 |
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 naively believed that the Olympics were an incredible way for Americans to demonstrate national unity and patriotism. The Olympics seemed simple.
I viewed them as pure celebrations of the human spirit and willpower; the quest for greatness and success; the amazing result of years of dreams, training, hard work and love of one’s sport; combined with the opportunity for sports fans worldwide to cheer on their teams, enjoy the competition and be inspired.
But the Olympics are, at their heart, a competition. A competition among different countries, to state the obvious. Therefore, some countries view the Olympics as a way to earn national glory and symbolize their growing dominance in the world. “China’s international athletic success is about nationalism; it is the physical expression of a resurgent country, a rebuttal to its history as the ‘sick man of Asia,’” reports TIME Asia.
China’s national sports policy is called “Winning Pride at the Olympics.” At some training facilities, both the Chinese and Olympic flags are hung. The Chinese are also trying to up their rankings in terms of the total number of medals won; in Sydney, China was third after America and Russia. To this end, they’re also “targeting” “little-known sports that offer a profusion of Olympic medals,” such as shooting, Taekwondo and canoeing/kayaking.
The Olympics are wrapped up with national image, prestige and power. It’s a little disheartening to think that the games - which were supposed to represent national pride, international brotherhood and the strength of the individual spirit - have become deeper symbols of world dominance. Things are rarely as simple as they seem.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:33 PM |
| The economy’s chugging along |
The economy, a central election issue, has been an especially ambiguous creature lately. While Kerry supporters point to the inflation rate and steady unemployment rate, Bush supporters emphasize the growth of jobs and increased wages. Whom to trust? Which statistic trumps which? Can we even trust any of the statistics, since they’ve so obviously contradictory and often in a partisan context?
I don’t really have an answer; but my conclusion is to examine many different sources of data in their proper context, to locate real trends, instead of focusing on isolated numbers pushed forward by partisan interests.
A Princeton economics prof writes in the New York Times that “wage growth slowed over the last few years, especially after taking account of inflation.” Furthermore based on his analysis of different data sources, “The average real hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory workers, who make up 80 percent of the private work force, actually fell over the last 12 months; the increase in the wage rate was one percentage point less than the inflation rate.”
This indicates a solid trend, which most people have already intuitively felt, experienced, heard about: the economy is chugging along. Perhaps we need new leadership to rev it up.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:19 PM |
| International athletes |
John writes, “For every $20,000 (give or take) Allen Iverson gets paid per basket in the U.S., there's a determined competitor in an almost third world country getting paid pennies on the dollar to do the same thing better.”
I agree. While I admire the Americans, I sometimes find myself rooting for other countries because they’ve trained equally hard under less-than-ideal conditions. Whereas standout Americans can train in swanky mountainside resorts, and appear in everything from cell phone commercials to chicken soup ads, athletes in other countries don’t get the star treatment, luxurious surroundings and multimillion dollar deals.
Take China. “...even in this brave new world of hyper-athleticism, no country systematically trains its kids as young and hard as China does,” says TIME Asia. China has 3,000 state-funded sports schools; children are usually sent to these before the age of nine, regardless of their interest in sports!
They live at an institution, focus completely on sports, give up their childhoods nd see their parents once a year. They’ve got to be strong and disciplined, because their system of training is brutal. TIME calls this system “China’s athlete factories,” and China calls their sports program – which is focused on the Olympics and follows the Soviet model in a form of socialist sports servitude – “‘Winning Pride at the Olympics.’”
For example, in one school, girls age six or seven have to do the splits for thirty seconds, while their 154 pound coach sits on their legs. “No matter how tough the girls are, no matter how much resolve they have mustered, the tears come within seconds.” This is just one example of what these athletes go through, or are forced into, by the government.
So while part of me wanted the U.S. men’s gymnastics team to medal, I also hoped China would pull it off too – but they didn’t. Nor did the women’s team, who placed a distant seventh.
While the Olympics bring Americans unity and patriotism, it also reminds us that we’re incredibly privileged to have what we do, and that we’re not the only country with athletes worthy of immense respect.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:16 PM |
August 19, 2004
| "Gooder-er intelligence" |
Bush has an ad "Intel," that goes on about how Kerry missed a bunch of meetings on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Kerry camp responded with a bunch of numbers that, I'm guessing, are intended to show that the Bush team used selective numbers and tricky math to come up with their figures. And they make the point that if Kerry was at the meeting but didn't speak during it, he was counted by the Bush team as "absent."
The Bush ad then goes on about how Kerry proposed cutting the intelligence budget by $6 billion dollars. Of course, they fail to mention that this was in 1994, well before 9-11 ever happened.
Obviously, it seems a dangerous thing to do from the perfection of hindsight. But then again, not knowing how big the total budget actually was, or how much was being wasted, or what Kerry saw as a better use of that $6 billion dollars at the time, I can't pass judgment on that decision. And, as the 9-11 commission made clear, the intelligence community had bigger problems than simple funding. The $6 billion was not cut, and the intelligence community still had problems with information sharing, of "group think" on Iraq, etc.
And it kind of avoids the fact that Bush has made decisions that are more relevant to our current situation. Even after 9-11, Bush opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission, of the department of homeland security, he has supported creating a national intelligence director that would be a greatly watered down version of the one recommended by the commission. Under this administration, there have been leaks of the names of a CIA operative and key anti-terrorist informants when it suited their political needs. And I find it hard to believe that this administration's obvious obsession with Iraq did not influence the "group think" intelligence errors about WMDs.
But most importantly, I don't think anyone who was honest about it would associate Bush with gooder-er intelligence.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:38 PM |
| Marital states |
There's been a bunch of hasty assumptions here about what I think of same-sex marriage. First, as I said in my earlier blog, I'm a fan of the judicial branch. The checks and balances system works well, for the most part. I don't think we should have absolute majority rule or absolute minority rule. I think both of those options would create serious problems.
What I'm pointing out is that any major social issue isn't solved by one court case or one Congressional vote. It usually takes a series of Supreme Court rulings, a bunch of laws passed, and a concensus of the American populous --the last part being the most essential -- for any change to happen.
My problem with Judge Downing's ruling is that he really is taking his values (or his opinion, his views, his feeling, his gut reaction, his worldview, his whatever-you-want-to-call-it) and basing his ruling on them. (Some people have values that tell them same-sex marriage is wrong and shouldn't be endorsed by the state, Downing and others have values that tell them same-sex marriage is okay and should be endorsed by the state).
Christina makes a valid argument: We'll be violating peoples' civil liberties if we continue to ban gay marriage while waiting for years or decades for a shift in a general concensus among Americans. It goes both ways, though. I'm frustrated by the fact that Congress has passed a bill four times banning a type of abortion commonly known as partial-birth abortion and a large majority of Americans oppose this type of abortion, yet the courts have overturrned the bans. I think peoples' civil liberties (i.e. the right to life) are being violated by courts hindering democratic initiatives.
