|
 |
 |
|
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. |
November 30, 2004
| In-school crimes |
“Violent crime against students in schools fell by 50 percent between 1992 and 2002,” according to a report by the Education and Justice departments.
The report should be taken with a grain of salt.
Most serious crimes are committed outside of school grounds; “between 1992 and 2000, students between 5 and 19 were 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than on campus.” In additions, more rapes, assaults and robberies take place off school grounds.
The most “common serious crime in school” is theft; while it’s an important issue, theft doesn’t pose the life-or-death risks of violent and fatal crimes.
It’s noteworthy that violent crimes are down in schools, but we should also focus on the more prevalent, pressing problems of youth violence off school grounds.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:35 PM |
November 29, 2004
| Re: Depressed Dems? |
Brent's column in NEXT Sunday was sadly little more than a gloating attack on Democrats. It didn't even reveal why Brent thinks the Republican victory was a positive thing; only how Democrats should be grateful to the mercy and patience of the Republicans that they haven't completely taken control yet.
Yeah, I'm sure Karl Rove held back on many fronts, because the Republicans were enjoying the neck and neck poll results so much.
Given that Bush's margin of victory came partially (I said partially) due to war, homophobia, and dreams of eroding the separation of church and state, what it would have really taken beyond that to make the Democrats' defeat worse I hate to imagine. Unfortunately, we may yet find out.
Brent also trots out the party line about Bush's margin of victory. But he fails to consider the facts that while yes, Bush got the most votes in history, Kerry was right behind him with the second most votes in history. Bush won by 51%, but Kerry got 48%. That's hardly a sweeping mandate. That's hardly a landslide. That's a president in wartime winning by 3%, and a single electoral state, against a supposedly lame opponent.
An interesting line in his column was the one about how Kerry wouldn't have done so well in the youth vote except for "the liberal onslaught of criticism on Iraq and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal." Now how could anyone dare criticize anything about this war, or the fine example of America spreading freedom and democracy that is Abu Ghraib? Shame on you Fox News, you crazy liberals.
As for Brent's deep concern over the emotional health of Democrats, well, a couple of sensationalist stories aside, most Democrats are disappointed, resigned, even angry, but few are seriously depressed.
I'm sure there are a far greater number of more serious and legitimate cases of depression as a result of the war, poverty and unemployment, lack of health care, student debt, corporate corruption, diseases brought on by pollution, lack of rights, or being detained and tortured under approval of the Patriot Act and Justice Department.
And while the Republicans may indeed continue to ride the fear of terrorism, the Iraq war, and religous extremism to more seats in Congress, eventually the political pendulum will swing back towards the Democrats. Maybe in 4 years. Maybe in 10 years. That's just the way it works.
And then, the Republicans will try to reverse all the ways they abused their majority to consolidate power, shut out the minority and undermine the democratic representative processes, because they will suddenly find themselves on the losing end of that deal.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:20 PM |
| Medical pot |
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about medical marijuana today. I still think denying people proven and comparatively safe relief from pain, nausea and mental illness just because of an ideological opposition to marijuana is just plain stupid.
Forget the obvious point that alcohol and tobacco are much more harmful and a lot less beneficial than marijuana.
Instead, just look at all the medications that are legal, with their fun little footnotes like "may cause diarrhea, constipation, impotence, headaches, drowsiness, rashes, acne, weight gain, weight loss" on and on, see your doctor if you experience chest pains, brain damage, or a total destruction of your stomach lining for more medication to treat the problems caused by your medication.
What would be the warning label on medical marijuana? Warning: May cause some loss of motivation and increased enjoyment of Frisbees? Give me a break. End the hypocrisy.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:13 PM |
November 24, 2004
| Turkey expert |
Want a great recipe for turkey? Well, who else would you turn to but ... Andre Agassi?
You know, I really don't understand why being a celebrity makes you an expert on everything from collect calls and long distance rates to diets and yummy apple crisp.
Even seemingly logical endorsements, like sports stars pimping shoes and deodorant, are dubious. Crazy as it may sound, I suspect maybe, just maybe, they are just endorsing whoever offered them the biggest paycheck, and did not first actually do a comprehensive Consumer Reports style comparison.
Really, that's no secret. What I find sad is that it works. The reason sponsors pay millions of dollars to Michael Jordan (or hopefully about $.17 cents to Carrot Top), is because celebrity sponsors do increase sales. Oh, Britney Spears says it's good? Well, it must be good then.
Because remember folks, even if your favorite sports star can barely speak gooder English and stuff doesn't mean they ain't got no opinion or ... opinion or stuff on these things. And really, it's all about the team, and just doing the best you can do.
And like, you know, Hollywood stars had to get PhDs in political, nutritional, social and physical sciences to, like, get where they are you know? And the whole cast was really great to work with.
Frankly, about the only thing I might take advice from a celebrity on are defense lawyers and divorce lawyers.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:09 PM |
| Recount hypocrisy |
So here's what went through my head while I read this article on the Governor race recount. You know, besides things like "My neck itches," and "Man I'm hungry. Some egg nog French toast with peanut butter sounds reaaallly good right about now."
My first reaction at seeing that the Democrats might ask for a manual recount of the recount was, "Guys, just go out with some dignity, won't you?"
Then I read about all the supposed errors and problems with the current recount, and thought, "Well, if there really are hundreds of errors, I suppose I can see how they would feel justified in another recount, especially when the election is so close."
But then I read this: "'We've seen so many anomalies all across the state,' [Democrat] Party Chairman Paul Berendt said in an interview. If Gregoire is trailing after today, he said, the party likely will request a hand recount, either statewide or in certain counties where the party thinks the vote tally is suspect."
And I thought, Dude, if you really believe that the current recount is so screwed up, then shouldn't both you and Dino want a recount REGARDLESS of who comes out on top? If you are both really wanting to represent the people, then shouldn't you represent, regardless of who's got the high score in round two? How can you say it's all screwed up, but that if you win, well, never mind about the third recount?
THEN I read that for a second recount the party would have to pay for it themselves, to the tune of about $700,000, and apparently, the "experts" told Berendt that it isn't a "standard rule" to ask for a recount if you are the party ahead in the count. Uh huh. I see.
