|
 |
 |
|
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. |
August 31, 2004
| Jesus and Johnny Cash |
Apparently the Republicans are planning to exploit the memory of Johnny Cash at some function this week for the Republic National Convention.
This is sad. I see very little of Johnny Cash in George W. Bush and his principles. The practice of using popular celebrities to promote causes contrary to their values is absurd, yet not uncommon among Republicans who wouldn't hesitate to promote a piece of roadkill if they thought it might further their cause. (See the late Ronald Regan using "Born in the USA" out of context, or more recently, President Bush trying to use the Iraqi Soccer team as an example of freedom.)
While it remains true that Johnny Cash wrote many Christian albums -- that doesn't mean he is a conservative; he also wrote songs promoting cocaine and murder. Johnny Cash campaigned for Native American Civil Rights, advocated for prison reform and his most successful album from the past decade featured fairly radical covers of Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden -- Johnny Cash was many things, but conservative was not one of them.
Many tend to assume that being Christian automatically means conservative, but I see very little of Jesus in contemporary conservative values. Jesus was progressive and he believed in helping the poor. By God, Jesus was a liberal.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 06:22 PM |
| FIG letter to Hamm |
“The FIG [International Gymnastics Federation] has now gone a step further and written to Hamm suggesting he could return his medal at its request, according to a letter released by the U.S. Olympic committee Friday,” reports Reuters.
Personally, I think Hamm should’ve given up the medal when the controversy first surfaced. If he gives it up now, then he’ll seem reluctant and only performing a noble action because he’s been told to.
However, I can’t completely berate Hamm because, first, I don’t know what it’s like to train my entire life for a goal -- then to have that goal narrowly salvaged by some Olympic technicalities, and then to be the center of world controversy. Paul has been working all his life to be the best. I can’t imagine how conflicted he feels. Only he knows.
Second, the FIG letter is inappropriate. They couldn’t get together an official mandate to retract the medal -- so instead they write a letter to Hamm urging him to give up the medal.
If they want to take the medal back officially, fine. But if they can’t, then they shouldn’t diffuse their guilt and indecision on to him. He probably already feels it without a letter that borders between formal and informal.
US officials had a right to be angry, though they could have phrased their response in a way that didn’t seem quite so gold-hungry. "During these conversations, the USOC [US Olympic Committee] expressed its unwavering support for Mr. Hamm and indicated it will aggressively resist any attempt by any party to lay claim to his gold medal," they wrote in a statement.
There’s so much emotion and miscalculation in the way different organizations, countries and individuals have been acting towards each other over the controversy. But it’s understandable because the stakes are so high.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 06:17 PM |
| Prestigious colleges |
“Frustrated at not getting their children into elite schools, Americans are creating more elite schools,” says Newsweek. “If the demand for status increases, so will the supply.”
In the late twentieth century, there were only a few select, time-honored “high status” schools such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
The recent trend toward the proliferation of “high status” schools -- with colleges like Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and Washington University in St. Louis --represents an increased array of attractive schools for students.
However, this shift won't truly reflect democratic education, until more “high status” public schools emerge and compete successfully with the Ivies.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 06:13 PM |
| RNC, Day 1 summary |
Talking Points Day One -- Bush is a great war president and leader, Kerry is always changing his mind and, uh, changes his mind a lot.
In a surprising turn of events, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said, "My friends, this is no time to pick a leader who is weak on the war and wrong on taxes." Wow. How embarrassing for Bush that Hastert appears to be endorsing Kerry here.
After all, Kerry has never said he was against the war on terror. In fact, he has criticized Bush on not doing enough, and on abusing the trust handed to him by us and by Congress. Kerry disagreed with the way Bush rushed into the Iraq war and alienated our allies in the process, but not on the war itself.
And as for being wrong on taxes, I'd say record deficits, a shifting of the tax burden from the wealthy onto working families, and passing on the burden to the states and to future generations who will almost certainly have to pay higher taxes because of this administration's economic policies wrong on taxes. Right on, Hastert. This is no time for Bush.
Then there was Giuliani, who called President Bush "a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts..." Yeah. It's called believing what he believes facts be darned and sticking with the wrong decisions and refusing to admit error even when "public opinion" shifts because of little things like, well, the fact that Bush was wrong.
It's nice that Bush has recently admitted that maybe he miscalculated on the aftermath of the war, and even that the war on terror probably cannot be won. All part of his makeover. Oh, wait, that's right, Kerry was the one getting the makeover, when all the speakers at the DNC were encouraged to follow certain themes...
I actually did like Heather Wilson's clever phrase, "In this great struggle, we need a commander in chief who is a beacon, not a weather vane." Even if the message was unoriginal, it was at least a clever turn of phrase.
Giuliani also said, "President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is. John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision." Uh, sure. I remember that time Kerry said world terrorism was pretty neato. Not.
Yes, it is true that Bush tends to see things in terms of black and white, good and evil, but that is not always good. Or evil. Or perhaps Giuliani is referring to the many times we have supported men or regimes that we later labeled terrorists, like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or sold arms to countries like Iran. Oh, wait, that's right, Republican presidents like Bush Sr. did that.
Or perhaps he's referring to Kerry's Senate record, which I addressed in this blog.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:07 PM |
| Re: Spite |
Gavin, while of course most people have some other reason for voting for Bush (like they think he's a good kick-butt war president, or they like his stances on abortion and homosexuality), and therefore find his "faults" acceptable, the sad fact is there are a certain small number of people who will vote for Bush out of "spite."
They recognize that Bush is a horrible president, but are going to vote for him anyway. Why? Maybe they are reacting to what they perceive as attacks on the Republican party and therefore by some weird extension themselves.
Or maybe just because he's the Republican candidate. No matter how much they are disappointed in Bush, it doesn't equal their loathing of the opposition. I mean, even if you think Bush is a little trigger happy, or fiscally irresponsible, or polarizing our nation and the world, or even a few fries short of a happy meal, the only other two options are to vote for Kerry, or not vote.
And someone like Hannity and O'Reilly probably has them so upset at them insidious, commie, tax-lovin', freedom-hatin', media controllin', troop-unsupportin', tofu-eatin', gun banning atheist liberals that they are more afraid of what horrible things will happen if they don't vote for Bush than if they do.
Are Republicans the only ones to do that? Nope. And again, most voters, I should hope, base their votes on something a little more substantial. The only fault to hold with those who claim Republicans vote for Bush out of spite is one of generalizing what a small group of Republicans do to all Republicans.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:02 PM |
August 30, 2004
| Spite |
For those who blog that they think Republicans are voting for George W. Bush purely out of spite: do you honestly feel that way? If so, do you basically think millions of people are that stupid to vote for someone just because they don’t like the word “Democrat”? If so, do you feel that Republicans are the only ones who might do that?
To make outlandish statements like that denigrates the valid viewpoints of a different segment of our society. Disagreements over who is best to lead our country and why is part of what is great about a democracy.
