to corporate swill.
While it's no mystery that Halliburton is associated with thieves, several interesting pricing items shed a revealing light on the magnitude of the company's abuse of public funds. Halliburton employees said the company did the following:
• Lodged 100 workers at a five-star hotel in Kuwait for a total of $10,000 a
day while the Pentagon wanted them to stay in tents, like soldiers.
• Abandoned $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and minor problems.
• Paid $100 to have a 15-pound bag of laundry sent for cleaning to Kuwait as
part of a million-dollar laundry contract. The price for cleaning the same
amount of laundry in war-torn Iraq was $28.
• Spent $1.50 a can to buy 37,200 cans of soda in Kuwait, about 24 times
higher than the going price.
So much for entertaining conservative delusions of fiscal responsibility. The math says it all.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:19 PM |
June 14, 2004
| Motown doesn't need ya |
Let me explain why this NBA Finals series between the Lakers and the Pistons has been classic. It’s style versus substance, defense versus offense, stars versus team, blue collar versus Hollywood, underdog versus titan...oh and I’m a Detroit sports fan. Yeah, maybe that is the biggest reason.
It could also be the reason I was offended by Steve Kelly’s column saying the Pistons will be a tough sell as the best team in the NBA.
American culture is often accused of being celebrity driven and gossip obsessed. For that America, the Lakers are perfect -- egos, drama and stars on the sideline. It’s that kind of team that the media likes to cover because the stories are easy to find. But much of this country respects hard work, team work and beating the odds. If you don’t believe that, then ask yourself why the ratings for this NBA finals have climbed with each successive game.
The only reason the Pistons will be a hard sell as NBA champions is because their not selling themselves.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 04:10 PM |
| Sit down, you're rocking the vote |
I’ve always thought the Rock the Vote campaign to increase youth voter turn-out was the most condescending political interaction with new voters. Political awareness doesn’t need to be flashy, star driven, associated with MTV or marketed in any way. In fact, the book “Get Out the Vote” by Donald Green says that personal contact between activists and could-be voters (like door-to-door or telephone calls) is more effective than money-powered media campaigns.
I would imagine that media-fueled attempts to increase the youth vote will always exist even though the effort doesn’t match the results. I just can’t stand the attitude that 18- to 30-year-olds need to be led to the polls by Pied Pipers of Mountain Dew and music videos. Maybe next time, Rock the Vote’s name can be changed to “Dude, Like I Totally Voted.”
Here is a well-researched article on the problems with Rock the Vote.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 04:06 PM |
| Good news on social security |
Here's some good news: It was previously estimated that Social Security will experience a shortfall of $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years, but a new report from the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)estimates the deficit will only be about two-thirds that amount.
Of course, the program will still go completely bankrupt eventually, the report says (the best guesses out there put Social Security's end at about mid-century). But to Robert Greenstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the report means: No worries -- Social Security will go completely kaput at least a decade later than what we thought!
This means, Greenstein argues, "If CBO is correct, we don't need severe, radical changes to Social Security." These radical changes refer to President Bush's proposal to revamp the outdated program by giving people the option to divert some payroll taxes to private investment accounts.
So, really, Greenstein is arguing that Social Security is plunging into oblivion at a slightly decreased rate than what we initially thought. Therefore, let's wait 20 or 30 years down the line before we try to fix this ailing program.
When Greenstein's car has a gas leak, does he wait an extra year to fix the problem if he finds out the leak is slightly smaller than originally thought?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:00 PM |
June 11, 2004
| Re: Half-way deserved championship rings |
The Lakers aren’t losing this series because Phil can’t make adjustments; the Lakers are losing because they play soft defense and have no heart.
If Kobe Bryant leaves the Lakers after this season, you can kiss his championship winning ways good bye for at least a couple of years. Moreover, he will not be the greatest as he has had the luxury and comfort of riding in Shaq’s wake. Without Shaq, every defense he faces will double team him and those numbers will begin to wane. Kobe isn’t quite as dominate when he has two men on him.