And I read this by Dino's rep, "Vance did not rule out requesting a recount if Rossi falls behind. But he said Rossi is in a "fundamentally different position" than Gregoire because he won the initial count."
In other words, if Gregoire wins the recount, well, Rossi would supposedly be in a morally superior and justified position if he asked for another recount, whereas Gregoire would just be a sore loser if she asks for a second recount. Okay. Sure. Whatever.
I tell you, it's all pretty screwed up. Bottom line is, we should know who really won, period. But we probably never will. What we will know is who won the recount, and that isn't necessarily the same thing. Whoever wins, the losers are the people whose vote was tossed in the garbage bin. Hieger had it right, this is ridiculous.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:05 PM |
| Unprincipaled recount mania |
Q: What makes it so easy to become disenchanted with politics and assume that all politicians are playing the "public servant" game just for a power rush?
A: The fact that political bosses and politicians so routinely push an agenda in the name of upholding an unbending principle that, in reality, is subject to change at a moment's notice.
Case in point: The Washington state Republican and Democratic parties are asking for every vote to be legitimately counted in the governor's race (Democratic party chairman Paul Berendt: the governor must be "elected legally and legitimately, and with a majority of the votes.").
So that means a second recount if necessary -- or, rather, only if their candidate is trailing after the first recount.
Berendt says Democrats will likely ask for a second recount presumably because there are "so many (recount) anomalies across the state," he told The Seattle Times. As a principle, the governor should be elected "legally and legitimately."
That sounds fair enough. Berendt is for democracy and voter rights, right?
But his principles, it turns out, are only based on scenarios: If Gregoire is behind after the first recount, the Dems will call for a recount on the recount. If Gregoire happens to take the lead after the first recount, then the rules change: "Obviously, if we're ahead, we won't be asking for a recount. The experts tell me that's a standard rule," Berendt said.
The experts tell Berendt that's a standard rule? I guess expert advice trump principles.
Now let's look at state Republican party chairman Chris Vance's principles. If Gregoire loses in the recount, she "do the decent thing, the honorable thing, and concede the election." That means no second recount.
But... Vance is not ruling out the possibility that the Republicans may call for a second recount if Rossi trails after the first recount. Besides, Vance says, Rossi is in a "fundamentally different position" than Gregoire because he won the initial count.
Explain how Rossi is in such a fundamentally different position that Vance's principle of letting the recount stand and not dragging out the election only applies only to Gregoire and not Rossi? The phrase "double standard" comes to mind.
It's hard to trust politicians who appeal to "decency" and voter rights as reasons for their agendas when these principles can be easily overruled by expert advice or who happens to win the next recount.
Respond to Chris |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 03:01 PM |
November 23, 2004
| Can't wait for the statue |
Well. Bush keeps "joking" things would be easier if this were a dictatorship. So hail our glorious leader. I said, hail our glorious leader! Hey, you want to be detained without charges for a few months under the Patriot Act? No? Well then, one last chance -- hail our glorious leader!
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:37 PM |
November 22, 2004
| Infamous brawl |
Every poll I've read places the majority of the blame for Friday's brawl on the players, notably Artest. It's funny how all these experts who wouldn't know a basketball from a shovel suddenly have opinions on the state of basketball once something this reckless happens.
It seems to me the public wants to see the players suffer. Maybe it's because they're big or rich or black, but personally I don't think any of this would have started if we weren't such a cowardly society in the first place.
The face of the guy initially attacked by Artest says it all. He was acting belligerantly because he thought he was safe to do so, from a distance, until Artest's indifference to conventional social barriers overwhelmed his impression of security.
Unfortunately, some of us have shorter fuses than others and that particular yuppie ended up on the beating end of a melee. I didn't shed any tears on his behalf or the others that we're out there throwing cheap shots and running around the court.
My bottom line is this. If the fans weren't such obnoxious cowards, none of this would have happened. Professional or just street ball, nobody should tolerate projectiles being thrown at their face. On a personal level, I really can't blame Artest for flipping out.
Was it the wrong thing to do? Yes. Do I blame his crime of passion? No.
Anybody who says they would NEVER impulsively flip out if provoked is either a chicken or is incapable of considering Artest's position.
These Detroit fans, and they are noted as being obnoxious as are Philly's fans, would never assault someone like Artest in public by themselves. But give them a barrier, superior numbers and a lot of liquid courage and suddenly they think they can throw cheap shots!
This fan will not be one of the many to blame society's ills on a handful of players who were provoked and initially attacked by the very people who are
now judging them as monsters.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:12 PM |
November 19, 2004
| No more money worries |
Hey! I just found this great loophole in my finances.
See, I kind of went crazy the last few years. I gave a lot of money and gifts to my friends, and bought a lot of toys, and went into debt. But today, all I did was sign a letter to my bank authorizing them to increase my account debt limit to $80,000.
Now, I can write checks or purchase items even with no money in the bank, up to a balance of negative $80 thousand buckaroos. And oddly enough, I don't even really have to pay it back, I can just leave any debt to my children.
Well, okay, not really. But that's what the president did with your tax money and the national budget.
Sadly, the bank still fines me if I go over my limit.
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:42 PM |
| What happened? |
Here's probably the best article I've read on the election in terms of objective analysis. No Bush bashing or Democrat disappointment. It includes some very positive comments on the youth vote.
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:39 PM |
November 18, 2004
| Governor's race |
So we got our own little Florida 2000 going on right here in the Evergreen state. Sweet! Will Rossi's charm prevail or is Gregoire's stranglehold on a few liberal counties enough to grab the state?
Time will tell, but one thing remains obvious: American ballot counting methods are woefully low tech. This isn't the Third World. The government has the money and technological capabilities to streamline a consistent system for counting votes that everyone can agree on.
If a 10-year-old can download Jessica Simpson on her watch, the federal government can find a clear cut way to count votes.
Why is it one county uses punch cards and another county favors something different? Why isn't consistent efficiency a value of the voting process? Americans should feel confident that when they vote, the government knows
what its doing across county and even state lines.
But we don't and so we trudge ahead with imminent discrepencies laying on the horizon, fueling the possibility for further scandal and disillusionment. We haven't learned our lesson, and we may be doomed to repeat it.