Finally, it might surprise some to know that I'm still trying to decide whether the state should be involved in marriage at all. So it would be wrong to assume that I'm concerned about Downing's decision simply because he didn't rule for upholding the ban on gay marriages. I know a lot of people who are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriages but are mad at how the courts are overturning the bans and not listening to legislatures.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 12:33 PM |
| Ownership |
Bush has an ad out called "Ownership," that's all about how great it is when people can own a home, own a business, own their own health care and a piece of their retirement.
Yeah, that's cool. Unfortunately, Bush also believes in energy companies owning the Vice President's energy policy; in chemical, power, and oil companies owning our environmental policies; in Halliburton owning no-bid rebuilding contracts; in Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove owning his brain.
And thanks to Bush's fiscal policies, he believes in future generations owning the burden of his huge deficits, of a failing social security system, of inevitable tax increases to pay for it all. He believes in stacking the tax system now so that working families have to pay those taxes out of their month to month incomes, while wealthy individuals who make most of their money on investments and interest pay less and less.
That means fewer families will be able to own homes or businesses in the future. The increased health problems due to pollution and lack of preventative care will also reduce the hopes of ownership of anything but outrageous medical and medication bills.
Sure, Bush knows the pride of owning a business, even if he ran his into the ground. And he knows the pride of owning a sports team, and of feeling like he owns the military. But since all of that was handed to him on a silver platter, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that his understanding of what is needed for more Americans to have real ownership now, and in the future, is a bit narrow and self-serving.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:19 PM |
| Captain America |
Response to The Olympics are here
Yeah, unfortunately, even the Olympics have become co-opted by the presidential campaign. Bush put out one of his chest-swellin', teary eyed patriotic ads titled, "Victory," that's about how many more democracies there are in the world now than in the 1920s. And oh yeah, thanks to Bush there are two new democracies participating in the games this year.
What a wonderful world he lives in, where the disasters that are Iraq and Afghanistan went from being about bungled attempts at fighting terrorists and WMDs and a good reason to oust Bush, to being about spreading "democracy" and a reason to vote for Bush. I can't wait for Bush's next war photo op. Instead of a flight suit, I'm thinking he's going to strut out in a Captain America outfit.
The Bush campaign site also has an interactive game called the Kerry Flip Flop Olympics, where visitors can try and come up with the most Kerry flip flops. Okay, here's one - we're fighting a war on terror. Okay, now we're fighting a war to stop the spread of WMDs to terrorists. Oh, no WMD's? Oh, wait, we're fighting a war to free an oppressed people. Huh? Prison abuses? Oh, wait, we're fighting a war to spread democracy. No ... Oh, wait, that's right, those are Bush's flip flops.
At least he's finally come around to proclaiming "victory" in carrying out the long proclaimed neo-conservative agenda - a pre-emptive war in Iraq to spread democracy in the Middle East. For an administration that has thrived on lies and secrecy, it is nice Bush is finally admitting the truth of why he was so willing to go on a WMD goose-chase rather than continuing the real war on terror.
Still, Bush's attempts to cash in on the Olympics aren't any more likely to get him a medal than pretending to serve in the Texas Air National Guard did.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:17 PM |
| Ballistic Bush |
Pre 9-11 George W. Bush is back, promoting his missle defense shield again, ready to fight the great apocalypse with an ICBM-eating space weapon envisioned at the height of the Cold War.
Personally, I think a missle defense shield seems a little outdated in an era of truck bombs and borderless terrorists who don't need an airforce or a submarine to attack inside our country. Nevertheless, the arrogant champion of fiscal irresponsibility is still pushing this super expensive 80's pipe dream on a world that witnessed the new face of modern war on 9-11.
Does Bush really think the Chinese or North Koreans are going to nuke us just because they can? Does the term, "Mutually Assured Destruction" mean anything in the Oval Office anymore? Can't a nuke be detonated on a boat in a harbor? Isn't the concept of nations shooting large missiles through space a little old school?
"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century," the president told applauding workers at defense contractor Boeing in Pennsylvania.
Suddenly the technology and paranoia of the 80's has never been so relevant, thank God for backsliding.
Bush likes the opportunity to play John Wayne and missile defense has obviously got him excited, "We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,"' Bush said. Thoughtful words reminiscient of "bring it on!"
Nevermind the promise to rebuild Iraq, America is searching the horizon, hungry for another score to settle, itching to spend billions we don't have.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 11:50 AM |
August 17, 2004
| Consider us served |
The self esteem of USA basketball shot a big air ball Sunday when a handful of multi-millionaires were humiliated by a handful of Puerto Rican no-names.
As a fan of basketball I think a random butt-kicking is healthy for the swollen egos of our professional athletes. Considering the pedestal we Americans put our athletes on, it's nice to see a squad of humble, but fierce competitors rise to the occasion and challenge our notion of complete world domination.
Puerto Rico effectively sent the world a message: The U.S. is no longer the dominate bully on the basketball block. For every $20,000 (give or take) Allen Iverson gets paid per basket in the U.S., there's a determined competitor in an almost third world country getting paid pennies on the dollar to do the same thing better. I'm afraid my basketball rant is going to turn into an outsourcing analogy so I'll just stop here.
Bottomline, the shame of U.S. basketball reminds us ego-freak Americans why there is value in international competition. Just when we think America cannot get any more dominate, BOOM! some unknown Puerto Rican is dunking all over our trillion dollar, Nike-endorsed, Gatorade-swilling, super God.
I don't know how to say "humble pie" in Spanish, but consider us served.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 09:43 AM |
August 16, 2004
| Phelps is still a phenom |
“Michael Phelps’ quest for seven gold medals ended after just three events, doomed by another bronze Monday night in the most anticipated race at the Olympic pool,” reports the Associated Press. So far, Phelps has earned a gold in the 400 individual medley, and bronzes in the 400 freestyle relay and 200 meter freestyle race. Three events done, three medals won, five to go – yet many are saying that he’s “doomed” and treating him like a failure.
Phelps is only 19 and has a chance to win eight medals (though not all gold). This, in itself, is a positively incredibe feat! No one – not the media, not you or me – should consider his Olympic performance shabby, or somehow sub-par, just because he didn’t beat Mark Spitz’s record.
An online MSNBC poll says 59 percent of respondents thought Michael Phelps was overrated. Why, because a 19-year-old didn’t beat one of the most amazing records of all time? Because he’s coming home with a medley of medals, instead of just golds?