Statements like that do nothing to enhance either your own argument or the debate itself...I may vote for George W. Bush come Nov. 2nd. Am I doing it out of spite? I know that it’s hard to want to identify myself with those kind of statements...
Respond
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 01:21 PM |
| Organic foods |
Last weekend, I went to PCC’s Healthy Living Fair. I’ve never seen such a wide array of organic lotions, teabags, bread, snacks and microwave dinners in my life. Not to mention meat substitutes, carb-free snacks and “In the Zone” diet foods.
About half of these products are good; you can’t fail with well-known brands such as Boca, whose meatless chicken tastes remarkably like real chicken. And Odwalla juice and bars, though ridiculously expensive, are delicious.
But the other half of these products taste absolutely Nasty, with a capital N. The idea of a carb-free waffle is just stupid. Carb-free chocolate tastes exactly like you’d expect it to taste. Don’t even get me started on “healthy” corndogs; I had to spit those disgusting things out.
Personally, if I were to buy organic, I’d do it because I morally disagreed with something, or because the organic product tasted better than the normal product. Otherwise, I wouldn’t spend money on food that tastes exactly the same – and in several cases, much worse – and costs double. The health benefits appear minimal, and I could get bigger benefits by eating healthy and exercising.
Some of the world’s populations with the greatest longevity don’t eat “organic,” they just eat well. On the flip side, some Americans who eat organic live unhealthy lifestyles. I know a girl who talks proudly of shopping at Whole Foods -- as if that implies being health-conscious -- but she’ll down a big box of Sugar Daddies in one sitting.
If you’re not concerned enough to take action on your health, then all the organic and vegetarian products in the world can’t help you.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:17 PM |
| Re: Open challenge |
Just wanted to follow up and note that, as expected, nobody was able or willing to respond to my challenge to give a single legitimate reason our secular law should actually make gay marriage illegal. In the end, it comes down to people being uncomfortable, or having a personal belief based on religion, and wanting to impose that upon everyone.
Case closed.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:14 PM |
August 27, 2004
| Re: Kerry's Senate record |
Brent, I agree with you. Kerry's senate record is more applicable to the current campaign than his military record (though both have their place in the debate). Certainly, I'm surprised all conservatives don't promote that idea, considering the natural extension that if Kerry's Vietnam record should count, then so should Bush's. However, you seem a little selective -- in fact, selecting the same points and statistics that the Bush campaign has been focused on, coincidentally no doubt -- in your consideration of Kerry's record.
First, you shouldn't just believe everything the Bush campaign says about Kerry's voting record. They like to play around with numbers. Second, you should consider the full facts.
For example, this whole "voted against supporting our troops" thing is pretty stupid. As he famously, if unfortunately, stated, he did vote to support it before he voted against it. In other words, he voted for an alternative budget that would have supported our troops by repealing some of Bush's tax breaks that favored only the wealthiest of Americans. When that was rejected and it became clear that the Republicans were determined to be fiscally irresponsible in how they came up with the funds (e.g. run up huge deficits), AND it was clear that the funding would pass whether Kerry voted for it or not, he voted no as a protest vote.
Kerry was protesting fiscal irresponsibility, not protesting the funding of our troops, and he did so knowing that the troops would still get their money. If his had been a deciding vote, I'm sure he would have voted yes.
Or perhaps you dislike his votes to cut important weapons programs?
Finally, all things should be taken in context. There are, after all, two candidates in this race, not one. So while you are looking at Kerry's political record, you should also take an honest look at Bush's as well. Neither is perfect, or likely to make every person happy on every subject. That is the nature of politics, filled as it is with compromise, maneuvering, special interests, and personal opinion.
Of course you can find a couple of things to dislike about Kerry's record. But you can't find anything you don't like about Bush's? Or that you do like about Kerry's?
Not Kerry's co-founding of Vietnam Veterans of America? Not his environmental record? Not his strong support of our civil rights and freedoms? Perhaps you should take a real look at whatKerry vs. Bush stand for and believe in.
Then vote for the person who, on the balance, you feel will better represent all Americans and do what you feel is the job we're electing them to do.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:40 PM |
| Re: Olympics: Root for U.S. |
Karan writes that I’ve been “quick to criticize our own country’s players” and asks why I’m disloyal to American athletes. This is a hasty assumption.
First, I don’t always root for the underdogs; I have sympathy for the Chinese because they’ve endured an incredible amount of hardship in athlete factories (a system I absolutely disagree with). My sympathy stems from compassion, not disloyalty.
Second, I do root for Americans. In my blog “The Olympics are here,” I urged, “Let's root for our incredible athletes” and talked about sports fostering US patriotism. Also note my “Phelps is still a phenom” blog, which is full of praise for his amazing performance.
I’m not being disloyal to American athletes, just pointing out commercialism here and misfortune abroad. I consider informed individuals who criticize public officials and policy to be extremely patriotic, not disloyal; the same goes for athletics and American society.
Patriotism often entails bringing up less-than-pretty issues for scrutiny, not for putting forward a happy-go-lucky-non-offensive face. That’s why we have freedom of speech, and part of what makes us America.
In this instance, I’m not letting patriotism blind me to other athletes who’ve worked equally hard and deserve admiration, support, and encouragement as well. Patriotism shouldn’t override fairness, open-mindedness, and the spirit of international brotherhood.
Respond
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:34 PM |
| Girl torture |
I’m sick of this seemingly all-pervasive low-waisted jeans look. Not only is this a tad uncomfortable, especially in the winter when your back and belly are exposed to all the elements of cold and wet Seattle weather. It’s also very unpleasant to see girls’ underwear when they’re sitting down or bending over, and for girls with more than a little body fat, to see bulges in places that should be decently covered up.
Yet it’s extremely difficult to find jeans, appropriate to my size and age, that aren’t low-waisted. Usually, the ones that rest waist-level instead of thigh-level are for older women (crisp pleats, and legs that are either pencil-straight or voluminously baggy -- reminiscent of the '80s) or at prices clearly aimed the professional woman’s salary.
My main option for size and affordability, then, is the junior’s department or stores like Gap and Old Navy. Still, most pants there are designed for middle schoolers with too much attitude, either low waisted or made in that horrible “stretch” material that threatens to suck the life right out of your previously vigorous limbs. I’d compare these pants to corsets, when women lived within the suffocating constraints of the 19th century.
Go on Old Navy online, and you’ll see the various pant categories set up to torture the young woman’s body and sense of decency: ultra low waist (are you kidding me? This is pretty much a euphemism for butt-level), low waist (about an inch above butt-level), just below waist (add a half inch, maybe a full inch if you’re lucky), and at waist (hooray!)