When it comes to voting, the whole process is counterintuitive. There's got to be a better way to get clear-cut results. I'd like to see some agency step in and establish one concrete method with a paper trail so everybody can feel like our votes are being handled responsibly.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:30 PM |
| Re: Hands off the sleaze please |
I agree with Hieger -- even now the NFL is apologizing.
Please explain why the NFL is apologizing for a woman dropping her towel, when I see that all day on even a soap commercial (Dove to be specific)? And the NFL needs to get off this high horse -- c’mon, they are sponsored by a ‘help you get an erection’ pill that runs constantly through their games, and they’re going nuts over this?
And the NFL also says they knew nothing about this being planned, which I just don’t buy. A production in the Eagles locker room, and you had no idea about this. Hmmm...
Of course, even Powell’s son (FCC chairman) started ranting again, "I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," since ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co.
Okay Powell, well is Walt Disney proud of the Coors Light Twins? Or how about Levitra? And remember, all this so-called conterversy does is makes this skit run over and over again on every news channel. Where is the outcry about that?
"Desperate Housewives" is a popular show right now (really don’t understand why) and they had fun with a skit with one of the most controversial athletes in sports today -- these conservatives need to have a sense of humor.
It’s funny how they don’t complain about erectile commercials, but when a woman has a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ they start crying aloud -- strange, and hypocrisy at its best.
Respond to Karan |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 12:25 PM |
| Is your love for real? |
I was talking to a friend last night about his new relationship, and he joked that he hadn't seen anything that said 3 months was too soon to consider living together.
I don't know about living together, but this morning I saw this article, which responds to the general question of whether you are "moving too fast."
While it mentions in passing some warning signs that you might be in the relationship for the wrong reasons, here are also some good tips on telling a healthy relationship from an unhealthy one.
And here's info that focuses more on the sexual aspects of healthy relationships.
And this site gives advice on a wide range of teen relationships, from siblings, to friends, to dating.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:19 PM |
November 17, 2004
| Arch of Bush |
Ahhhh how the Clinton scandals of yesterday pale in comparison to the quagmires of our current adminsitration. For Clinton, there is the ever scandalous "blue dress;" for Bush, there is the entire nation of Iraq standing as testimonies to lapses in presidential leadership.
It goes without saying that in hindsight, Clinton's scandals were nothing compared to the mistakes of Bush Jr., but that doesn't seem to matter. The
Democrats aren't trying to impeach Bush for his sins. You know oral sex is obviously much worse than war...
What's the point of this tirade? The opening of the Clinton Presidential
Library in Little Rock, of course.
Republicans will undoubtedly disagree, but I find it compelling that Clinton has chosen to include a display about the Whitewater affair and his impeachment in the library. Highlighting the dark side of a president's tenure is not standard operating procedure in these places, but Clinton is ackowledging his past, not ducking it. I find this admirable.
Let's jump ahead six or seven years when the Arch of Bush and Imperial Library is triumphantly hoisted above the Lincoln Memorial for all the world to see in its splendor. Will there be any space allocated for the WMD mistake or environmental roll backs, or will it be all this bringer of freedom swill we've become so aquainted with?
I'm guessing more of the latter. Bush isn't too high on reality. Besides, it kind of takes away from his legacy.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:07 PM |
| Hands off the sleaze please |
So ABC is taking flak for airing a "controversial" segment promoting "Desperate Housewives" prior to Monday night football this week.
Cross promotion of any kind is sleazy. Americans get enough advertising rammed down our throats anyways; we don't need promotions on top of promotions.
But all the fuss about indecency is unwarranted.
77% of ESPN fans surveyed about the "Desperate" plug either thought it was funny or didn't care. In other words, the vast majority of the Monday night football demographic is not overly sensitive or uptight.
The same people that take an ESPN survey are likely to be the same crowd watching football during prime time. Therefore, small children and timid religious types were less likely to be watching. So it isn't their time to gripe.
What we are witnessing, once again, is a small but potent minority of sensitive "values" types trying to impose a shelterd mindset on society as a whole. My mantra is this, "If you don't like it, you don't need to watch it." But trying to impose a generally clean mandate on all television as a whole is a bad idea. Different programs pander to different demographics and that should be respected.
Every demographic shouldn't have to walk the super conservative line all the time because a handful of people are itching to be insulted.
Besides this is football, not soccer, not church -- it ain't for the faint of heart or the weak spirited. It's high impact pain and competition where scantily clad women (cheerleaders) are part of the show. Taking sexy women away from football is like taking alcohol out of casinos -- they complement each other, maybe for the worse, but there's a relationship there and these things have their place.
If you don't like a dose of sex appeal with your football,you can always watch Walker Texas Ranger or Laci Peterson brain candy on some other channel. Exercise your right to avoid being insulted -- change the channel, not the sensitivity standard.
Keep your laws off my sleazy programming!
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:49 PM |
November 16, 2004
| Sex ed update |
Sex Ed is again in the news this week, this time on the national level as the CDC released a report stating that teen births are at a record low, largely attributed to sex education and parents who are willing to actually talk to their children about the birds and bees.
But that's just facts and stuff. I'm sure if you put a "Sex Ed" bumper sticker on your car, by the next week there'd be people driving around with that same bumper sticker being eaten by a fish.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:55 PM |
| Moderates need not apply |
Republican Senator Arlen Specter is being attacked by his own party for implying (gasp) that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.
He was basing his comment on silly little things like the Constitution, and court precedent. As a result, the Republicans now try to claim he would apply a litmus test to judicial candidates.
Specter responded that he wouldn't apply a litmus test. And how do we know? Because he's supported many pro-life judges in the past, including all the current conservative members of the Supreme Court, and he even was the main champion on behalf of Clarence Thomas.
It's pretty scary when a man who fought for Clarence Thomas, and supported Rehnquist, isn't conservative or right-wing enough for your party.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:52 PM |
| Because he cares |
Speaking of seeing doctors, Bush is moving forward with his wonderful plans to fix the health insurance crisis. What are they? Well, basically:
- Put caps on malpractice lawsuits -- his number one priority. Of course, this is a really small part of medical costs. So why the priority? I'm sure it has nothing to do with favoring corporations and insurance companies over the patients. Nope.
- More tax breaks. Yea! Of course, a little tax break isn't likely to give most people enough to actually buy insurance. But hey, any excuse to further cut taxes on the wealthy -- oh, hey, and this time the rest of us too.