He’s 19. Let me repeat that. 19. In the 200 meter race, he set an American record. He’s won three medals. So viewers need to stop criticizing, and getting some kind of sick joy out of seeing the perfect, rising young star fall. Because he hasn’t. He’s still rising. In the 2012 Olympics, he’ll be only 27!
His performance in Athens has been incredible, but it’s only the beginning.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:12 PM |
| The Olympics are here! |
Okay everyone, the Olympics are here! It’s true that Greece is spending a record $1.5 billion on security, according to Newsweek. But we’ve heard enough gloom and doom. It’s time to kick back, get a big bag of chips (or carrots if you’re inspired by the fat-free athletes), and watch the opening ceremonies!
With this being an election year – as well as a year of increased international tension (an understatement) – the Olympics couldn’t have come at a better time. Instead of thinking in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, big business versus workers, pro-lifers versus pro-choicers, church goers versus atheists, pro or against gay marriage, or any of the other significant but divisive groups - let’s label ourselves as Americans.
For the next 17 days, let’s remember that even though we disagree on many issues, we’re one strong, unified, patriotic country. Let's cheer on Michael Phelps in his quest for 8 gold medals, marvel at the grace of our women's gymnastics team and cross our fingers as Alan Webb runs the 1500m, attempting to excel in the event that no American has medalled in for more than 30 years.
Let's root for our incredible athletes.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:05 PM |
| Re: More thoughs on Kerry and abortion |
Gavin, good questions. There are numerous justifications for laws, of course -- to protect national security, to protect our rights and freedoms, to protect and strengthen our economy, etc. But the most relevant one to abortion can be summed up in a saying I like - "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
The government can impose its will upon the people for reasons of safety, either of your person or your property. Hence, you have the freedom to drive but you can't drive while drunk, you can't kill you neighbor, you can't steal their car, etc. But for Congress to be justified in restricting your freedom, the threat to another person's safety or property must be proven, must be real, before Congress can pass a law about it. Because in America, the government interfering in your personal rights and freedoms just because it wants to is, thankfully, frowned upon.
Yes, politicians are of course guided by personal morals and beliefs, as well as the interests of their core voter base and donors. And the two parties do differ on how best to achieve their goals. But even then for a law to be passed it is usually based not only on personal belief but on some real, proven impact to their constituents. Some may believe school vouchers are better. Some may believe funding public schools is better. Those are personal beliefs. But both deal with real things - schools, students, and money - and have real, measurable impacts if supported.
Even divisions over "moral" issues like federally funded sex education in schools can draw on statistics about teen pregnancy rates in countries that support sex education versus those that do not, etc. Each side can make a case based on facts about costs and results. But passing laws based on personal opinion alone is a dangerous thing.
That is why I have to be opposed to abortion bans, because again while some people may believe immortal life begins at conception, others do not. It is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. In fact, in my opinion, it seems a pretty arbitrary opinion. Does the soul enter the millisecond the sperm penetrates the egg? Or is it at the moment when the first cell division occurs? What identity does the soul have before there is even a brain to think with, a body to experience with? Who decided these things? Or did it just sound "about right?" Well, as much as some would like to pass a law based on guesswork, I'd rather not, same as I'd rather go to war for real reasons than just a guess, or throw someone in prison based on evidence rather than because the person "looks guilty."
Now, if someone can produce solid, scientific evidence of a soul inhabiting the fertilized egg at conception, or even of cognitive self-awareness in an embryo, then we can talk legal options. Then it is a factual matter of killing an actual human being, and we can pass a secular law. Then Congressional scientific advisors would present the evidence, and Congress would vote to protect life. Kerry would be free to vote along with his personal beliefs for banning abortion.
But until then, Kerry cannot prove it is an issue of safety for human life, he can only believe it is. What he can prove is that it is an issue of personal freedom. So he must, as a representative of the United States, protect and uphold our rights, protect our freedom, even if it pains him personally in this case to do so. He is willing to make that tough, complex decision, which bodes well in my mind for his actions as President.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:57 PM |
August 12, 2004
| More thoughts on Kerry and abortion |
Re: "Freedom to choose"
Thanks for the thoughts, Randy. That actually cleared some points up for me. I still have some questions, though. If you (Kerry, or anyone) believes that life begins at conception, then the logical conclusion is that an abortion is murder, correct? You are killing something that is alive. In that case, wouldn’t you desire others to not murder, especially when it comes to your votes on the subject?
Railing against religious people isn’t correct, because that’s one set of beliefs, just as atheists bring their own to the table. One cannot say that an elected official is completely unbiased and not putting any of his own views on his constituents, otherwise we wouldn’t have Republicans and Democrats (not an unenviable option). Isn’t the whole point of a political party to impose their majority view on the other? Aren’t either party our surrogate fathers that you deride? Where do you draw the line on allowing people to live by their own beliefs? If I believe that stealing is fine and good from the company, say overcharging for my hourly pay, is it “being my father” to legislate against that?
Where do you draw the line? Where should one’s set of beliefs affect their public vote? What “choices” are your own and what are not? I’ve asked this question before and gotten the reply, “when it negatively affects another person, you should legislate against that.” If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion definitely negatively affects another person…
Can you honestly say that if you were an elected official you would let people choose if you felt lives hung in the balance?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 02:50 PM |
| More checks and balances |
Chris thinks Judge Downing is “legislating from the bench.” He uses an interesting metaphor, saying that “You can draw comparisons to Supreme Court cases upholding civil liberties for blacks. What ultimately happened there was a series of Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress that democratically backed up what the courts were ruling. In that case, the system worked out great.”
Fact is, the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in 1954 preceded both significant Congressional legislation AND – what took even longer – widespread public support of the ruling.
Although the first Civil Rights Act was passed in the late 1800s, Congress didn’t pass its most influential Civil Rights acts until 1964 and the Voting Rights act in 1965 – ten years after the Brown court case.
Similarly, the Brown ruling preceded the norm of equal civil liberties as being acceptable. Many white Southerners disagreed with the Brown ruling. Just look at the Little Rock, Arkansas example; the state governor asked the militia to prevent black students from entering public schools! And, opponents of the Brown ruling cited the same justification as opponents of gay marriage, “the courts are overstepping their boundaries.” Ultimately at the time of the Brown ruling, neither Congress nor the public were completely supportive.
Often, congressional and public support follow a significant court ruling, although it may take years before the courts, congress and public are all on the same page. If the courts had waited until Congress passed civil rights legislation, and until all the Southerners agreed with desegregation, it would have taken ages to actually occur.
Using the Brown ruling as a parallel to the current same-sex marriage issue, we can't wait until everyone agrees. The courts and its judges, like Judge Downing, spark social change in society. And I applaud them.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:42 PM |
| Ear to the wire instead of whine |
Tom Ridge abuses his "intelligence" power the same way Nigel Stark abuses the term "whine".