My options are to conform (searching for the highest-waisted pants that look semi-decent, and investing in some low-waisted underwear so I don’t look like an ad for Jockey every time I sit down), or to start dressing like a female Sherlock Holmes in baggy tweed pants. Maybe throw in a droopy old hat to match.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 02:46 PM |
| Re: Olympics: Root for U.S. |
I don't view the Olympics as war. In the events I care about, I want to see the best competition regardless of who is playing. The other day I found myself rooting for some Cuban sprinter. Why? Not because I'm a Communist sympathizer, but because I figured one gold medal in Cuba would make the poor people there happier than the 94th gold medal to fly under the American radar.
So Karan's assertion that "we should all be rooting for the United States in every sport or every event" sounds a little too hard-core, a little too patriotic. It's just sports.
Personally I have a hard time trying to muster up my nationalistic juices on the men's high dive. I keep hoping somebody will bust out a belly flop or do something really unconventional. When it comes to watching sports on TV, it's a matter of entertainment. I wouldn't watch if I wasn't entertained, although my tolerence for Bob Costas' sappy commentary is begining to reach a breaking point. But that's another story...
As for the US men's basketball, all I said was a beat down was a healthy ego check. I like the fire it lit under us, we're playing better now, motivation helps and for the first time since pros were allowed to compete, Olympic basketball has actually blossomed into a legitimately competetive sport.
Compare that to the circus of American domination exhibited in the past and
I think the product has improved.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:39 PM |
| Online bullying |
A recent article by The New York Times describes a new form of bullying in high schools via the Internet.
Are teens more vicious to each other online where they can't see each other face-to-face? Perhaps.
Of course, the implications of teens' actions online can be global in scale, like posting scandelous pictures online or spreading rumors through blogs.
But this shouldn't be a reason for parents to curtail their teens' Internet use. Let's not forget the positive aspects of the teen Internet movement. Teens are getting more creative and communicative due to the Internet.
Take blogs for example. Everyone has a blog these days that documents everything from peoples' daily lives to current events. Blogs have become a way for teens to express themselves and receive international exposure at the same time. The Internet is making it "cool" for teens to write.
If anything, incidents like those described in the above article should be a wake-up call to teens to be aware of the power of the Internet and act responsibly -- something they're learning to do through fumbles like the ones described in the article. It shouldn't be a reason to stop going online.
Respond |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 02:29 PM |
| God at the Convention? |
The Republican Convention will begin on Monday.
What I am NOT looking forward to:
More distorting of the facts.
Not using actual facts to back up there policies because that would only hurt their arguments.
Only referring to the future because the past isn't so good for this administration.
Great FOX News coverage.
The most ignorant idiots of all: Bob Novak, Sean Hannity, and the Not so NO SPIN ZONE with O’Reilly.
The protests that just make more Republicans vote out of spite for a man they should feel stupid to support.
And I guarantee at the Republican Convention, you would never know that our framers intended for a separation between church and state. One of us should keep a tally of how many times the word “God” or some type of divine reference is used.
And wait, this just in: Unfortunately the special keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, God, will be unable to make it, but not to worry because his messenger will be there -- George W. Bush.
Respond
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 02:25 PM |
| Conventional wisdom |
The Republican convention will no doubt be filled with what we want to hear, but what Bush refuses to listen to -- moderate and sensible voices. In other words, it will be a waste of time.
Because even if we walk away from the convention saying, "Gee, that sounds like a good plan," it isn't Bush's plan. Bush believes what he believes, and does what he wants, and ain't nobody gonna' tell him how to do his job nohow.
But he'll let all those moderates who have been dissed the last four years get up there and speak, and win over those swing voters for him.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:16 AM |
| Poverty and politics |
No doubt, we'll be hearing plenty of political back and forth on the recent report by the Census Bureau that shows that poverty rates increased last year, and the number of people with health insurance decreased (as has been consistent since Bush took office).
I'm sure Kerry's team has been dancing for joy at the news. But it is not fair to Bush to blame this trend entirely on him. After all, this is a trend that is tied to the national economy -- when the economy is in recession, poverty increases. Duh. And the recession did truly begin at the close of the Clinton administration, before Bush came in and started playing President Santa Claus to the wealthy.
But I also believe that Bush could have done a much better job of limiting the increase in poverty, and the loss of health care coverage. While the increase in poverty was to be expected in a recession, the rate at which we recover from the recession is in part based on the actions of our government, as is the availability of social programs to help those hurt by the recession.
Further, Bush's tax cuts (which were promised on the theory they would come out of the surplus that disappeared) and deficit spending have not done anything to help the situation.
So in the end, as in most things political, this issue is not black and white. Bush is fiscally irresponsible, but he's not solely responsible for our nation's poverty. That is a problem that is much larger than any one man, or administration, and one our children's children will still be fighting over.
Still, perhaps it is time for a revival of the Reagan-Bush era "Comic Relief" concerts. You remember, back when homelessness and poverty increased, and we weren't in a recession? Assuming Whoopi isn't busy, that is.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:13 AM |
| More poor |
The Census Bureau came out Thursday with a report showing that the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year. The third straight annual increase -- all under the present administration.
While the president continues to stay busy cutting the taxes of the top 1 percent of incomes, the poverty level of young children is rising dramatically -- there was an increase of 800,000 more children in poverty from 2002.
Plus, there was a job growth of only 32,000 jobs in the month of July, which equals a net loss of 108,000 jobs from the 140,000 total that is needed per month. Didn’t the president promise 180,000 jobs a month with his new economic policy? Well, just another broken promise.
Is this what he calls an economic recovery?
All questions that this administration will never answer.
And to the Independent voters out there: I've given up on all of you who still have not decided who you will support in the presidential election. What are you waiting for?!
And to the Republicans: You’re just voting out of spite. The thing is, anyone could be better than this man -- anyone!
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 10:09 AM |
| "Cyberbullies" |
“...the technology lubricating the social lives of teenagers is amplifying standard adolescent cruelty,” reports The New York Times.
The “new weapons in the arsenal of social cruelty include stealing each others' screen names and sending inflammatory messages to friends or crush-objects, forwarding private material to people for whom it was never intended and anonymously posting derogatory comments about fellow students on Web journals called blogs.”
“Cyberbullies”? Give me a break.
Okay, so teens caught up in oh-so-important social drama tend to IM offensive messages more readily than if they were on the phone or standing face-to-face. It’s harder to call someone an irrational hypocrite, and other things, in person.
But today’s teens are adapting quickly to new technology and learning how to cope with its so-called “dangers.” Unless they’re incredibly clueless and/or reckless, teens should be able to protect themselves against harassment, gossip, and online threats.
RULE 1: Don’t post anything in a blog that says bad things about anyone you know personally. Newsflash: blogs aren’t private. Neither are IMs and e-mails, which can be easily forwarded, so be careful. Think before you type.
If you're anonymously posting mean messages in someone's blog, you're a spineless chicken who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously anyway. And more blogs are becoming private, with "friends only" posting settings.