- Increase the role of private insurers in Medicare. You know, give them a bigger piece of the pie.
All of this money-juggling will make a lot of rich people richer, and powerful companies more able to do whatever they want, but what effect will this actually have on health insurance? Well, it will insure an additional 6 to 8 million people.
Of course, when you consider that 5 million people have lost insurance since Bush took office, well, that means Bush will break about even, maybe even insure a couple million extra people.
Unfortunately, that still leaves about 38 million Americans uninsured. And with all these tax breaks and spending on things like war, and, um, more tax breaks, Bush may have to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits if he wants to reduce the deficit to a mere, paltry, silly little $260 billion.
But hey, can't have everything, right?
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:48 PM |
| Re: Disappointing Hawks |
I have to disagree with Karan's Seahawks blog. The Seahawks were totally overrated at 3-0 when even band wagon freaks like myself were talking Superbowl.
The fact of the matter is the Hawks are mediocre like usual. How so? They don't beat good teams; chalking up wins against perennial lame ducks does not a winner make.
The problems run deep, which make me that much more unlikely to take them seriously:
Zero pass rush, even with a healthy Wistrom, Rhodes likes to play man defense. Bulger could have read the paper in the pocket yesterday.
Hasselbeck is severely overrated and doesn't play well in important games, the benchmark of mediocrity. Remember that "clutch" overtime interception at Green Bay in the playoffs last year? That could be the only playoff game he ever sees as a pro and it ended with the worst pass possible.
As for "airing it out", the guy can't. His Hail Mary is 35 yards with the wind at his back. It's sad but true, the chances of our "Future Favre" materializing are about as likely as WMDs showing up the punter's locker.
And beleiving in Holmgren is what got us nowhere in the first place. He wanted Jeremy Stevens, he promised great things to Seatttle fans back in the '90s and now we can't even muster a TD in the most important game of the season.
By the way, West Coast Offense is just another term for conservative passing, and we don't even do that well.
Ultimately when your team can't score a TD against the Rams defense in a make-or-break game, you got coaching issues. I would hate to see what the Patriots (better all around) would do to us if given another chance.
Regime change starts at home. Ditch the Walrus and his 0-2 playoff record in
Seattle.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:44 PM |
| Re: Help is on the way |
Indeed, counseling is a tool too few people actually take advantage of. Too many people see it as somehow meaning they are crazy, or deficient or otherwise abnormal if they see a counselor. But in truth, many people seek counseling for everything from grief to relationship problems. It is perfectly healthy, and normal. You don't have to be "crazy" to see a psychologist, any more than you have to have cancer to see a doctor, or have a broken car to get a tune up.
I wouldn't recommend hypnosis, however, since that tends to be more of a temporary solution, and doesn't have as high a success rate as other forms of therapy. Cognitive-behavioral techniques, sometimes combined with medication if the condition warrants it, tend to be the most successful and longest lasting.
And it isn't just for Democrats. It is good for, say, stress and depression over long-term unemployment. Or for those who, after spending 20 years in a loving relationship are still denied basic rights to see each other in the hospital, or share insurance, because they happened to be of the same sex. I imagine that's pretty depressing.
And all those suffering post traumatic stress disorder, or depression, or stress, or grief, associated with the Iraq war. Or those whose child is suffering asthma because of polluted air, or the grandmother whose about to lose her home because of her $800 a month medical costs.
Yeah, I imagine that for the next four years psychologists, at least, will not struggle for employment. Then again, given the funding cuts to social programs, and the high number of uninsured Americans, maybe even the psychologists will be struggling.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:32 PM |
| Take this job and shove it |
Powell resigned. Great. Can't blame him though, considering how the Bush administration ignored and embarrassed him left and right.
His replacement is Condi Rice, a loyal yes-man. Er, yes-woman. So there shouldn't be any annoying voices of reason or opposition to bug Bush over his next foreign policy blunder.
Here's to Powell, whose "Powell doctrine" states that "the United States should commit its troops to battle only when absolutely necessary, in numbers sufficient to guarantee an overwhelming advantage, with a clear exit strategy and only if the enemy and aims could be defined clearly for the American public."
If only Powell had had the final say on Iraq.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:29 PM |
November 15, 2004
| Help is on the way! |
If you are still feeling blue about the GOP victory this month and it just doesn’t seem to want to go away, perhaps you should take a page out of this Democrat’s playbook.
Psychological help in the form of hypnosis is just what the doctor ordered. The best news? Her insurance paid for it! God Bless America!
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:39 PM |
| Follow Powell's lead |
Speaking of job departures, maybe Mike Holmgren and Bob (Witless) Whitsitt could take a page from Colin Powell's book and follow suit.
Too many years, too many disappointments, too many empty promises. For Holmgren it was the belief that he could make Seattle a contender; for Powell it was the belief that he could bring credibility to the Bush administration.
Both failed for a variety of reasons, but only one knows that it is time to go.
If only Holmgren and Whitsitt had the class of Powell and knew when to gracefully bow out.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:34 PM |
| Colin gone |
Colin Powell's departure from the Bush Whitehouse represents the last shred of international credibility leaving an administration short on transatlantic fans.
As the only Cabinet member to repeatedly acknowledge that there were no
WMDs, Powell stood alone in a sea of neocons as a beacon of humbleness and
integrity, a gem in these times of disghonesty and deflected blame.
Respond to John
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:31 PM |
| Disappointing Hawks |
The Seahawks season thus far has been a big disappointment. Steve Kelley says it best in his article about us expecting fire, but always getting ice.
I am still optimistic because our schedule is weak, but we need to win a big game before going into the playoffs. Here is what needs to change:
• Catch the ball! Our receivers are still dropping passes or running wrong routes -- why aren’t these guys focused? Yesterday was the biggest game of the year, and still dropped passes and wrong routes. Jeremy Stevens didn’t run the full route -- interception. Darrell Jackson drops a touchdown pass -- field goal. Koren Robinson, you already know he’ll drop at least one pass and why his focus isn’t there everyday.
• Run the ball! The Seahawks have started to run the ball more, but Hasselbeck is still throwing too many passes. I would like him to have about 30 attempts, and run the ball 30 times. We need to be more balanced, and why not when Alexander is running for five yards a carry. Get him the ball.