Secondly, the Lakers aren’t versatile; they’re about Shaq pounding the ball inside and kicking the rock outside to Kobe when he doesn’t have a shot. You can say triangle all day long but there are only two consistent options on that squad. If the Lakers players are so capable of making in-game adjustments, how come they haven’t in this series?
We all love the Glove in Seattle but Gary looks lost, period. His shot is broke and he’s on the bench because Chauncy Billups runs circles around him on both sides of the ball. The numbers don’t lie.
Ultimately, the Lakers believe they’re entitled to win because of their talent and history. The Pistons are earning their wins because they defend and crash the boards. Defense wins championships, but in this case I think rebounds and heart are exceedingly in Detroit’s favor. Pistons in six!
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:24 PM |
| Half-way deserved championship rings |
Phil Jackson, head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, is one of the most overrated coaches in sports today. Yes, he is a GOOD coach, but not a GREAT one. You say 9 championship rings and not great? I’m not crazy...give me a second.
First, the man has inherited the three greatest players in NBA history on his 9 championship runs. Michael Jordan in his prime, Shaq O’ Neal who is pure dominance, and Kobe Bryant who will at some point be the greatest player in NBA history (as long as he doesn’t go to jail). Two of those are on the same team, which means they should win every year and be dominant. Yes, every championship team has superstars, but my point is that they don't have the 3 greatest players ever like Phil Jackson has had throughout his NBA tenure.
Second, the triangle offense does not work with a versatile team (side note: with 4 future hall of fame players) who has the capability to run up and down the court. Gary Payton hates the triangle, and whenever he penetrates away from the triangle offense it creates openings for Shaq or Kobe in the corner. This Lakers team has the capability of being a dynasty but Phil Jackson’s stubborn triangle will not allow it. He cannot make adjustments...his GREAT players can, and that is why he has nine rings.
Third, you could have witnessed the poor coaching last night against the Detroit Pistons, who absolutely dominated the game. Jackson had two rookies in the NBA Finals in the fourth quarter when they were down -- with Gary Payton, a future hall of famer, on the bench. I would rather put Rick Fox out there, who at least has experience and won’t turn over the ball like the rookies did last night. No adjustments were made at half against the Pistons stubborn defense, no offensive or defensive matchups were changed on the Lakers side.
On the other side of the court is Larry Brown, coach of the Pistons, who can make adjustments and that is why they are up in the series and will win the series in six games. The only way the Lakers can pull this off is if Kobe takes it in his hands like he did in game 2 after following poor coaching. Kobe was frustrated, he wants to penetrate but he cannot with this formation.
What people do not understand is the triangle formation plays perfectly into the Detroit scheme of defense with the two Wallaces up the middle and the two big guards with Billups and Hamilton -- that guard matchup is not allowing Kobe a second to breathe because the triangle is allowing them to set up ready to defend the spots. Kobe was shut down in Game 3 because Brown made adjustments. For the Lakers, adjustments stubbornly won’t be, but need to be made.
Don’t get me wrong, Phil Jackson is a great psychological and philosophical coach to bring a team together, but strategically he is only good. He has nine rings because he has been blessed with the greatest players this sport has ever seen. He is overrated, and the great Detroit defense will exploit that when Phil Jackson will not be able to make adjustments to challenge the Pistons.
If the Lakers drift quietly away from the triangle, like they did when they were down 0-2 to San Antonio, you will see a different Gary Payton, and you will see the two greatest players in the NBA allow Phil Jackson to cover both hands full of...we'll call it "10 half-way deserved championship rings."
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 02:58 PM |
June 10, 2004
| Re: J. Lo at it again |
Not that quickie weddings, short marriages or bad relationships are limited to celebrities. The number of teenagers who get married because of a pregnancy and then divorce after a few unhappy years far exceeds the number of celebrity serial marriages, I'm sure.
But I'm extremely cynical as well about celebrity events like this. I even suspect Julia Roberts of getting pregnant because that is what's currently popular and what is getting women like Kate Hudson and Gwyneth Paltrow on the covers of magazines, for example. She might even have been feeling particularly desparate to retain her popularity as people are talking about Jennifer Garner replacing her as Hollywood's sweetheart. Or I could be completely wrong.