In both their cases, the frequency of the crime cheapens the overall impact of the intended message.
To the point, I think America has come to a vital crossroads where we have to ask ourselves what is the function of our intelligence experts? Are they here to protect us, or has a culture of insecurity developed where it has become imperative that some constantly need to remind us how vital they are?
I wasn't aware it was the duty of high-ranking intelligence figures like Mr. Ridge to feed the media, I'd prefer he schedule less press conferences and keep his ear to the wire.
In the recent case of the Pakistani double agent, it appears we were so eager to toot our own horn that maybe we blew a vital cover. Whose fault is that, "whiny liberals"? I think not. While some people may have a hard time differentiating between accountability and incompetence, I think the rest of us are sick of intelligence figures masquerading as media darlings.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:28 PM |
| Naked news |
Think the news is boring? Think Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. just don’t do it for you anymore? Check out these ladies, who have started in Britain a news show where journalists strip while delivering the news.
I suppose this is a rather interesting twist, but if it catches on, I shudder at thinking of Larry King’s wrinkly skin. Frankly, I’d have to get out of the journalism business myself, because skinny white guys would not sell.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 11:54 AM |
| Great expectations |
Randy’s latest apologetic blog regarding Kerry’s inexplicable move in his Iraq policy is just that… apologetic. He is correct, that Europeans don’t like Bush, mainly because of Bush’s foreign policy that more closely resembles a backhanded slap than a handshake. However, Kerry’s assertion that he would drastically reduce U.S. troops in Iraq even within a year has to be challenged. To just say that Kerry should be allowed to “have cards up his sleeve” is a little ridiculous. It is necessary for Kerry to present a coherent believable alternative in Iraq policy to Bush.
If even the LA Times doesn’t think that European allies will reverse their stance, why should we vote for Kerry with the expectation that he will?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 11:48 AM |
| One real reason |
I would like to pose a challenge.
Chris, or anyone, tell me one legitimate reason homosexual marriage should be against the law. Seriously. Not why you personally think it is "wrong," but why we should actually, through our secular government, deny American citizens this right.
"God said" doesn't count. There's a little thing called separation of Church and State. You can believe that all you want, you have that freedom and that privilege, but you don't have the right to impose that view on others through our secular law.
If you wish to try and argue that it is somehow harmful to the children, you're going to have to provide unbiased evidence, because the evidence I'm aware of refutes that. And then you will need to explain why hetero marriages that can also harm children shouldn't also be illegal.
If you wish to try and argue that it will undermine the sanctity of marriage or some such vague argument, please explain exactly HOW it will do so, how Joe and Ed getting married is somehow going to cause you to love your wife or husband less, or suddenly be incapable of fulfilling your marriage vows in a way you wouldn't have failed anyway. And then, explain why that requires and justifies a law. Not just how it will ruin your marriage, but why your ruined marriage justifies a constitutional amendment.
If you want to argue that it is against the tradition of our nation or society, that is insufficient. Equality of minorities and women were against the tradition of our nation and society. Heck, a great many of the rights and freedoms we take for granted today were against the tradition of society until we evolved enough socially to finally protect them for all. Should we take a step back just so we can take a step forward?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:32 AM |
| Intelligent intelligence |
Re: "Whine and howl"
Nigel, rather than whining about whiny liberals, I think we should consider a few facts. First, I and others I know to be liberal-leaning shared the view that, for once, providing actual, useful information instead of vague ambiguous warnings was a definite improvement. Second, many people, not just liberals, criticized the seemingly political nature, and general lack of value, of the prior terror warnings.
In fact, the the Government Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, criticized the terror warnings after police and other agencies reported that the warnings simply didn't give any valid or useful info.
Perhaps, if Homeland Security wasn't giving out useless warnings left and right, there wouldn't have been such pressure from many directions to give more specific, supporting detail. An occasional, specific alert is worth a thousand useless, vague, fear-maintaining warnings.
Further, if we weren't struggling with the horrible effects of bad intelligence on WMDs, of prison abuses overlooked and covered up, of these wonderful things that have further eroded public trust in our government and intelligence communities, we would be a little more willing to accept when Tom says, "Be alert. Why? You'll just have to trust me."
So I do not think it surprising that there was pressure to have a little detail for once. And nobody forced them to give a name to the press. They could have provided the facts without a specific name, or revealed the name privately to members of Congress and others who would need to be convinced of the validity of the intelligence. They didn't, for whatever reason. But I hardly think that's the fault of "whiny liberals."
You're yelling at the mud puddle for getting you wet, rather than the big ole truck that just splashed through it.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:24 AM |
| Freedom to choose |
Re: "Kerry and abortion"
Gavin, maybe I misunderstood your blog, but I hope this answers your question. The very term "pro-choice" is the answer. It is not "anti-life," or "kill the babies," but "pro-choice." In other words, Kerry supports your right to choose for yourself whether YOU think life begins at conception or not. He's not going to use his power to force, or attempt to make our secular government force, everyone to live by his personal belief. Because ultimately, we cannot know when "life" begins, just as we can't really know if there is a "soul," if so, where it is or what it is made of, etc. These are matters of personal belief and faith, as hard as that is to remember sometimes.
I personally sympathize with those who believe that some kind of eternal, individual, personal and sacred life begins at conception, and feel that they must protect that life. I understand that view. I personally don't hold it, but I understand it. And I don't begrudge them trying to convince others of their view, or of trying to offer pregnant women alternatives to abortion. But I draw the line at someone trying to impose their personal or religious belief on me through law, and taking away my choice, or anyone else's.
So it is not contradictory to believe that life begins at conception and still support a pro-choice platform. In fact, it wouldn't mean much if he were pro-choice and believed that life began at actual birth. But he believes life begins at conception. And he believes in the principles of freedom, and the separation of church and state, that our nation is founded on. One affects his personal choices. The other, his professional choices as our secular representative, and a representative of our Constitution.
Kerry's ability to properly separate his personal religious beliefs from his role as our secular representative shows that, unlike anti stem-cell, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage Bush, he's ready to be our President, not our "I know what's best for everyone" dad. That may disappoint the people who want everyone to live by their personal beliefs. But I personally am thankful for it.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:12 AM |
| Majority hope |
Re: "Having our say"
Chris wrote "I just don't think that one person's values should be imposed on, if you will, everyone else." He should be willing to extend this, and recognize that it is not always good for the majority to impose their will on a minority, nor for a group with a greater share of power or influence to impose their will on others.
In Chris' world of majority rules, if the majority of people voted to reinstate slavery, I guess that would be okay, right? Oh, wait, that's right. The other part, and responsibility, of our federated republic is not just to blindly follow the majority but to also ensure that the rights, needs and interests of the minority are protected. Just because a lot of people say something, it doesn't necessarily make it any more true or right than if one person says it. Certainly not in America, where 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, or the majority of people probably couldn't tell you which amendment gives them freedom of religion.