• Air it out! I would like to see more deep balls in the playbook. Yes, our receiver can’t catch, but they can be playmakers. We need to air out the ball more to make big plays. I understand the West Coast offense, but we have to try throw some defenses off at times.
• No more Zone coverage. The Seahawks were getting killed in the zone defense yesterday -- our DB’s were five yards away from every receiver in that first quarter. We have to press because our safeties our not good cover safeties -- they hit you hard, but they don’t have good field awareness.
• Blitz! With our D-line still weak and injured, we have to blitz Brown and Simmons more. They are quick backs who love to attack the quarterback, get them physical and make them hungry.
• No more audibles! Tell Hasselbeck he is not Peyton Manning, and tell Matt to listen to his coach! I’m sick of Hasselbeck changing the plays at the line with less than five seconds on the play clock. Plus, he’s not reading the defenses right. He needs to believe in Holmgren -- just try one game without an audible and we’ll be more successful. And remember, Hasselbeck is in a contract year – make him listen, or ship him out.
Those are my gripes. This is a good team, better than the Rams. Our talent even exceeds the Patriots -- but the Pats play best as a TEAM. The Hawks still have an easy schedule to slide in the playoffs but they better beat the Vikings or the Falcons to be legitimate contenders.
For now, we should just expect ice -- and only hope to get fire.
Respond to Karan |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:29 PM |
| Democrats leaving country? |
What are Democrats doing now that Bush won?
“The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win.
‘When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our Web site hit a new high, almost double the previous record high,’ immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday.
On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm.”
This is absolutely ridiculous -- if Democratic supporters want to leave the country because Bush won, well then go ahead. The true Democrats who want to fight for the next election and attempt to work with the re-elected president, thank you because you are doing your job and duty.
C’mon people, if you leave or even think about leaving just because we have Bush in office that only shows weakness and makes those crazy far-right conservatives smile from ear to ear. Remember -- we live in a democracy.
Stop acting like we got creamed in this election -- it was very close.
Now, I know it sucks that the Republicans control the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court but Democrats can still filibuster, they still have enough votes to not allow craziness to ensue, and they are starting to stop the bickering and finger pointing to stay on the same page (especially when that idiot Zell Miller is gone).
People need to stop talking about the Democratic Party being dead. It is very much alive, and needs to continue to work on its base.
Look at our smart state: we have two Democratic senators and will have a Democratic governor very soon. Democrats control the state House, and now after this election also the state Senate.
Democrats should not worry, we will survive four more years of Bush -- and as Heiger said earlier in a blog, this is Bush’s mess, let him clean it up.
I guess things have to get worse, before they get better.
Respond to Karan
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:24 PM |
| Employment indicators |
Cabinet officials resigning left and right. Top CIA leaders quitting in anger. Wow, looks like those unemployment numbers are still going up under Bush.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:18 PM |
| Re: Stem cell central |
Drew, I agree one hundred percent. State and private funding could help. Unfortunately, since Bush has managed to cut funding or shift a lot of the costs of education, social programs, fire fighters and first responders, etc, onto the states, and since Washington has already slashed and burned programs to close a $2.6 billion gap in its bi-ennial budget, this might be hard to do.
But Washington state has a good start on the whole biotech boom. We just need to stay serious about it. Not only stem-cell research, not even just bio-tech, but technology in general including new energy research and development.
And if California is also developing along those lines, well good, that just means all those Californians won't be moving up here for jobs and health care.
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:16 PM |
November 12, 2004
| Peterson who? |
I've been intentionally avoiding wasting any time on following the Peterson murder trial, so maybe someone can just tell me: Why are my headlines being interrupted with breaking news about a Peterson verdict -- not about Iraq, not about events in Palestine, not even about that apparently boring-by-comparison little genocide over in Darfur?
Never mind all the other stories we don't even hear about, all the human crises and triumphs abroad and at home, that the media just can't find room for. And never mind the lack of follow up or investigation into yesterday's top stories, or actual analysis or questioning of what the politicians say. Peterson verdict pending, folks!
I don't recognize him as a celebrity, or politician, or anything. I don't think his wife was someone known and loved by millions. So is it just because he's white and "good looking" that his murder trial, out of the thousands of stories occurring in our nation, takes up so much valuable space every day in the media?
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:29 PM |
| Annoying Democrats |
Oh my gawd. The Democrats blocked ten of Bush's judicial nominations in his first term. Ten!
Yeah, yeah, sure, 200 have been approved. But they blocked TEN! This has just got to stop! I mean, what is this, a democracy? A Republic? Who do those Democrats think they are, questioning or blocking any of Bush's nominations?
Why, if the founders of our great nation wanted checks and balances in our government, they would have put it in the Constitution or something. Geez.
But thank the gods for Frist. He's going to hopefully remove this last little annoying obstacle to total Republican imperial control.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:25 PM |
| The burning Bush |
Yeah, the righteous heard the burning Bush speak, and they obeyed. But so far, here's what I've seen him do since election day:
Brag about the political capital he "earned," and try to make it sound like he won by 80% or something, not a nearly even split with his opponent. Bragging is hardly the way to "unite" the nation, to heal those wounds.
When he was finished bragging, he announced his top priority -- to play around with the taxes further. Gee, I wonder who's going to benefit from a Bush-architected Tax Reform?
His next big move was to revive the energy plan Cheney constructed in closed-door meetings with oil and energy corporate pimps, which includes expanded ability for oil companies to drill on public lands, and try once again to drill for a little extra oil in the Alaska wildlife preserve.
Then, he moved on to pushing for privatization of Social Security.
Meanwhile, never mind the poverty. Never mind the education crisis. Never mind the lack of health coverage. Ignore the thousands of children developing asthma from poisoned air, or cancer from poisoned water. Forget the persistent racism or homophobia. Ignore the deep divisions he helped create in America, and in the world. Never mind reaffirming and reassuring America on his plans to improve the situation in Iraq.
Bush is the messenger of God. And if Jesus were president, his first priority would definitely be reducing taxes on the wealthy.
Yep. That's what I call moral leadership.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:21 PM |
November 10, 2004
| Stem cell central |
Now that the Election Day dust has settled and you’ve either declared moral(s) victory or moved to Vancouver, we can all appreciate the genius of Last Action Hero Star Arnold Schwarzenegger.