What I do find significant about J. Lo and Anthony's "holy matrimony" is that they didn't have to fly to Massachusetts simply for the right to do so.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:41 PM |
| J. Lo at it again |
This just in: Jennifer Lopez is reportedly beginning her third marriage, this one to fellow pop singer, Marc Anthony. The couple tied the knot on Saturday, according to reports in US Weekly and People Magazine.
So now we get to have that fun debate about the sanctity of marriage again --you know the one -- revolving around how celebrities treat the institution of marriage like it's a fashion trend (Lopez wore her first husband for about a year, her second for nine months, and Anthony divorced his ex-wife just last week).
However, what perplexes me so much is not that J. Lo and Anthony are married
yet again, and in such an expedited fashion. Rather, I don't understand why they even got married at all. It's safe to say they were already sleeping together, maybe living together, and they're probably going to keep their own last names.
So what differentiates what they already had from what they paid money and subjected themselves to public scrutiny for? No one is going to buy that this one is finally forever. Maybe it's the allure of all those wedding presents...
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Sharon Altaras at 11:40 AM |
June 08, 2004
| Westchester girls soccer |
The issue of girl’s soccer in high school has been tossed around and beaten up. The article, “Reschedule Girls’ soccer, 2 Schools Are Ordered” by Debra West, addresses a few of the many problems female soccer players face. West’s article explains that two Westchester high schools have changed their girl’s soccer seasons from spring to fall, so that they can have “the same chance as the boys' to compete in regional and state championships.”
In my high school’s league in Federal Way, girls’ soccer is already in the fall, making it murder to survive the first three months of school. Any girl who is serious about the game plays on a select club team and her high school team, which adds up to three to four games per week between September and the beginning of December. For a little perspective, college teams in regular season usually play one a week.
My friends and I would be exceedingly jealous of our male soccer buddies who could focus on their club games in the fall and play the high school season after State Cup in the spring. They never had to deal with juggling practices and sometimes two games in a day on the weekends. However, if I had been given the choice between this schedule and not playing regional or state championships, I would choose the demanding schedule. No contest.
Until I read West’s article, I took it for granted that every year in high school, my team’s sights were aimed at state finals. I always considered the girls’ teams across the nation lucky who were scheduled to play in the spring; it never occurred to me that this meant they forfeited the regional and state competitions. Why tease the girls by allowing them to play only for a regular season and not for the same stakes as the boys? It’s ludicrous. Thank goodness for Title IX.
Situations like this remind me of how far equality in sports still has to go. In high school, I thought the worst problems left were fighting for equal funding and school support, but clearly, I was wrong. However, it seems that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that little by little, things are beginning to even out. Score two for Westchester!
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 01:58 PM |
| Because partisans want to know |
I love those ridiculous "newspapers" like the Star, Weekly World News and National Enquirer. The things they can do with photoshop and an absolute disregard for the truth is amazing, and entertaining.
Oddly, I was reminded of these papers when I visited the Bush campaign website last week. Compared to the Kerry site, the difference was amazing
The Bush site was plastered with bad pictures of Kerry, and almost entirely devoted to different stories and attacks on Kerry. See how Kerry changes his mind on Iraq. Read about Kerry's "raw deal" on Iraq. View the latest Bush attack ads on Kerry -- "Patriot Act" and "Wacky" (both of which are about as accurate as the stories on bat boy). It looked and felt dark, cheap and vicious.
When you go to the Kerry site, it looks bright, optimistic and clean by comparison. And, ironically, it too is mostly about Kerry. About who he is, and what he wants to do. Though it was marred by the "Oil House" attack ad, it didn't focus on attacking his opponent.
I'm not the only one who noticed. The Bush-Cheney campaign was slammed for both its negativity, and its extreme liberty with the truth, by news organizations. So much so that it has had to put specific rebuttals on its page trying to rationalize how it isn't really negativity or truth-butchering.