RULE 2: Don’t give screen names to your enemies, your soon-to-be-enemies, those-notorious-friends-turned-backstabbers, or boys you prefer to avoid (the creepy stalker or persistent can-I-have-a-date types). If you need to, block all users except the ones you list. Privacy settings exist for a reason. Either that, or switch screen names whenever you make a new enemy, which hopefully isn't often.
RULE 3: While girls usually rely on emotional bullying, boys can use the Internet to say things they’d never say in person and/or make flaky promises. Girls have trouble fully understanding what boys say online, without the benefit of nonverbal communication. And besides boys are hard enough to understand in the first place. So beware. Be smart.
Or else the “cyberbullies” will get ya.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 10:05 AM |
| Swift boat saga |
The same people that some bloggers are relying upon to paint Kerry as less than Rambo are discredited by their own accounts.
Given that Vietnam was a long time ago, who's to say what group of partisan veterans is any more entitled to hold the credibility than the rest? I say the Democrats, because the documented evidence from that time, and the accounts of the now detractors, were originally on par with John Kerry's current stance.
The people who were on Kerry's boat all agree; those who weren't actually on the boat are now changing their tune. So the real issue is how can we believe the detractors now when they already have admitted to lying in the past? Which is it? Were they liars then or are they liars now?
Either way, they've admitted to being either being dishonest or confused at best. Regardless the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have credibility issues because they're the ones retracting on their words, not Kerry.
Nobody's going to agree on what really happened, but we can agree that credibility requires consistency, something I haven't seen from the SBVFT.
Ultimately I think this saga will play out in Kerry's favor, because it draws attention to the fact that he was actually in combat -- a stark contrast from Bush's National Guard duty.
When analyzed across the board, comparing Kerry's scrutinized heroics to Bush's cakewalk is like comparing the NHL playoffs to Disney on Ice.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 10:00 AM |
| Olympics: Root for U.S. |
It’s been interesting reading the NEXT blogs about the U.S. in the Olympics. Hieger and Asavareungchai have been quick to criticize our own country’s players because they are over-privileged, make too much money, and practice under better conditions. Give me a break.
Look, we should root for the United States because they are representing our country. Asavareungchai said, “I sometimes find myself rooting for other countries because they’ve trained equally hard under less-than-ideal conditions.” Really? But what happened to loyalty?
She also points out that China has Olympic training factories -- is that what she wants here? We don’t need it, we win without them. Patterson was the first woman in like 20 years to win the all-around gymnastics, and no one said anything about it. Yes, I give my respect to other countries' athletes who work hard to win, but I always root for our players who train and want to win just as bad as the other athletes.
The thing is I don’t care that the U.S. has trained under better conditions or has better equipment, because I know they are just as dedicated to winning in the Olympics. Young people like Phelps, Beard, Hamm and Patterson dream of these days. For sports like theirs (swimming and gymnastics), this is the best thing they look forward to -- and some of us are not rooting for them?
My point is that we should all be rooting for the United States in every sport or every event. Including basketball, understand that our NBA players went to Greece to put our country’s name on their jersey to play for us to win -- not to hang out. They do have millions and if they did not want to be there, they didn't have to.
And I hope Hieger realizes the different rules that international basketball has -- the distance of a three point line that my mom could shoot and score from, the zone defense that traps the inside (Duncan) and kills our style of a two-man game, and the wider weird shaped lanes are all different from the rules our guys are used to. Recently, we beat a very good Spanish team with the passion for wanting to win.
We do have the best athletes in the world, but their hearts and dedication to win take them over the top -- not the best equipment or money. The way some of us and the rest of the media criticize our Olympians, even I would be ashamed to play for a country whose own people tend to root for the underdogs.
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 09:54 AM |
| Kerry's Senate record |
While this whole Swift Boat controversy is definitely interesting and defining of Senator Kerry's integrity and character, I find his record in the US Senate more important and pertinent to this election.
Senator Kerry has continually demonstrated that not only can he not hold a consistent position but that the best way to handle terrorism is on the defensive. We need to be on the offensive against terrorists, not treating them as a "law enforcement issue."
We need to use diplomacy to pressure countries and individuals to comply with our demands for safety and security, but when those avenues break down or don't exist, we must use force. While Senator Kerry supported the Second Gulf War, he opposed the first.
We need to support our soldiers in combat by fully funding them. John Kerry voted against funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after sending them to war.
We need to keep taxes low to encourage investment so businesses can grow and flourish. John Kerry has voted for tax increases 98 times and against tax cuts at least 126 times.
We need to honor those who serve and have served. We cannot fabricate lies about their service to suit our political pursuits. Senator Kerry's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971 is an absolutely vile defamation against the millions of Americans who have put their lives on the line in defense of this country.
I respect Senator Kerry's war record, regardless of what is dug up about it, because he went there and served when others avoided, but his record since returning home is abysmal.
It's no wonder that Senator Kerry decided to rehash that dark time in our nation's history as the central theme of his campaign. Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, the circumstances of his service and his anti-war activities happened to upset a lot of people, and now he must face the consequences of his actions.
Respond
|
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 09:39 AM |
| Kerry, move on |
I agree, of course we should analyze Kerry's record when he served in Vietnam, about as much as we should look at Bush's fine history of service to our country. But personally I think the whole thing is stupid, and a distraction from the real issues. I think Kerry is wasting time being all indignant about the ads. They've been discredited, he's put some legal processes in motion, move on!
The prison abuse reports came out this week. There's something to discuss. Cheney spoke affectionately of his gay daughter and broke with "change the Constitution" Bush to say gay marriage is a state issue. Economic and job numbers ain't so hot. We have troops fighting for their lives right this moment in Najaf. But Kerry's off grandstanding about his besmirched record. Bush is loving it, no doubt. The more Kerry is focused on defending his own record, the less he is reminding people of Bush's.
Kerry, who cares about it at this point? If people really cared about a person's past record, we wouldn't have the president we do -- a C average, DUI, failed management nepotism charity case.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:35 AM |
| More on: Back and forth |
Gavin, you seem all too willing to say that since everything is influenced by personal belief, if they pass laws based on nothing BUT personal belief, well, such is life. But while of course we can never remove bias and moral crusading and social trends from influencing our laws, I believe that we still need to hold our politicians to some kind of standard -- not just moral, but one rooted in the principles and spirit our nation and our Constitution were founded on.
In fact, this isn't just a nice idea, it is critical to limit abuse of power and to protect our own rights.
Just as Christians can never be perfect as Christ, that doesn't make them throw up their hands and say that we're all sinners so why bother trying.
Likewise, while politicians can never be perfectly objective, above human error and limits, we can expect them to do their jobs in a manner fitting an elected official and not, say, a pastor or that annoying uncle who thinks he knows everything about everything, facts and fancy schoolin' be darned.
If they want to pass a law banning abortion, they can certainly try. And with our current Supreme Court, they might even be able to get away with it. But again I say that just because they can does not mean that they should.
While of course it is their job to do what they feel is "right," and what each person thinks is right differs, there are certain basic questions that should guide whether they turn their personal opinion into a law we must all live under, enforced by our police and judges, punishable if broken.