California passed a ballot initiative that will fund stem cell research with a cool $300 million through 2015. By going against his party and the federal government, Gov. Schwarzenegger helped make California Stem Cell Central.
While we worried that a second Bush term would mean the end of America’s chances to contribute to and benefit from what will be learned from this science, while pro-lifers battled the Reagan’s, while Superman died, there was another way to increase government funding for stem cells: state money.
Federal funding would still be a boon to the research, but California has got a big head start if the Bush Administration ever comes around. California’s economy will surely benefit. I hope Washington was paying attention.
Respond to Andrew |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 03:23 PM |
| Re: Standardizing sex-ed |
Randy’s right. Teens are no longer little kids, who unquestioningly accept everything adults tell them. That’s why the simplistic “abstinence-is-the-only option” approach toward sex-ed isn’t convincing to many students.
Neither are threats; in the movie “Mean Girls,” the sex-ed teacher says, “Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant…and DIE.” Regardless of my personal beliefs about pre-marital sex, I think “abstinence only” education is a one-sided approach to a very complicated issue.
Obviously, something’s wrong when “Girls and young women 15 to 19 have the highest rate of chlamydia and the second-highest rate of gonorrhea in the state,” according to The Seattle Times.
To decrease incidents of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, educators should encourage abstinence, discuss birth control and openly talk with students.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:20 PM |
| Re: Standardizing sex ed |
I think the world just stopped spinning for a second…I actually agree with Randy.
Christianity in general is scared stiff of the “s” word, and can’t deal with it in any way, shape or form. In growing up as a believer, and then attending a Christian university, I have seen that the number of Christian youth who never had the “birds and the bees” talk with their parents is pretty appalling.
Sex Ed is at least one good way of making sure that teenagers can make correct decisions, presenting all options, especially the use of contraceptives to prevent disease (although of course abstinence helps as well).
It’s a cocoon mentality for Christians to believe that if sex isn’t discussed, then it won’t happen. Of course, I would want them to take it one step further and discuss masturbation as well...let’s see how LeAnna Benn’s group likes THAT idea.
Respond to Gavin
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:16 PM |
| Right, left, right, left |
So I'm a masochist. I check the Fox News website regularly, because well, it is the nation's leading idea machine...I mean cable news outlet.
I see a new angle already in the mix. Post election, anytime a liberal speaks his or her mind, the right pipes in and talks about us "driving more Americans to the right because of our looniness."
All of sudden liberal ideas are "insane." Last week's discourse is this week's insanity. Every time a liberal eats a sandwich -- disgusted, moral Americans are shifting to the right.
This idea is flying off the press. The right is marching toward complete dominance. It isn't enough they won the election, now they need to crush our ideas.
Ahh, such gracious victors. But even in victory they aren't content. They're hungry for war and internal strife. Now O'Reilly is blaming the "liberal media" dominance for our own downfall.
Hmmm...if Republicans hate the "liberal media" dominance, why did they sponsor the Media Deregulation Act? Isn't Michael Powell still Colin's son? Why doesn't anybody call the Republicans on the "liberal media" label?
Politics without lies in just good ideas without a chance.
Respond to John
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:08 PM |
November 09, 2004
| Standardizing sex-ed |
The State is just now getting around to making "suggested" guidelines for Sex Education in Washington. Many districts still largely avoid teaching anything except "Don't do it." Why? These two paragraphs sum it up nicely:
"But conservative legislators and Christian-based family organizations argue schools should teach only abstinence until marriage and should not provide information about contraceptives. And, they say, local school boards should continue to decide what's taught so that curriculums reflect community values.
"The crux of the issue is, do we want kids to have sex and use contraceptives?" said LeAnna Benn, director of Teen-Aid, a Spokane organization that promotes abstinence until marriage. "Why don't we advocate what we really want?"
You gotta' love the "head in the sand" conservative mindset. Hey, if we don't talk about safe sex, then teens won't have it!
Yeah, that's true. They'll have unsafe sex. Many teens are going to have sex no matter how much you "advocate" abstinence. Let's at least make it a safe experience, a positive step in their transition to adulthood, not a life-altering mistake or guilt-ridden emotional scar-fest. And you can still recommend they don't do it at all.
Ignorance isn't a value, nor is it a solution.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:23 PM |
| Halo 2 day |
This IS a national holiday, isn't it?
It would be interesting to see how many sick days are claimed nationally this week by employees and students who happen to have X-Boxes.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:13 PM |
| Moving right is not the answer |
This is kind of a general response to Gavin's last few blogs. As a Democrat, I don't see any merit in appeasing conservative tendencies just because we lost a big election by a narrow margin.
Gavin presents a diverse range of perspectives but doesn't specifically say what he thinks we need to do.
Of course I think I'm right so I'm just going to say we need to embrace our "values" more so than ever. Moving right is essentially selling out, and since we would still be labeled as Democrats, we would do ourselves little favor. We would just be a watered down version of a stronger alternative.
Ultimately, us Democrats beleive it is in America's best interest to get smarter, not more isolated and intolerant. Time moves forward and the Republican Party will find out sooner or later. Additionally the foreign policy of the current administration, one of preemptive yet discredited aggression is too expensive and reflects an intellectual breakdown on the part of our military might.
In the sense that a strong image is worth a damn, it is in our best interest to follow a different mindset. Intelligence can mean strength, believe it or not.
We can't continue to reward irresponsible policy, aggressive perception or not, the isolationist right is writing checks our budget can't cash. This is the truth. Strong governments don't gamble when they don't have to and stronger governments know a Pandora's Box when they see one. Bush actually thought Iraq would fall easy--enough said.
As far as pandering to the notion of "electability" which got us John Kerry in the first place, the Democrats CAN survive by spurning every insufferable aspect of the conservative right. The loser liberal base like myself see little worth embracing from the red states. I say we do whatever we can to bring honesty and intelligence back into American politics- get middle America to realize that by voting Republican they vote against their own economic self interest, appeal to people who aren't so blinded by religious hate and petty social issues that they can't see Bush for what he is- a cheap salesman with a drawl.
Moving right is not the answer; opening new doors, tapping into new resources is. Make ignorance unfashionable- call the right's "fear mongering" out.