Still, the Bush-Cheney team is realizing its mistake. They are attempting to flip things around and portray Kerry as the negative pessimist now. Ironically, this is just more attacking, and more ignoring of the truth. Because Kerry's latest ad is specifically about optimism. And George Bush's latest ad is about the Economy...that sneaks in an attack on Kerry at the end, saying he's doing nothing but being pessimistic. Apparently, actually having a plan for our economic future in addition to just "trusting the American people" is being pessimistic.
Unfortunately, Kerry's site is now including more attacks on Bush. But I guess that is unavoidable. I just hope he doesn't lower himself to the level of the Bush team.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:48 PM |
June 04, 2004
| Re: Stadium sell-outs |
They should have named Safeco Field "Democracy is a joke" field, since it was forced through after the voters rejected supporting it to begin with, and the Allen's stadium "Ah ha Sucka's Stadium," since we are ultimately footing the bill for him.
These are just part of a larger trend of subsidizing sports stadiums. Maybe it has something to do with keeping the voters distracted and happy with green grass ("oooh, I wish I could get my suburban lawn that nice"), shiny bobble heads and oversized beers while the government has to slash funding to their schools, health care, etc.
Because, you know, sports teams are poor, so they need our help, especially when they face potential homelessness. Won't you please help them out?
And, you know, the Kingdome was old. It was around for, like, 50 years or something. I mean, heck, that's ancient, like the Coliseum in Greece or something. Hey, they should tear that down and throw up the Grecian Formula Bowl.
But personally, when it comes to sucky commercial buyouts in general, I miss the Rainier brewery "R" poking up over I-5, now replaced with the stupid green "T" of Tully's Coffee.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:04 PM |
June 03, 2004
| Re: Yo-yo dieting |
Actually, yo yo dieting has long been recognized as bad for you. When you lose weight, you lose muscle mass. If you lose weight and don't exercise, the percentage of the weight lost that is muscle is pretty high. This is especially dangerous because, among other things, your heart is a muscle. Then, when you put back on weight through poor diet and/or inadequate activity, you put back on fat, not muscle. Which is why people tend to lose more and more "tone" with each down-up cycle.
And of course, there's the damage to one's self-image. Increased depression, frustration, and the belief that somehow you are just not strong enough, or smart enough, or have the willpower to lose the weight and keep it off. This can contribute to a host of other mental health issues, and ironically to problems like binge eating.
Fads like the Atkins diet, the grapefruit diet, the ice cream diet, celebrity X's whatever diet, come and go and often do as much harm as good. Yes, yes, I know. You've lost weight on it, and feel great. Fabulous. Even programs like Jenny Craig are dubious. While they might work if people truly followed them all the way through and really took their lessons to heart, most people rapidly start to kinda' sorta' do them, or do them until the weight starts going down then quitting.
But once the diet ends, or starts to get old, the weight just comes back. Because in the end, the only right way to lose weight, and keep it off, is lifestyle change. This is especially difficult for those who have had the same lifestyle their whole life, but their metabolism has simply changed with age.
Take this pill. Just drink this. Eat just this. People are always looking for the miracle cure.
But the answer is and always has been eating right, and exercising. For some people, this is simply a matter of self-education and determination. For others, changing long-ingrained behaviors may require some behavioral, or cognitive-behavioral, counseling. This doesn't mean anything is wrong with you. Just means that habits are hard to break, and behavioralists know how to help you break them. But in the end, "dieting" is, at best, a temporary solution to a lifelong problem.
Unfortunately, a magic cure for not just losing weight but keeping it off doesn't exist.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:00 PM |
| Stadium sell-outs |
Seahawks Stadium is to be renamed Qwest Field. How inspired, how local, how ugly! Seattle taxpayers paid some $310 million of the stadium’s initial cost, yet now we have to live with an ugly corporate name. I’m waiting for Paul Allen to name the stars of Shrek 2 as the team’s new backfield.
Boston has maintained Fenway Park as the name of its historical baseball landmark for some 80 years; they managed to not sell out. The Seahawks and Paul Allen made it all of two years without selling out.