Which brings us to the little problem of it being against the core reason America was founded by those men and women fleeing religous and social persecution in Europe. Ultimately, what you are looking for is the government to tell churches they can't perform a religious ceremony for homosexuals, rather than letting the churches decide that for themselves. You are looking to impose restrictions on the religious freedoms of others.
But really, all the fine points and talk of separation of powers aside, Chris can't help but reveal what this is really all about. He used the word repeatedly. It is a conflict of what he terms "values." For him and others like him, those values are based on religious beliefs. When you peel away all the excuses you almost always get down to the fact that people who are opposed to gay marriage are so for one or both of two reasons: it supposedly goes against the religious beliefs they have been indoctrinated with, and/or it makes them uncomfortable due to the extensive socialization and expectations our society has around proper and acceptable masculine and feminine roles (which is probably the reason for those religous beliefs to begin with).
And what that means, Chris, is that when you are asking for us to just vote on it, you are hoping that the majority of people will all agree that the minority of people have to live by that majority's personal religious beliefs and/or uncomfortable feelings.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:05 AM |
August 10, 2004
| Kerry and abortion |
I mentioned my problems with this stance during the DNC, and the same issues of coherency are still there with Kerry’s beliefs.
Frankly, I have been looking for a reaction by a pro-choice believer that didn’t have the phrase, “focus on beating Bush” in their explanation. This pro-choice advocate seems to believe that it is impossible to rationalize the belief that life begins at conception with a pro-choice platform. I don’t even know what I believe regarding abortion, but I think that I agree with this.
So I guess the question is… what am I missing? What rational explanation is there of this position?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:08 PM |
| Whine and howl |
Update to "Boy who cried wolf":
Earlier this week, I wrote "Truth be told, the amount of information Tom Ridge currently discloses is probably too much and hence, dangerous. When will we realize that terrorists also get CNN?"
I had no clue that I would be proved right so fast.
Let's have a brief overview of what just happened here: Tom Ridge issues many terror threat alerts over the years, none of which pan out (something that liberals amazingly claim is a bad thing). Liberals whine, saying there's no justification for them and the administration is just trying to scare people. Tom Ridge issues the latest terror threat. Liberals whine (for the same old reasons).
This time, Tom Ridge tries to make them happy by giving more information. Liberals still find a way to whine. In the effort to make them happy, the name of "an important source of information" was leaked, the source dried up, and counterterrorism officials see a "drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists."
Let me try and guess what will happen next: liberals whine and try to blame this on Republicans.
Written by Nigel Stark, formerly of NEXT.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 05:00 PM |
| Checks and balances |
Christina brings up a good point about separation of powers and Judge Downing's ruling on same-sex marriage in King County: What makes gay marriage so different than any other ruling on a constitutional issue?
Here's my answer:
I'm a fan of the checks-and-balances system, though I think the judicial branch is becoming a lot more than just a check and definitely tipping the balance lately.
Anyway, it's important that we have some way of making sure that lawmakers and politicians don't get away with ignoring the Constitution, so I'm glad we have the judicial branch. The catchphrase these days accusing the judges of taking their powers too far, however, is "legislating from the bench." In other words, judges aren't suppose to be making the laws, they're suppose to be ruling on whether the laws that are made are Constitutional or not.
This happened in Downing's case -- he overturned a state law established six years ago -- but what he really did was overturn a norm that has been around for centuries in America (a state law was never needed before because in previous generations, there was never a huge push for allowing same-sex marriages). In that sense, Downing made a new law: homosexual couples can now get married.
You can draw comparisons to Supreme Court cases upholding civil liberties for blacks. What ultimately happened there was a series of Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress that democratically backed up what the courts were ruling. In that case, the system worked out great.
You can also draw comparisons to the court ruling on Roe v Wade. In this case, the country is still divided over the issue and, in fact, Congress recently passed a law (for the fourth time, I believe -- Clinton vetoed this three times) banning what's commonly known as partial-birth abortion. Polls show that a huge majority of Americans oppose PBA. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the ban is constitutional or not. When we look back at the abortion-debate issue (circa 1970s - 20??), we'll see that public opinion ultimately had the final say.
The point is that big changes in our society eventually require the backing of the general public since the check of democracy eventually balances everything out. In the case of same-sex marriage, I think we need to save ourselves the trouble and just take a vote now (this was sort of tried in the Senate last month, but a simple majority doesn't amend the Constitution). At this point, a judge ruling either way -- whether in favor of same-sex marriage or opposed -- is basing their decision on their own values while citing vague concepts of liberty or tradition in the Constitution.
We need to put this one in the hands of the people.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:44 PM |
| Having our say |
I missed Woodstock by a few years and don't own the DVD, but my entire point was that Judge Downing obviously has a more liberal view of the world, based on how he describes his values (and unless they've changed dramatically in the past 14 years, I think his 1990 quote is very revealing, as well as his ruling last week).
Like I said in my previous blog, there's nothing inherently wrong with Woodstock, it just shows where Downing is coming from. Obviously, on an issue like same-sex marriage, your values are going to influence your views on homosexuality. I just don't think that one person's values should be imposed on, if you will, everyone else.
If our society is going to decide whether same-sex marriage should be allowed or not, let's let everyone have a say in the debate. Let's let the values of more than just one guy decide. I don't think that's too unreasonable of a request.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:20 PM |
| Atlantis is Ireland? |
“Atlantis, the legendary island nation over whose existence controversy has raged for thousands of years, was actually Ireland, according to a new theory by a Swedish scientist,” reports Reuters.
The scientist’s reasons seem pretty solid. Like Atlantis, Ireland is 300 miles long and 200 miles wide, and has a plain in the middle bordered by mountains.
If the theory were true, that’d be a little disappointing. Disney’s movie, “Atlantis: The Lost Empire,” which portrays Atlantis as a magical land, and other fantasies would all be rendered invalid by reality.
It seems less mysterious, less wonderful, less mystical, if Atlantis were really a present-day country (though if any country seems romantic enough to be Atlantis, it’d probably be Ireland). Still though, saying Atlantis is a modern country is like saying the Loch Ness Monster is really a new species of whale, or Bigfoot is a mutant form of the Black Bear, or the mythical Elixir of Life is water.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:10 PM |
August 06, 2004
| Re: Same-sex marriage ruled OK |
I think Chris Collins might have had a point if the judge had actually referenced Woodstock in his decsion to further the right for same-sex unions.
Being that Judge Downing made that statement 14 years ago renders the point mute.
The real issue is that there is nothing wrong with Woodstock. Chris is proliferating fear and anger by suggesting that Woodstock was somehow a bad thing.