And one of the first questions should be, is there anything OTHER than personal belief to support their decision? Because if not, then our federated republic becomes a thinly veiled oligarchy, and at times even a theocracy.
And while that might suit the people who hold the same personal beliefs as our rulers fine, it sucks for everyone who would like to retain the freedom to choose their own beliefs, thank you very much.
So whether they believe abortion "is" murder, or they believe it "might" be murder, in the end they believe, they don't know, and that should not be sufficient reason to impose their will on me. Even if that doesn't always stop them.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:30 AM |
August 25, 2004
| Re: More on ads |
In response to Hieger’s latest critique of the Kerry swift boat saga, research is generally an excellent thing to do when criticizing a group, whether you agree or not.
For example, the link posted on the blog references the official notes for the medal Kerry won when rescuing the Green Beret. This, as well as the Navy report referenced today by the AP, has to be based on someone’s write-up. All the other Swift Boat captains present on that day (who all are members of SBVfT) say they didn’t write it, that Kerry did. Kerry could release who wrote the write-up, and hasn’t. Where’s the burden of proof? Overwhelmingly with Kerry?
I agree with Randy Henderson, who has the correct answer to the “conservative vendetta” attack.
These veterans aren’t doing it because they’re Republicans, or because Karl Rove secretly met with each of them in a backyard barbeque and told them to attack Kerry. They’re doing it because they are genuinely upset at both Kerry’s post-war testimony (which has been proven to be mostly false…barbaric acts by Vietnam soldiers were not the norm), and because they hadn’t read the recent Brinkley biography, which just came out. That book made them believe that Kerry had not only betrayed them, but was trying to be a hero. That is what they have been very consistent on.
Look, there are two sides to these stories, and both deserve to be heard. It has to be interesting that after this has been out for a couple of weeks, both Kerry’s first Purple Heart (because of his journal entries) and his Christmas Cambodia trip (because of every known fact under the sun) are in question. That doesn’t sound like an overwhelming burden of proof to me. The Cambodian trip was recently “seared” into Kerry’s memory, even if it did take place before Nixon was ever in office.
None of this had to be an issue. Kerry and his team didn’t have to spend four days touting him as a Vietnam hero at the DNC. They could’ve just attacked Bush where we all know Bush to be weak. Nothing on the environment, little on economic policy. Everything about heroism.
Kerry invited this attack, and should have a press conference, answer the questions, and then really “bring it on”. If not, he just continues to look like he’s got something to hide.
Respond
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 06:05 PM |
| Re: Back and forth |
I’m pretty much willing to put this little exchange to rest, but there are a few more points I’d like to make in response to Randy’s latest blog.
He mentions my argument that abortion “might” be murder, and then takes it to a bit more of an extreme. Of course abortion “might” be murder…this is an opinion, of which I have not made up my mind. However, he is missing my point, which is that if one believes life begins at conception, then the logical connection is that abortion “is” murder. “Might” is for wafflers like me. “Is” is for people who have made up their minds.
He also tries to make the point that “political views, money, and reason” are separate from personal beliefs. To that I say, how? I’d recommend an excellent book by a psychologist named Michael Polanyi entitled “Personal Knowledge.” Essentially, the argument is that nothing we do is separate from our personal beliefs. Can we rationally say that our political views are separate from our personal beliefs? That the way we view money is? Reason, proof, logic, all are based on our own personal biases.
Full impartiality is impossible. I hope that what Randy's trying to say is not that religion is the only personal belief not able to be brought into a politician’s judgment. Speaking as a Christian, I can promise you that my faith influences everything about me, including my political views, my money, and my reason.
And yes, though a little absurd, if a majority of politicians decided Maxim should be illegal, they have the right to do so. We could criticize it and call it absurd, but they do have the right to do so. However, I think it’s a little absurd to try and draw a parallel between Maxim magazine and abortion rights.
We can try and hold on to the false premise of impartiality, or accept the truth that our personal beliefs can and do influence the way we go about our lives.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:58 PM |
| Random college classes |
I’m so amazed at all the random classes UW offers. There’s Psychobiology of Women, which discusses how a woman’s biology influences her behavior; Chado-Japanese Esthetics, which studies traditional Japanese tea ceremonies (with studio -- does that mean free tea?); Fairy Tales of Hans Christian Anderson; and summer quarter, there was a class entirely devoted to Olympic history.
Last year, the only truly random class I took was Dance 101 -- THE class for girls who dreamed of being ballerinas as children, but who are now too klutzy to ever become dance majors.
In that class, I learned that fondue and sauté aren’t just food-related terms, but actually dance moves as well; that those cute pink ballet slippers provide little if any protection for your feet (oh the pain! the agony!); and that modern dance isn’t just spacey music and people rolling around, but a beautiful philosophical art.
Dance 101 got me out of my comfort zone; I remember watching some of the weirdest videos of my life, in which college students rolled down a snow-covered hill to a metallic clinking sound and these same students walked across beaches, cities, through Greekish ruins, and played musical chairs for the entire half-hour video. The videos were supposed to familiarize us with the concept of “motion,” "space" and "time," but most people just ended up confused or bored. Still, Dance 101 showed me a new art, new vision, that I wasn’t familiar with.
Ultimately, if you’re trying to decide whether you want to attend a big or small school, the perks of a big school include a mind-boggling array of classes. If you’re a student who’s never had the joy of taking a purely random elective, try one! You might never get the chance to learn about sub-Saharan arts or Caribbean Literature again.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:50 PM |
| Cheney's heart |
Dissention in the ranks -- Cheney loves GAYS! Well not quite, but maybe he does have a little heart lodged somewhere under that cold exterior.
Either that or he's intentionally trying to get himself kicked off the ticket so maybe John "I Love Media Attention" McCain can step in and wrap up the ticket.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:45 PM |
August 24, 2004
| Swift to judge |
There seems to be some confusion around this whole swift boat controversy.
First, the Republicans are not attacking Kerry's war record for no reason, or because they require a proven military record of all liberal candidates. Rather, they are attacking Kerry's record because Kerry has made his record the core of his candidacy, and therefore it is what his opposition has to attack in order to help Bush win.
That said, there are multiple influences at play in the anti-Kerry ad and book. First, there is indeed conservative Republican backing and encouragement. Yet, the man whose life Kerry saved, and who has stood by Kerry, is a registered Republican, so that is not enough. I do think, however, that in these times of blue state/red state, when the country is so deeply divided and very zealous about their particular party, people might be moved to do or say things they might not in more reasonable and calm circumstances.
But these men also likely share a resentment over Kerry's anti-war activities when he returned home. They feel he betrayed them. And NY Times or not, I think it is only fair to examine the record, motivations, and character of the men who are attacking Kerry, even while we examine the record, motivations, and character of Kerry himself.