While naming stadiums after ugly corporate monsters isn’t anything new (remember Enron Field in Houston?), one might expect one of the richest people in the world to cough up a little integrity with his local franchise. Safeco pays $1.8 million annually to adorn the Mariner’s pit of perpetual losing--not much when you think about it.
The new sound of Seattle Football won’t conjure up memories of Steve Largent in the back of the end zone, but rather the brutal ringing of a crappy Midwestern cell phone. Thanks for the selective stinginess, Paul.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:55 PM |
| Yo-yo dieting |
As thoughts of bikinis and shorts increase with the improvement of Seattle weather, so do thoughts of what one will look like in said bikinis and shorts. But before answering the urge to try a new fast-acting diet -- again, be aware that the repeated loss and increase of weight can actually hurt in the long run.
A revealing study was recently done by the Fred Hutchinson research center
and the University of Washington on the negative effects of so called “yo-yo
dieting” or the repeated loss and regain of weight. The Seattle Times article states that, “frequently losing and regaining weight may weaken the immune system, leaving the dieter more susceptible to illness.” According to the article, the study though new, is fairly conclusive.
In the age of instant gratification, when one wants the fat gone ASAP (even if it comes back later), this is startling news. It also goes against the little voice inside that whispers, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”
However, this study encourages a more deliberate process of weight loss -- including exercise -- with more permanent results and encourages people to avoid the “yo-yo” cycle.
So remember when that next craving to drop a size or two hits, think seriously about the affects it might have on your body in years to come.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 11:09 AM |
June 02, 2004
| The image factor |
In an age where image is everything, where political speeches are carefully staged in front of flags and banners, surrounded by the right people, and using carefully picked locations and gimmicks, I just have to ask...What was Kerry thinking with that outfit?
Was the "optical illusion" tie chosen to match the color of the podium sign?
Or maybe his advisory team thinks they've seen enough "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to know how to successfully use colors other than the traditional black and navy blue.
Don't get me wrong. I have no wish to imply that Kerry is any less fit to be president because of his questionable fashion taste. Image has nothing to do with the validity of his thoughts and policies.
Having dropped in on conservative blogs, I know that I myself have been the target of some pretty hilarious commentary on my dubious facial hair configurations. I've been called Snidely, a greasy Italian, a vampire lord from Underworld (actually, I rather liked that one) and more. It's pretty amusing, and pretty satisfying that they have nothing better to do, and no better criticisms, than to comment on me and my pointy soul patch.
And by extension, kinda' sad that I had nothing better to do than comment on Kerry's suit, or comment on people commenting on my soul patch.
But I'm not running for prez. Yet (bwah-ha-haaa!). And just as there are those who will vote for a candidate based on party loyalty, or single issues, or the catchiest catchphrase, there are also those who are heavily swayed by image. And I have a hard time thinking this suit is going to win any votes.
Of course, I'm no fashion genius myself. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Kerry looks stylin' and I'm just dead wrong. Like my facial hair.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:20 PM |
| You're rubber, I'm glue |
So the latest Bush campaign e-mail is yet another attack on the Democrats, this time for attacking the president and spreading untruths. Angrily, they declare: "You understand what is at stake in this election; and you understand that the politics of negativity and anger are no match for the politics of optimism and hope."
Huh? I had to double and triple check to make sure this was a Bush campaign e-mail.
Because man, do I hope that is true. So far, all Bush has done is put out attack ads against Kerry that are negative in the extreme, and mostly untrue. So much so that watchdog groups and even newspapers are starting to notice and comment on how innaccurate they are.
The Kerry campaign, by contrast, has been putting out television ads that do not attack Bush but rather talk about Kerry's record, and what he wants to do for America. They are ads that focus on "service and strength," and optimism.
Although they did rebut one of the early attack ads, they have moved on. As I hope Bush will, in a much larger sense.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:15 PM |
June 01, 2004
| Fat in suburbia |
Turns out that urban sprawl and an associated increase in driving makes people fat.
Ya think?
I’ll tell you what else doesn’t help: all those Claim Jumper-type restaurants where even the bran muffins are the size of your head.