I own the DVD, it is nothing short of amazing. If Collins had seen what happened at Woodstock, he would know that some 600,000 people managed to create a temporary city where there were no reported fights, a couple of overdoses and some of the best live music ever played.
Contrast that reality with the annual Ozzfest: 40,000 war-mongering meatheads fueled by methamphetamines itching for a brawl. I've been, so I know.
The image of Woodstock conjures up the "ultimate liberal" in the conservative mind, but this notion is stupid. Woodstock was a raging cultural success and a brilliant musical phenomenon. It is a testimony to a time gone (breathe easy,
conservatives) and a moment when uptight jerks weren't running the show. Hell, even the nuns in the movie seemed to be enjoying themselves.
The movie concludes with Jimi Hendrix playing the national anthem in front of a few thousand stragglers. American pride mixed with an artistic twist of social progression -- what exactly is wrong with that? In the words of Bob Dylan, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:52 PM |
| Re: Boy who cried wolf |
I think Nigel Stark just committed what is commonly referred to in conservative circles as a "flip flop." First he praises Tom Ridge for keeping America constantly abreast of the terrorist threat but then counters his own argument with this gem:
"Truth be told, the amount of information Tom Ridge currently discloses is probably too much and hence, dangerous. When will we realize that terrorists also get CNN?"
What's it going to be, too much info or not enough? This is starting to sound like a Republican characterization of John Kerry.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:43 PM |
| Dream on |
I’m fascinated by dreams. And I’m not alone. People in different cultures and time periods have worshipped and feared their dreams. In ancient civilizations, people thought dreams were messages from the gods. In the Middle Ages, dreams were “blamed” on the Devil.
More recently, researchers have found that brain activity during dreaming looks like the waking brain, according to Newsweek.
Why should you pay attention to dreams? Some theories, including those of Sigmund Freud, say dreams offer keys to our subconscious. Other theories speculate that dreams are random.
Whether they’re relevant or random, dreams are -- bottom line -- weird and interesting. Last night, I dreamt that I was one of the characters in an Archie comic, and I was invisible and walking through the snow with a sled. This was (of course!) after I’d wandered aimlessly through a horror-movie-type hospital, invisible.
I’ve found that I remember dreams more often when I don’t rush to wake up. Newsweek offers this same tip, and says that individuals ages 20-30 remember dreams better than any younger age group.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:05 PM |
| Think of the children |
The decision of King County Superior Court Judge Downing makes sense.
The defendants claim that “barring same-sex marriage serves a compelling state interest by encouraging people to have children and to raise children in a healthful, nurturing environment,” according to The Seattle Times.
How is denying same-sex marriage conducive to raising children “in a healthful, nurturing environment”? The legal sanction of same-sex couples would allow children to live in a home with married parents -- instead of two individuals to whom the law refuses a basic right. It would provide a more emotionally stable environment for a child. Practically speaking, the legal marriage of same-sex couples would also ease matters of travel, insurance, taxes, inheritance and so on.
It’s true that same-sex partners may argue and divorce. But not more so than heterosexual couples; divorces, extramarital affairs and the inability to commit are common in today’s society. Just look at J. Lo and Britney.
If anything, many same-sex partners have proven their desire for long-term, stable relationships. They’ve taken a longer, more arduous path toward marriage and demonstrated commitment.
Opponents of Downing’s decision should consider the well being of all children, not just those raised by heterosexual couples.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:02 PM |
| Re: Same-sex marriage ruled OK |
Chris Collins writes, “Downing just un-democratically decided that a law established six years ago by the state Legislature (a body of elected officials) is now unconstitutional.”
Do opponents of gay marriage suddenly have an issue with Downing’s power? Yes. Is it undemocratic and unconstitutional? No way.
First, let’s talk Civics 101. The government is divided in three branches -- judicial, legislative and executive -- for a reason. Each branch has its own special powers, and checks the powers of the other branches; the judiciary interprets the law made by the legislature.
Chris implies that a judge shouldn’t be able to rule a law unconstitutional. On the contrary, the government’s division of power is at the heart of American democracy.
Secondly, Chris asks, “If allowing same-sex marriage is a cultural change -- a shifting of the winds in our society -- then shouldn't our society make that decision instead of one single man?”
Downing isn’t the only man with power here; the decision moves on to the state Supreme Court, another power check. Ultimately, it IS constitutional for judges to protect the rights of the minority -- in this case, same-sex couples.
And it’s hard to say what Chris means by “our society” making the decision, since our government is a representative republic with elected officials.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:58 PM |
| Re: Same-sex marriage ruled OK |
Chris, this same problem came up when the government finally forced the issue of desegregation. Many white people, particularly those in the South, felt that change should be left to happen naturally. They didn't want the courts, or the government, making laws forcing desegregation.
But sometimes you can't simply wait for the culture to change on its own. Not when, in the meantime, some of the people are being denied their rights, not when our laws are causing inequality of freedom in our nation. It is the right, and the duty, of Judges like Downing to determine not whether society is ready, but rather whether the law violates or is true to the spirit and intent of the constitution they operate under.
We live in a land of religious tolerance, of equal opportunity, of freedom and protected rights. In that land, if the majority decides that blacks should not have equal access to public facilities, they can personally go out and be jerks about it, but they can't make a law denying blacks equal rights and expect it to stand.
Likewise, loving gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same sex. If your church doesn't like it, it doesn't have to perform the ceremonies. You still have your freedom. You still have your rights. You still have control over the sanctity, and the quality, of your own marriage. And so will gay couples.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:54 PM |
| Accidental truths |
Some would call them "Bushisms", or a problem with speaking correctly. I tend to think of them as Freudian slips -- funny, but revealing.
For instance, today Bush said, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Ain't it the truth. Even if he didn't mean to speak it.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:50 PM |
| Man of Divisions |
As a follow up to the Man of mysteries blog, according to the Pew Research Center, and a March 2004 AP/Ipsos Poll, support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe continues to erode, and the U.S. is viewed negatively by the majority of people in all foreign countries surveyed.
As noted in a summary on the truth about George site, "Only 14 percent of Germans, 15 percent of the French, 28 percent of Russians and 7 percent of Pakistanis viewed Bush favorably. The opinions represented a dramatic reversal from 1991, when 75 percent of Germans and 72 percent of Russians had a favorable view of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father."
Further, the AP/Ipsos poll found that the majority of people "living in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico and Spain have an unfavorable view of the role that Bush plays in world affairs, and that they think the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism in the world."
This is not to say we should pander to what other countries want, or only act with their approval, but rather that when we do exercise our power in the world we do so in a way that that forges alliances, gains respect, and legitimizes our role as a world leader, rather than create even more enemies and hamper our economic and security interests abroad.