Another point is that these events took place during combat, under highly stressful situations. To tear them apart with a fine-toothed comb now, from the comfort of our computer chairs, is a little unfair, whichever side you are on. I'm sure everyone involved did what they thought was best at the time, under the pressure of the moment.
Finally, and this goes both ways, for the pro-Kerry and anti-Kerry camps, the events took place in a combat situation decades ago. Anyone who says memory is reliable is lying. Memory is an unreliable and tricky thing. It is constantly changing, being modified by new knowledge, by new experiences, by dreams, by your own changing perspectives and desires. I doubt even Kerry accurately remembers exactly what took place as it actually happened, and certainly I doubt anyone not directly involved does.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:02 PM |
| Re: Back and forth |
Gavin, you call my opinion that laws should be based on facts ephemeral, but I view it exactly the opposite. Arbitrarily deciding to impose a law because of something that "might" be true, especially when that "might" is based on heavily religious opinion, is an ephemeral means of secular, national legislation.
Should we make contraceptives illegal because they might be killing half-souls? Should we make it actually illegal to take the lord's name in vain (just in case those people are endangering their souls)? Etc.
Further, your argument that we "might" be committing murder is a little weak. Should we arrest egg and sperm donors for selling half-children? Should we arrest masturbators for committing assault on pre-conceiveds? Should we arrest anyone who eats scrambled eggs for animal abuse? Why not?They "might" be future lives.
And again, this is all moot. The real point is that you currently have the right to waffle all you like about whether it is right or wrong. You have the freedom to choose to support an abortion or not. The government can't tell you whether life really begins at conception. And therefore, they shouldn't tell you that they've decided to make that decision for you.
Again, you are right that personal belief does influence our laws. But there are two caveats to that: first, personal belief is rarely the only, or even the majority, reason for a particular law to be passed. Laws are usually passed more for political reasons, for monetary reasons, for compromise reasons, and because they are actually needed to address some real need. Second, just because it happens doesn't mean that that is what is best or right.
Are you saying that just because some lawmakers CAN make laws for no other reason than personal belief, and just because some of them do so, that that is a good thing? So if the majority of lawmakers believed that Maxim is obscene, I guess it is okay to make it illegal to own one? What if they believe that owning a Maxim contributes to sexual frustration in teens that then contributes to teenage sex, teen pregnancies (and thus abortions), and date rapes?
Even if there are no statistics to support that belief, heck, it should be okay for them to just decide to make Maxim illegal, right? They are protecting everyone's teenage daughters, after all.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:57 PM |
| Hamm should give up medal |
After re-reading Gavin’s blog, I still think Hamm doesn’t deserve the men’s all-around gold. However, the South Koreans failed to lodge a timely protest as specified by Olympic policy, so it’s difficult to force him to give it up.
Instead of waiting to see what the Olympic committees decide, Hamm should simply give Yang Tae-young the gold medal. It’s the honorable thing to do, and the character necessary to do that surpasses the character needed to win gold in the first place.
If Hamm gave up his gold, America would celebrate the strength of his character. He’s already won over fans with his big smile and the incredible happiness he expresses every time he nails a routine; if he showed integrity, the whole nation would be stunned at his character. We’d applaud him for doing the right thing -- perhaps even more than we applauded him when (we thought) he won gold.
Okay. If he doesn’t give up the gold, the public will associate his name with controversy, and people will keep asking themselves, Did Hamm really deserve the gold? It’s difficult to see Hamm as a hero, when this looms over his head. I see him as too caught up in prestige, not in doing what’s right. I wonder if advertisers would back off endorsements to play it safe.
The South Koreans, probably still mad at America from the Apolo Ohno fiasco which left them with no medals in the last winter Olympics, will hold more grudges against us. Other nations may see Americans as medal-hungry and determined to dominate even when it’s unethical. The spirit of international brotherhood at the Olympics will be compromised.
The right thing to do is always hardest. But it’s what Hamm needs to do, for himself and for America.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:51 PM |
| Re: More on Hamm |
Gavin, it’s true that “There’s no guarantee that the South Korean would have had the same performance on his final apparatus, or that he would have been scored the same.” No one knows what would have happened. That’s all tenuous guesswork.
And yes, “judges are human, and can score differently depending on who’s where in the race...they’re not robots, as much as we’d like to imagine they are.” Of course judging is subjective, but it must be consistent; judging should follow its own rules of awarding consistent start values based on the difficulty of the program. That’s a foundation of the gymnastics judging policy.
Judges give an initial start value, then deduct points from there based on the athlete’s mistakes. Yang Tae-young should have gotten a start value of 10, not 9.9 for his routine. He’d gotten a 10 start value in the team qualifying and finals, for the exact same routine; the International Gymnastics Federation re-watched the competition tape and confirmed it should’ve been a 10 start value because it was so difficult. Subtracting deductions from the 10 start value, Yang Tae-young would have won.
The error in question doesn’t represent a subjective, controversial judgment on the merit of Yang Tae-young’s performance; it’s a numerical inconsistency in start values.
As for your statement that U.S. analyst Tim Daggert said the South Korean should have gotten more deductions on his performance, maybe. Maybe we could individually look at everyone’s performance and see where the judging is arguable. But that’s a totally different matter, because you’re talking subjectivity. The matter of start values is a black-and-white numerical error.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:48 PM |
| Re: More on ads |
Typically if you're starring in an inflammatory "attack ad," chances are you're playing partisan politics, in this case conservatively. Moreover, would anybody on earth voluntarily be featured in a Republican ad if they weren't trying to further a Republican cause? It's commone sense. We don't need it spelled out for us. These particular "Swift Boaters" obviously aren't swing voters.
No one should take for gospel the words and accounts of men who, in some of the more obvious cases, are contradicting the statements they made at the time of war, before they had 30+ years to develop an agenda.
Additionally, the latest round of these veteran's accounts contrasts the documented military records for the event in question. Not to mention, if these disgruntled veterans are so non-partisan and simply interested in just clearing the record, why did they wait 30 years, under the context of a presidential election to make their case? They've had 30 years to clear the air but they wait until they have a slimy platform to voice their historical discrepencies?
C'mon, we should all know an agenda when we see one.
It seems that the burden of proof lies overwhelmingly on John Kerry's side of the argument. As for the bitter vendetta of the conservative crowd, it appears to be a lot of cheap talk and empty lies -- hardly the type of "research" with which I would want to identify.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:42 PM |
August 23, 2004
| Re: Hamm deserves bronze, not gold |
Christina’s analysis of the gymnastics debacle is a little flawed. Her black-and-white thoughts fail to take into account the multitude of psychological factors that are part of such judged competitions. There’s no guarantee that the South Korean would have had the same performance on his final apparatus, or that he would have been scored the same (judges are human, and can score differently depending on who’s where in the race…they’re not robots, as much as we’d like to imagine they are).
This goes the same for Paul Hamm. The rules correctly followed would have been South Korea filing a protest before the final apparatus. They failed to do so.