And again, a catchy phrase never hurts.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:10 PM |
| The heart of the matter |
BiDil may become “the first drug approved for only one race,” reports the Los Angeles Times. BiDil, which treats heart disease, provided significantly greater benefits to blacks in studies.
While critics are hesitant about race-based drug approval, especially since the FDA has indicated that it’ll approve race-based labeling, it’s all justified.
In a study involving a wide cross-section of the population, BiDil’s effects weren’t large enough to justify FDA approval. However, in a study limited to blacks, the results were strikingly positive; “Over the two years of the study, 6.2 percent of the patients given BiDil died, compared with 10.2 percent of those given the standard treatment.” These results almost guarantee FDA approval.
“Physicians are already aware that many drugs have different effects in whites and blacks,” and “Physicians could still prescribe the drug to other racial groups.” The fear of having treatment only limited to a certain racial group is unwarranted, since these other groups can still access BiDil with a doctor’s approval.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:35 PM |
| Poll tracking |
Check out RealClearPolitics.com for a great rundown of polls. Curious who did best in the National Polling? Curious why CNN/Gallup did the worst in the Battleground Polling? For people like me who tracked way too many polls in the last couple of months, it’s good to know which polls are trustworthy as we begin to rev up for 2006.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 01:20 PM |
November 08, 2004
| Anger and America |
I think this is more of the alternative type of Democratic response that I was referring to earlier (not talking about you, Randy… no assumptions here). Not to mention that the version here of the Civil War is slightly unhistorical… but that’s not really the point.
This would also count (and is also pretty high up on the “freaking weird” scale).
Overall, if Democrats would like others to take them seriously, this is probably the wrong way to start. I’d prefer them to do it soon, because otherwise we’ll be dealing with larger and larger Republican majorities in the House and Senate as larger portions of the country move closer to conservative positions, and that would not be good (dissenting opinions are necessary).
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:13 PM |
| Youth vote and other thoughts |
There seems to be this myth running around that the youth vote abandoned Kerry. I suppose this might still be argued as small, but over 1.5 million new youth voters came out for this election, they were just overwhelmed by the huge turnout from other sectors, so the overall percentage remained the same.
While the press is on the subject of religious pandering, by the way, which many are criticizing Bush for (and in some cases, correctly doing so) no one has rightly criticized Kerry for the five Sundays prior to the election giving “sermons” to African American churches. It was in blatant disregard of campaign finance laws. If Bush had ever given a “sermon” to a white evangelical church, he would have been roundly and nationally criticized for doing so.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:00 PM |
November 05, 2004
| Get a job |
337,000 jobs were added across the nation in October! Wow! With 281 cities in Washington, that's about 24 jobs per city!
Oh, wait, but the unemployment rate also went up.
Alright now people, let's not get greedy. I mean, I know we increasingly need to take two of these new, sucky, lower paying service jobs to make ends meet. But no seconds from the job pool until everyone gets firsts. You don't really need to add butter and milk to the mac and cheese, after all.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:29 PM |
| Anger is okay |
Anger is a perfectly legitimate reaction to defeat. And it isn't a trait that lies soley in the hearts of liberals, anger at progressive "values" was the catalyst for the conservative turnout. Both parties are fueled by anger, and to be honestly biased, I haven't noticed any great outpourings of bitterness from liberal camps of yet. I'm still half expecting some sort of riot in Pioneer Square this weekend but I won't hold my breath.
The mood is one of mourning if anything, but I think the whining is at a minimum. We acknowledge that the majority of energized voters spoke and at present are content to just grumble in disbelief.
But to hear it from the partisan gloat-fest that is the ressurection of Dennis Miller's career, you would think Conservatism is the new Hip Hop. This should be expected but if conservatives think for a second that we'll see the light of the Beaver Cleaver 1950's dream, well, they're wrong.
The bottom line is the whole values appeal that turned out the conservative majority was more luck than anything. 3 million votes in a country of 500+ million is a tiny percentage. If only a handful more of us "stoned slackers" as Bill O'Reilly calls us, would have got off the couch things would be different, but alas we are the losers of '04.
So be it, but don't expect us to take this values crap lying down. Intolerance isn't a value and when America decides that religion will trump science than you know we can't afford to run "conservatively" too long. The world will simply pass us by.
The Republicans won by a narrow margin and ran a campaign largely fueled by righteous nonsense. You'd never hear the Bush campaign concede that "Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states," according to the NY Times. But the truth will bleed through, it always does.
The Democrats will refine our messages, we'll get a catch phrase that sticks and we'll light a fire under our "stoned slackers" somehow, but we won't buy into the notion that the world is flat and that Jesus made the Dinosaurs in his image, we simply won't.
Lies and religious fear can only get you so far, eventually substance and content will triumph.
So bring your Jesus Mandate and your selective values. Run wild but don't expect the educated masses of the two coasts to buckle. We ain't going nowhere and all we have is our fight.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:26 PM |
| Now I know |
I remember, when 9-11 happened, one of the things I wondered was how long before the networks made it into a mini-series. Now I know.
I have to say, I'm impressed they managed to wait this long. Why, they gave it twice as much time as for the Amy Fisher story. That's respect, folks.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:19 PM |
| Bush earned a reality check |
Bush says he "earned political capital in the election."
Huh?
Okay. Sure. And Cheney says you have a clear mandate.
You know, it is true that Bush got the most votes in history. But guess who got the second most votes in history? Kerry. The election came down to you having 51%, and Kerry 48%. That isn't a landslide, W.
Given that you are an incumbent in wartime, and Kerry was supposedly such a lousy opponent, that isn't even impressive.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:12 PM |
| Election reflections |
I, too, was at the UW on Wednesday and was absolutely amazed at how dead the campus looked. Not only that, I don't think I saw a single kedwards sticker/lapel/button/shirt etc etc. No LaRouche goons either.
I listened in on a couple of conversations during the day and couldn't help but notice the nastiness directed at conservatives/Republicans and middle America. Oh and the stereotypes!!! Yes, 60 million rednecks voted for President Bush. Yes, even though Republicans are generally more educated than Democrats, they are the stupid ones. Yes, it's a logical conclusion that because Republicans want to protect traditional marriage and promote family values, that they're homophobic, bigoted, religious zealots.