Further, these same divisions and loss of faith are occurring here, at home. Bush might make a great WWE promoter, but he shouldn't be leading our nation.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:48 PM |
August 05, 2004
| Re: The man of mysteries |
Chris, your point is a bit of a mystery. Are you saying that Kerry's years in the U.S. Senate are equivalent to, and would provide no greater access to important contacts, than a job at Dominoes?
As for Kerry's poker hand, well, both candidates have plenty of hidden cards. No politician would just give away all their carefully built up contacts and relationships.
But let's look at what's already on the table, shall we? Bush has made a disaster of our international relations, and deeply divided the country. Sure, he and Cheney, too, had pals and connections, like Ken Lay and Antonin Scalia. But when it came to building alliances or bridges between parties or countries, Bush was a walking disaster.
I remember well his willingness to isolate America and repeatedly embarrass Colin Powell, such as when he reversed Powell's publicly stated policies toward Korea, in the early months of his administration. Sure, international goodwill after 9-11 saved Bush's butt for a while. But the world wasn't suddenly our ally because of Bush, but rather because of our tragedy.
It was Bush's job to secure that good will, to nurture it, to preserve it, to forge a bold new world alliance out of it. And he failed miserably. What he did do was rush us into a war on false pretenses to meet neo-con ideological goals, and become the most widely protested President in history.
Kerry on the other hand has a record of reaching across partisan lines to try and accomplish the greater good. Heck, wasn't the Bush team trying to squeeze some play out of the fact that Kerry actually considered Republican John McCain as a VP?
And frankly, Bush has become a reviled figure to many people in the world. Even if he were to change his ways, it wouldn't be enough. The only thing that will improve our standing in the world is a new President, Republican or Democrat.
I don't blame Kerry for not revealing those he feels he will be able to work with to mend the many wounds and close the many fissures that Bush has created. Kerry comes from a tradition of propriety, of respect for others' privacy and allowing others to speak for themselves if they want to. That's just the way he is.
And I also know that Chris' implication that Kerry is just saying he can do better, but not actually saying how, is false. Kerry has outlined many specific plans for what he will do to make things better as president. I don't need to see every contact on his cell phone address book as well.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:57 PM |
| Re: Boy who cried wolf |
John, you know I'm not a big fan of Tom "the sky is falling" Ridge. And granted, the core of the information is years old. But the recent alerts were supposedly based on recent surveillance photos and evidence indicating terrorists were updating that information.
Apparently, this is the method that al Qaeda and other terrorist networks use. They do the in-depth scouting of potential targets, and then, maybe years later, when they are actually considering attacking those sites, they update their info to make sure nothing has changed.
So for once, Tom may actually be giving a warning that actually means something more than "stay afraid, and keep me and Bush employed."
Of course, the extent or specifics of the more recent surveillance that supposedly triggered the alert is a bit unclear, so you may very well be right. This may be about as relevant as Tom's previous warnings that something might happen maybe somewhere sometime, maybe, possibly, but we're not sure where or when or how.
But if the gov continues to provide specific targets that need to be safeguarded rather than just vague "everyone be alert" warnings, and if they continue to react to new intelligence swiftly and appropriately, then I think we are at least moving in the right direction.
Granted, the terrorists could just move on and attack other targets that we don't know about. But if they did attack our financial centers, and we found out afterward that Tom and the gang had intelligence indicating that might happen, well, people would then be angry at them for NOT giving out the warning. Darned if they do, darned if they don't.
Finally, while the fear of terrorist attacks and desire to retaliate against al Qaeda is pretty much all that saved Bush from being universally viewed as the lamest president ever, and it definitely helped the Republicans gain control of the government after 9-11 due to the public's general perception that Republicans are somehow better at war, it is a double-edged sword.
Because some people will realize that Bush's claims that he has made us all safer don't quite line up with the fact that he opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission or homeland security to begin with, or that we turned Iraq into a terrorist hot bed while Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other real terrorist-supporting countries were left relatively untouched, or that we are constantly under threat of terrorist attacks (even if they don't actually happen).
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:53 PM |
| Off the couch |
People have really started to get moving. America is starting to get moving. This election is bringing an incredible range of people off the living room couch, and even if we don't end up with the president we want, at least something has changed (for good, or is that too optimistic?).
In the battleground state of Missouri, gay marriage motivated the religious right, with "Nearly 1.5 million people vot[ing], a fact that Vicky Hartzler, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, attributed to grass-roots efforts, including notes in church bulletins, neighbors holding up signs along busy thoroughfares and preachers talking to their congregations."
And for the left-leaning youth, there is the Vote for Change Tour -- a political rock concert with names like Springsteen, Dave Matthews and Eddie Vedder. People are going out and motivating communities the way it should have been happening in the last election, and the election before that and before that and during the Senate races and mayoral elections and voting on initiatives and on and on.
Hopefully this is the beginning, not the end. The whole Bush/Kerry thing seems to have finally sparked a country where only half the population votes for the president.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Hana Kawai at 12:46 PM |
| Same-sex marriage ruled OK |
I'm not going to argue whether same-sex marriage should be allowed or not, but let's review what King County Superior Judge William Downing just pulled off:
With only one vote from citizens in Washington state (his own), Downing just un-democratically decided that a law establised six years ago by the state Legislature (a body of elected officials) is now unconstitutional. He cites rulings from the Vermont and Massachusettes state supreme courts as precedents --also decisions that were not made democratically.
If allowing same-sex marriage is a cultural change -- a shifting of the winds in our society -- then shouldn't our society make that decision instead of one single man?
And a man, by the way, who happens to proudly points out he went to Woodstock when he was a kid -- not that going to Woodstock is inherently wrong, but, as Downing himself points out, it says something about his values.
"With values shaped by Woodstock, Vietnam and Watergate, a young judge just
might have a healthy balance of idealism and cynicism and come to the job
with good motivations," Downing said in 1990.
In Downing's ruling, he claims morality and values shouldn't play into how our country looks at marriage. But it looks like by a vote of 1-0, someone's values("shaped by Woodstock, Vietnam and Watergate") has decided that for us all.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 12:38 PM |
| Re: Boy who cried wolf |
Can we all please stop the whining about Tom Ridge issuing terror alerts? You're complaining because terrorist attacks aren't happening after these warnings. How in the world is this not a good thing?
The truth is, none of us have a clue whether these terrorist threats are accurate or faked to foster some sense of fear. John Hieger, do you read the daily top-secret terrorism report that Secretary Ridge does? Do you have any information whatsoever about terrorists?
Believe it or not, but it's a little dangerous to make every single piece of information the government collects regarding terrorism available to the public. Sure, maybe then we'd be able to tell whether these alerts are responsible or not, but the mere suggestion of such a move is laughably dangerous.