US analyst and former gymnast Tim Daggert also provided a video replay to Paul and his coach showing some holds the Korean had in his routine that weren’t properly deducted, in which case it’s all a moot point.
Basically, judged events breed controversy. Give me a good football game any day of the week.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:28 PM |
| More on ads |
John Hieger’s recent couple of rants regarding the Swift Boat ads demonstrate an extraordinary lack of research into the issues. It references the New York Times article (first off…very few rational individuals would reference the NY Times when it comes to its views on a liberal attack…think Fox News for Democrats) that calls into question the “couple guys who were close to Kerry." Nice to know that more than 200 Vietnam veterans can be so easily dismissed as a “couple guys.”
There’s also no proof of John’s insinuation that the veterans are doing this because they are “conservative.”
Frankly, it is sad that Vietnam can still be the center of an election…but then it was John Kerry who spent two sentences on his last 20 years of service and the remaining four days of the convention building himself up as a decorated hero. I guess other opinions on that subject aren’t allowed…
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:23 PM |
| Pride before the fall |
Maurice Greene is, perhaps, the most blatantly arrogant American athlete. I found it amusing but somewhat sickening -- his swagger, his impish grin, his tattoo reading GOAT (Greatest of All Time). He’s even said, “I’ll have everything in order and I’ll win. Only one can take home my prize and that’s me,” according to MSNBC.
Though Greene’s run the greatest number of sub-10 second 100m races, he didn’t win gold last night in Athens and lost to his less hyped-up American teammate. No one denies that Greene is an extraordinary athlete who has already made history.
Nevertheless, his amazing record sours in the face of what the public now recognizes to be empty claims and idle boasts. It’s like in Greek mythology: hubris is dangerous, even to the most superhuman of men.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:17 PM |
| All’s fair in the Olympics |
The Olympics are sometimes difficult to watch. So many people have spent their lives training and sacrificing “normal” childhood/teenage activities in quest of athletic glory. While some carry home gold medals, many more leave empty-handed.
I’ve finally reconciled my sadness for the athletes who didn’t medal with a simple justification: whoever deserves the medal, usually gets it. For example, in the last two winter Olympics, many Americans felt that veteran Michelle Kwan deserved the gold; after all, she won several World Championships and virtually every honor minus the Olympic gold.
Instead, younger girls won what Kwan had wanted for years. I felt badly for her, but now think that the athlete who performs best under intense pressure truly deserves the medal. Michelle’s poor performance shouldn’t have won over Sarah Hughes’ amazing one, just because Michelle is a seasoned veteran and usually performs better.
Similarly, Svetlana Korkina of Russia hoped to finish off her career with Olympic gold in the women’s all-around last week. Instead she came away with silver, after 16-year-old Carly Patterson turned in a top-notch performance.
Ultimately, the medals aren’t a question of who’s the best, who’s trained the hardest, and so forth; they’re about rising above the pressure and disciplining the mind, as much as they are about training the body. Whoever does this best, whoever keeps focused despite tight competition, whoever can smile in the face of stress, usually deserves to win.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:14 PM |
| Gravy train |
OK, so we can't prove Bush deserted the National Guard, but we do know that for a war-mongering president, he sure as heck didn't want anybody shooting at his hide when it was his generation on the front lines.
Considering the Republican party is scrutinizing every minute detail of Kerry's actual combat service, it's more than hypocritical that conservatives are holding the Democratic nominee to a higher standard than the incumbent.
Applying the trendy new conservative "value" that demands all liberals be qualified military vets, and extending this qualification across the board to Bush brings up some obvious character issues by conservative standards. Namely, if military service is such a pivotal accomplishment, and is the scale by which to judge a man's presidential worth (I don't agree that it is, but the Republicans seem to be making a big issue out of it), then Bush is inherently unqualifed, as he knowingly avoided combat roles for the gravy train that is fighting the Vietnam War from the luxury of some Dallas airport.
If conservatives want liberals to be legitimate warriors, then they should expect the same values in their own front runners.
As for Halliburton, please. Is there really any confusion about the family-like connections betwen the Bush administration and that gouging, sleaze fest for which the VP is terminally indentured? There's plenty of documented material to support claims that for whatever crazy reason, Halliburton seems to land just about every contract that comes their way.
I don't know what they call that in some circles, but it seems like favorship, which might be understandable if Halliburton wasn't charging American taxpayers top dollar so their employees could stay in 5-star hotel rooms at our
expense.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:11 PM |
| Hamm deserves bronze, not gold |
Paul Hamm, who won gold in the men’s all-around gymnastics competition by 0.012 of a point, actually received the medal due to a scoring error. Judges mistakenly scored Yang Tae-young of South Korea too low, accounting for his third place finish, reports the Associated Press.
The International Gymnastics Federation said the results will not be changed for now, and “USA Gymnastics president Bob Colarossi compared the mistake to a bad call in football that wasn't discovered until after the game.”
I was delighted by Paul’s amazing comeback from 12th to 1st in the closest competition in Olympic history; no one can deny that he was absolutely incredible in the final event.
However, this isn’t like football when plays are often controversial and interpreted on-the-spot as final. This is a simple, black-and-white, numerical error of the judges. It should be corrected; Paul and Yang Tae-young should be given the medals they rightfully earned.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 02:46 PM |
August 20, 2004
| Redeployment |
So the new plan of troop redeployment is now out. Frankly, I like it. The USSR is long gone and threatening no one. South Korea has already agreed to the troops moving away from there (because the 35,000 troops or so were really going to stop the North Koreans). No, South Korea has a fine military of their own at this point, and it’s time we ended that little “occupation” as well.
What I can’t understand is why Kerry is going so strongly against this, especially after his own quotes on Aug. 1: “I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops not just there [Iraq] but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula, perhaps, in Europe, perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination.”
I’m sure that, again, there’s someone out there to correct my opinion of Kerry’s nuances. So what’s the explanation this time?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:22 PM |
| Swift justice |
I’m still trying to figure out what all the allegations are, although obviously unproven, except apparently for the Christmas in Cambodia story that Kerry recently had “seared” into his memory that has turned out to be false. I suppose my question is, for all of you out there accusing Bush of deserting his National Guard Service (unproven), colluding with energy companies(unproven), and worshiping the devil (unproven), what makes you agree with those stories but not with this? My guess? You don’t like Bush, so it’s fun to call him a deserter.
Innocent until proven guilty? Irrelevant. We blog about proof and data, and the ignore it when it serves our purpose and ignore stories that might go against our chosen horse in the race.
Aren’t politics fun?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:19 PM |
| The real problem |
The New York Times did a great story on the movement by disgruntled Vietnam Vets to undermine John Kerry's accomplishments in the war.