Indeed, suburban living comes with its own talk-show-watching, fast-food-eating, SUV-driving lifestyle, and it’s not exactly conducive to keeping a size 6 figure.
I grew up in the suburbs, so I’m allowed to talk. When I moved to Seattle at the age of 18, I vowed I would never go back (though all the bargain shopping is eroding my resolve.)
And, as a matter of fact, I did lose 40 pounds by the time I was 20 from walking everywhere, quitting the Big Macs and almost always missing “Ricki Lake.”
But I’d like to think there’s a solution for people who want to raise their families away from the city. In Federal Way, for example, there are several large parks and the city hosts athletic festivals and little league teams. I don’t know yet whether the rates of obesity are lower there than in other Washington suburbs, but it seems like a good way to combat the crisis.
More crosswalks would also help, as would encouraging safer neighborhoods, where kids can ride their bikes around and fostering the growth of small-business, pedestrian-friendly shopping districts.
It’s pretty unlikely that people are going to stop driving any time soon or choose to raise their kids in the city, but there are definitely structural ways to fix this seemingly structural problem.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Sharon Altaras at 12:09 PM |
| Out of control Ts |
I can’t believe what I’ve been seeing lately. A girl who couldn't have been any older than 12 was shopping near me, with her mom, wearing a T-shirt that read: “My boyfriend thinks he’s the first.” (Isn’t he?)
Then down the aisle I went in the “juniors” section, pulling apart racks and racks of mostly pink tees that read: “Boyfriends make good pets,” “Hurry up and kiss me before my boyfriend comes back,” “I’m in love with my boyfriend’s best friend,” and so on.
Personally, I can’t wait for a shirt to come out that says: “I’m in love with my boyfriend’s dad.” Then we’ll really be pushing buttons.
But I think it’s safe to say we’ve gone beyond the “girls rule, boys drool” concept of yesteryear and that little girls these days are openly encouraged to be cynical about love and the opposite sex.
I guess I’m getting old because these shirts seem out of control. Would I have wanted to wear one, when I was 14?
As I walked to another part of the store, a different adolescent girl begged her mom to buy her one of the tees.
“But it’s sooo cool,” she whined, when her mom told her no.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Sharon Altaras at 10:51 AM |
| Re: War-mongering Kerry? |
Yep, Kerry's about as war-mongering as Bush. The question is, will he be smarter and more responsible in his war-mongering? Kerry has always stated that he supported the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. He, and many other politicians and citizens both Democrat and Republican, have simply been disappointed with the way Bush has handled their trust and the blank check the president was handed immediately following 9-11.
We were in complete control of when, how, or even if we invaded Iraq. So how come we ended up rushing in without more real international support (as in, actual troops and money, not the token supplies and cheers of our co-dependent "willing"), or before we had a real plan for the aftermath? Where's all the flowers and love? Where's the promise that Iraq's oil would pay for its own liberation and reconstruction? Why did Bush spark the largest international protests in history rather than rallying the world to our cause?
Whether you believe war in Iraq was necessary or not, can you honestly say the invasion or the post-war situation was executed in the best way possible, or that the results have been the best they could have been? Sure, no battle plan survives the first engagement, and not everything is Bush's fault. But how many excuses can you make for the man?
Yes, Bush gave his five-point plan. Much of it stuff that both his Democratic rivals and some Republicans have been asking for for up to a year now. Like bringing in the UN. It's good to see Bush is getting some on-the-job training, but I just wish he could have done so with maybe some computer simulations or something, not real lives and tax dollars.
Kerry actually did outline a plan very similar to Bush's a month before Bush did. First, make Iraq part of NATO’s global mission and share the costs and work with those other nations that also have a stake in the outcome. Second, authorize a UN-appointed High Commissioner for governance and reconstruction. And third, launch a massive effort to build an effective Iraqi security force.
Kerry can't help it if he doesn't have the president's podium with which to pre-empt programming and make sure everyone hears "his" plan. It's just a shame that Kerry hasn't done as good a job as he could of being clear in the press opportunities he has had.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:34 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
October 2005
|
|
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
| 16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
| 23 |
24 |
25 |
26</ | | |