Truth be told, the amount of information Tom Ridge currently discloses is probably too much and hence, dangerous. When will we realize that terrorists also get CNN?
These "boy who cried wolf" complaints are so obviously partisan. Everybody knows that the moment the Bush administration stops issuing these alerts and the country gets attacked, that the Democrats would be calling for his head on a platter. Everybody knows that if the alerts stopped, all the liberals would then
start whining about how the administration is being too secretive and not sharing enough information with us. Please, its getting old.
Written by Nigel Stark, formerly of NEXT
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:32 PM |
| Basketball diary |
On Tuesday, the U.S. Men's Basketball team got absolutely embarrased by a far
inferior Italian team. Not a single player from Italy could even crack an NBA rotation, yet alone start or be an all-star, yet the US is made up of undoubtedly the best players in the world. True, it was only an exibition game, but this resounding loss has got pundits all over the place trying to figure out what's wrong.
Most often, these pundits claim that the solution to our problems is getting more role players. They argue that the egos on this current (and 2002's World Championship team which finished a devasting 6th place) are its downfall. That, and finding a player who can actually 1) shoot, and 2) handle the rock, drive, and dish are the most common prescribed cures.
They couldn't be more wrong. Even if we brought in the most balanced team, with role players willing to commit and sacrifice their bodies, shots, and minutes, US Basketball would still lose, and for one reason: they're not a team.
These players played together for the first time only a week ago. A group of players cannot become a team in that little amount of time. There is not a mix of NBA players, role players included, that could dominate like teams past because none of them would have the preparation time to truly compete.
USA Basketball needs to realize that it's not because of the players that we keep losing. Good role players would still lose because they don't have the chance to become a team. Good shooting also won't help that much. The San Antonio Spurs of last year would absolutely dominate the Olympic field, yet they are a terrible shooting team.
USA Basketball needs to find a TEAM willing to play for them. If it's of inferior players or perhaps the NBA champs, it's time to stop thinking that a couple weeks worth of practice will forge the teamwork necessary to beat vastly improved foreign teams.
Written by Nigel Stark, formerly of NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:03 PM |
August 04, 2004
| Boy who cried wolf |
This just in: the Anaheim Angels have just won the World Series! No, wait, that was two years ago. Oh well, it's still twice as recent as the information Tom Ridge used to base his last terror warning on.
Pay no attention to the DNC and election happenings -- Tom Ridge is back, armed this time with "specific information."
How specific, you ask? Well, let's just say financial centers in the Northeast are at risk, so the threat is specifically unchanged from what it always is. It's okay, America, you can go back to living in fear.
In a nut shell...
The Boy Who Cried Wolf routine is gettting tired and not even the stock market cared this time. I thought intelligence agencies were supposed to be secretive, not overly forthcoming. But I guess that takes the fun out of playing hero. So keep blabbering on, ol' Tom, somewhere in Oklahoma you have people scared.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:28 PM |
| The man of mysteries |
About a month ago, a man who was running for the North Carolina Senate lost the Democratic primaries, partly I believe because he said that he would not disclose where he works. The candidate said his job allowed him "access" to certain areas that he wouldn't have access to if his employment was revealed. His job and high-level access, however, did give him information that would benefit him and voters if he was elected, he said.
Strangely enough, there are eerie connections between this man's campaign strategy and John Kerry's campaign strategy.
Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that he's got some diplomatic cards up his sleeve, but he can't tell us what they are. He claims to have connections with high-up officials and politicians across the world, but won't talk about who exactly he's connected to. He says he's got a plan, but won't divulge details.
Kerry apparently "knows" what to do, but he'll only let us know what he knows once we vote for him.
I'm not sure what the strategy is behind this all. I honestly doubt most Americans are going to think of Kerry as more presidential because he claims to have access to certain politicians and -- if elected -- these connections would provide him with information and diplomatic ties that would benefit us all.
At least we know where he works (though he might not always show up on some busy campaign days).
By the way, the mystery candidate in North Carolina, it turns out, worked at Domino's.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:23 PM |
| Canine couture |
Puppia World, Quintessential Pet, Beowoof, Woof Online...canine couture is growing in popularity as Americans spend more and more money on their furry friends.
$26 Polo shirts. $40 vests trimmed with faux fur. Oufits inspired by brands such as OshKosh B’Gosh and Gap, but tailored specifically to the needs of dogs. “Coats must be cut so the wearer can easily lift a leg. Sleeves need to be kept short for when the wearer is walking on all fours. And T-shirts must be tailored to lie flat over the tail,” notes The Record in The Seattle Times.
It’s not surprising that such businesses are booming, since “the amount of money Americans spend on their pets has doubled over the past decade, to a projected $34.3 billion this year.” In Japan, teenagers with mini dogs are the most popular consumers of doggie clothing. In the U.S., it’s “trendy 20-somethings with upscale dogs and upscale tastes.”
Just look at Paris Hilton's fashionista of a Chihuahua, Tinkerbell; that dog wears Chanel dresses and matching shoes, for goodness sakes. Tinkerbell's clothes probably cost more than the bills from the average child's back-to-school shopping spree.
As long as no ordinary 20-something goes broke trying to clothe their dog in diamond-studded collars and genuine leathers boots, it’s a cute way to show a little puppy love. I’ve bought my 7-pound Pomeranian, Richie, a collared sweater, a tuxedo tie and a Santa hat. He’s even suffered the indignity of having pink ribbons tied around his neck in a most un-masculine fashion.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:17 PM |
| A fat acceptance movement? |
The fat acceptance movement has begun, according to The Associated Press. Organizations like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the International Size Acceptance Association claim that the nation’s current efforts to curb obesity is a witch hunt, which needlessly singles out fat Americans.
Fat acceptance groups are angry that Medicare changed its policy last month and now considers obesity a disease. They also counter the federal government’s belief that obesity is a “'critical health problem.’”
“'It’s gotten markedly worse in the last few years because of the propaganda that fatness, a natural human characteristic, is somehow a form of disease,’” said a NAAFA member.
News flash: Obesity costs the nation more than $100 billion and kills 300,000 people a year. Its death toll is comparable to the death toll caused by cigarettes.
Anyone who thinks obesity is “'a natural human characteristic’” is knee-deep in denial. Yeah, certain people gain weight more easily, but obesity exceeds the casual “I-need-to-lose-20-pounds.” It entails being so large that one is at higher risk for diabetes, heart disease and hypertension; so large that one can’t fit into one airplane seat and can’t move without assistance.
Normal? No. Natural? No. Should we accept obesity, and claim it’s not a serious health problem? No.
Obese people don’t deserve fat jokes, cruel treatment and discrimination. But they need to realize that yes, obesity is a problem and denial isn’t the answer.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:10 PM |
|
Back to top