The article also calls into question the credibility of two authors who just published a book called, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry". One author was one of Richard Nixon's handpicked fools selected to debate John Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show", the other author is a known contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Semetic postings on right wing web sites, who supposedly regrets those comments he made recently. (i.e. the spineless hater is afraid to stand by his evil nature under the glare of the public eye...nice credibility. )
Besides countless rationalizations, contradictions and outright lies, what really seems to motivate this group is their resentment over Vietnam in general, which is hard to understand because Vietnam was a tragedy and a loser. I can understand the Veterans are looking for philisophical solidarity, but the bottom line was Vietnam was a total waste by any stretch of the imagination.
It's kind of creepy to hear some conservatives talk about the war being just and right, thirty years later. The reality is that 67,000 Americans died for nothing. Vietnam is completely Communist, and the argument at the time was that if we didn't step in and intervene, Communism would continue to spread throughout the world. (A rationale that sounds ironically similar to the same motivations for our current occupation of Iraq.)
Why revisit Vietnam when the real problem lies in Iraq, today? America should be focusing on the present mess instead of anxiously hanging on the confused, bitter, contradictory testimony of some troubled men who can't shake their old demons.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:15 PM |
| At your service |
The fuss about John Kerry's service in Vietnam is nothing short of pathetic. Conservative veterans funded by some Texas fat cat have launched an ad saying that Kerry's war heoics are exaggerated, based off of the accounts of a couple guys who were close by during the combat.
Apparently there are some discrepencies regarding who was getting shot at from where. Evidently, at the height of combat, the young Republicans on the Swift boats were fascinated by a then-nobody named Kerry. Some thirtyfive years later, all these men can account for exactly what Kerry was doing, nevermind the fact that they were probably trying to save themselves from death. I guess conservatives have amazing observational capabilites under stress. Even in the heat of combat, these soldiers were able to keep a skeptical eye on some guy named Kerry from another boat.
I can't help but wonder, if the conservatives are so bent on discrediting those who apparently didn't serve as bravely as possible, how is it possible to overlook the blatant reality that George W. Bush never even went to Vietnam? Why is Kerry's documented combat experience in question and George W. Bush's complete absence from the war, much less National Guard duty, not the focal point of this media blitz?
I think the media has let the conservative ranks run amok with a non-issue. Bush's cowardice is the only known truth pertaining to Vietnam. As for Kerry, at least he was there, in combat. As for Bush's military service, that's a big gray area full of classified unknowns.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:10 PM |
| Back and forth |
Randy, your latest explanation of Kerry’s stance on abortion is still a tad ephemeral. Yes, there is no proof of where life begins. This does go both ways. There’s no proof that an aborted fetus is alive or not…but there’s the chance there is. This is a back and forth of life and death. Make the wrong decision and lives can be at stake. There’s a reason millions of Americans are so fired up about this decision.
I’m an unabashed waffler and haven’t been able to make up my mind and I do believe that my stance on where life begins would make a distinct impression on whether or not I believed abortion was alright, because as I stated, you are believing men and women to be committing murder if you believe life begins at conception. To stand on the sidelines, to not even vote in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban, is incomprehensible in that light.
Randy states that a threat to another person’s well-being has to be proven, has to be real. Randy also claims that these laws are based on measurable data. Well, stop abortion unless in the health risk to the woman and see if birth rates rise to “alive” individuals--that’s my guess. I think I’d call that a “measurable impact”.
Frankly, laws are passed all the time without threats to a person’s well-being being proven. That’s why we have these huge debates between political parties. Two (or more) opposing points of view that can be seen as valid. The list of these hot button issues is long, and I won’t go into it, just go down this blog to see a few. I’m sure Kerry has voted for a law where the measurable impact wasn’t proven, or where a threat wasn’t proven, like say, voting for Bush to have power to go to war with Iraq.
Proof, as any philosopher or mathematician can tell you, is not as strong a branch as we’d like to hold on to. The word is thrown about all the time. That’s why men and women are voted into office to vote as they feel their constituents would desire, as they believe is best for the country. Personal beliefs take center stage in many of these debates. The choice of life versus death should always weigh heavily in one’s votes, and for a person who gets a perfect rating from every pro-choice advocate out there, Kerry’s belief obviously doesn’t.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:03 PM |
| Bush on the ranch |
Bush will be on his ranch again for a week, working on his convention bs ... er, I mean speech. As reported by CNN, "the president is scheduled to be at his ranch for about a week, taking a break from re-election appearances. It's his 38th presidential trip to his ranch where he spends time outdoors fishing, clearing brush and exploring its rocky terrain, waterfalls and canyons."
It's good to see our president is taking a break from taking a break to run for re-election. Granted, Kerry and Edwards have been on the campaign trail as well, rather than on Capitol Hill talkin' to Bill just a Bill. But the difference of course is that Bush didn't wait for a presidential campaign to take long breaks from his job.
Basically, I think the news media should stop reporting when Bush is on vacation, or at a fundraiser, or taking some Calgon time on his ranch, and just give a news flash when he's actually working. That will leave room for even more important updates on things like the Jackson trial, or the Peterson trial, or the Bryant trial, or that Olympics thingy that's going on.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:54 PM |
| What? Kerry won medals? No! Really? |
Okay. Enough with the war hero stuff. We got it Kerry. Now, if you will just spend half as much time reminding people what your actual plans for the future are, and slapping down Bush and Cheney when they keep spinning your voting record or taking words out of context, you might actually win some votes.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:44 PM |
| Broke and bored in Seattle? |
I don't know why I let it happen, but we had some out of town visitors and I let them drag me through the EMP.
Me, I wanted to take them to Bimbo's for a bite, hit Broadway and do a little shopping, then catch an actual show with a band like Schoolyard Heroes. That's rock and roll, baby.
Instead, I had to pay $20 dollars to look at instruments, artifacts, and clothing sealed away behind Plexiglas while videos told me the same stuff you can hear on VH-1 Behind the Music.
I mean, yeah, sure, seeing the handwritten lyrics for "Lump" is alright. But $20? Maybe $3. Maybe.
EMP is, in my mind, the kind of place where only the hardest-core music lover, most likely someone actually in a band, would feel less than completely ripped off spending $20 to walk through it. And most of the people I know who are in bands couldn't afford to waste $20 doing so, not unless they want to eat their Kraft mac & cheese without butter or milk.
So if you have out of town guests, don't let them do it. Don't let them drag you up the Space Needle either, paying, what is it these days, $8-10 for an elevator ride? If they have half a pulse, take them around, show them the real Seattle. Then take them out to the rainforest, or up to some falls, or out to the sea, depending on what might be new to them. Give them some real experiences, some real memories. They'll thank you for it, and you won't be broke, and bored.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:41 PM |
| Olympic symbolism |
Response to "Captain America"
Randy writes, “Yeah, unfortunately, even the Olympics have become co-opted by the presidential campaign.” Sadly, I have to agree that the Olympics are taking on a degree of political symbolism that make it, upon close examination, not quite the simple “cheer on your country’s athletes, and enjoy all the wonderful sporting events” celebration.
At the opening ceremonies, I naive | | |