The morals/values thing obviously shocked the left, probably because they've become isolated on the largely secular coasts. It didn't surprise me a bit. I wrote earlier this year how essential President Bush endorsing the FMA would be for securing his conservative base and getting out the usually apolitical evangelical vote. What I had failed to understand though was why Bush was doing so well in the polls despite low right/wrong track numbers. Yesterday, I finally realized that those numbers were not solely focused on Iraq and the economy, but also the saturation of what most America sees as repugnant social values.
Another thing that struck me through the campaign was how Republicans were more strategic, while the Democrats were more tactical. Republicans stuck to certain issues and concerns, while Democrats pounced on whatever story emerged. Perhaps this was also a reflection of the two candidates. Bush is the one with the vision, Kerry the political opportunist.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 12:09 PM |
| Anger management |
Gavin, I certainly didn't call anyone "gullible fearful morons," and certainly didn't say that everyone who voted for Bush were such. Funny that you would make that assumption though.
If you are going to tell me that the extremely high voter turnout in this election was all based on a rational examination of the issues and a deep love of our democratic system, well, send me a postcard from Neverland, I hear it's nice there. Many people did vote for Bush out of fear that Kerry would weaken our country, and many Democratic voters were instilled with enough doubt and fear not to show up at the polls for the same reason.
Some people voted for Kerry out of fear of a draft, social security cuts, or other such ridiculous reasons. And some people voted for Kerry out of fear that Bush would continue to erode our civil and sexual rights, increase global terrorist activity, and other very legitimate reasons.
Fear, anger, and doubt were in fact strong factors in this election. Did everyone, or even a majority of voters, show up or vote based on these emotions? Probably not. But many did. Enough to make this an "historic" election.
As for your defensiveness on the religous zealotry comment, again, sorry to break this to you, but religious views were also a big factor in this secular election. Many states had gay marriage bans on the ballot, which drove heavy conservative Christian turnout in those states. And the prospect of Bush, a man who doesn't mind using government to enforce his Christian views about abortion, marriage, and life, being replaced by that evil Catholic pro-choice hypocrite Kerry also brought a lot of single-issue pro-lifers and others to the polls.
The fact that the Republican party deliberately targeted churches, sent out flyers on religously sensitive issues, and more shows that they acknowledged the power of religous zealotry, even if you want to pretend it wasn't a factor. Again, like fear, it wasn't the only, or even the majority factor. But in this election, it certainly was one big piece of the puzzle.
And my concern isn't "Christian yokels" rejecting my philosophies. My concern is that some, not all or even most, Christians would like to see their own philosophy made into law and forced on me, regardless of what my philosophy is. It is a question of respecting the right to each live by our own beliefs, something extremists on both sides of issues have a hard time doing.
And you might want to apologize for calling all Christians yokels. Most Christians I know, including much of my family, would not appreciate such a characterization.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:06 PM |
November 04, 2004
| Re: Dead week |
Anne’s right; there’s a feeling of post-election sadness and discouragement floating over the UW campus. My extremely pro-Kerry neighbor dressed entirely in black yesterday and today. One of my teachers had to re-grade class midterms, because her post-election anger resulted in excessively harsh grading.
Anne also says, “hopefully, this shock will work as a wake-up call for young people to be even more active. Voting isn't enough. It didn't work for many young people this time. Young people need to see themselves as activists, not just voters.”
In reality, many students don’t have the time to join activist political groups. Following the news, expressing opinions through discussion, and voting are easy, realistic, meaningful ways to be engaged citizens.
It’s true that the youth vote -- which hasn’t grown since the 2000 election -- was a big disappointment this year. If more young people vote, though, we’d have a considerably larger voice.
To say that “Voting isn’t enough” and “It didn’t work” seems to lessen the significance of the youth vote and its enormous potential.
Further, expecting youth to become activists -- when many aren’t even voting -- is unrealistic at this point.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:15 PM |
| Jim Johnson won? |
Okay, I wasn't surprised Dino did so well. He's got the whole charm thing to blur the fact that he is a George Bush mini-me -- and the fact that he is a George Bush mini-me for those who actually like Bush. But Jim Johnson won a State Supreme Court position?
Apparently, the name worked for him this time. Because I can't believe people voted this guy in on his right-wing conservative record. That is, unless he is their hope for opposing gay rights in Washington. While I don't know that he will, I wouldn't be surprised if he took an ideological stance on social issues as well given his conservative record on economic and environmental issues.
This is the guy who actually wrote a couple of Tim Eyman's most damaging initiatives. I find it hard to believe he's going to be impartial when such issues come before the Supreme Court.
Johnson was Gorton's axe man against tribal rights. He's opposed protecting salmon, and he represented the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the conservative think tank that fought with teachers unions.
He did get the endorsement of the business community though. Not surprising, given his conservative fiscal views and a record of representing them over the environment.
Whether or not you agree with Johnson's views, one thing is certain. This guy has no place on the State Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the bench mark of non-partisan, non-ideological, objective decisions. This guy will be our own personal Antonin Scalia.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:11 PM |
| Network coverage |
I wanted to throw in CNN for best network coverage of election night 2004, partially for reasons I’ve already outlined -- the Crossfire guys and Larry King’s bedtime. They also were the most responsible in calling states, trying as hard as possible to avoid the problems of the last election.
The Daily Show comes in second, simply for letting Steve Carell have a few spots. My favorite correspondent ever, hands down.
Fox News had the best ticker, since CNN’s never showed the number of precincts that had reported, which was annoying as all get out. However, Brit Hume talked slower and slower as the night wore on, and Larry King was infinitely more entertaining than listening to Fred Barnes (which is always true, but especially so on Tuesday).
MSNBC was a laughingstock, as always. Who decided that Ron Reagan would be a good political analyst? I get the feeling whenever I watch MSNBC that they grabbed whatever analyst nobody else wanted.
NBC, ABC and CBS have Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. In other words, they are boring as hell. I have to say that they are more entertaining when trying to come up with more stuff to talk about in the eighth hour after being used to a tightly scripted half hour. Then you get gems of moments like Tom looking off camera saying, “What are we doing now? Where are we going now?” and looking fairly ticked off that he was still on the air.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:01 PM |
| |
