 |
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 |
| Re: Angry doesn't equal winning |
What I find so ironic about some responses to this election is that Democrats can agree that anger wasn’t enough to win, but respond to the results of the election with anger.
How dare you stupid ignorant Christian yokels reject our philosophies? Don’t you know you are admitting in the next apocalypse? The earth will cease to spin, fire will rain down…actually, that’s a Christian version of the end times, so that’s probably too religious a rant right now.
I would say that if you’re trying to convince 3.5 million Americans in two years to reconsider your party, calling them all gullible fearful morons is probably getting off on the wrong foot.
Yes, I do actually think that if the position were reversed that Bush would have conceded, just as Kerry did. I think, if it were closer, say 50,000 votes, that either side would have litigated. The mathematics were so improbable…it just wasn’t going to happen.
Back to something I wrote about yesterday…did anyone watch CNN Tuesday night? Was Larry King not the funniest person to watch as the night got longer and longer? He reminded me of my (now-deceased) grandpa, when 10 pm hit, he was ready for bed and pissed at anything that kept him up. Please tell me someone else noticed this.
Also, it was amazing to watch the Crossfire guys do something other than Carville/Begala mopping the floor with Novak/Carlson. They (especially Carville) had some of the best commentary of the night.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:57 PM |
| Re: Angry doesn't equal winning |
First, true, angry doesn't equal winning. But apparently fear and religious zealotry does.
Second, yes, unfortunately Bush and the Republican Right now have complete power, without even the modest Constitutional checks and balances that the closely split Senate once represented. The shift from Republic to Holy American Empire is complete.
Yes, Bush has a mandate. A mandate to prove his claims that he will keep us safe, in spite of his record to date.
However, the Republicans will not stop there, but take it as a "mandate" to push through every extremist right-wing ideological fantasy they've been holding onto for decades. Illegalize abortions. Discriminate against gays. Further abolish the social safety and welfare nets. Further shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor. Privatize, privatize, privatize.
Finally, I agree, Kerry's concession was classy. In losing, I feel Kerry once again demonstrated precisely why he should have won. Given all the legal (and not so legal) shenanigans the Republicans performed leading up to the election, do you truly believe that, if the situation were reversed, the Republicans wouldn't still be fighting over Ohio or other states?
Kerry, as always, put the interests of the nation before himself. This was a good if regrettable way to end 30 years of service to his nation. He may not have been the perfect candidate, but he was the better candidate, and he proved himself, unfortunately, the better loser.
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:22 PM |
| Back to the future |
The reelection of George W. Bush confirms we are living in a new kind of American Renaissance, a return to the 1980s.
The two-term Republican force is back, the Seahawks have playoff potential and the Mariners ended the season in the cellar. Cocaine is running strong (according to the UW epidemiological study) and Ozzy Osbourne is a God to a
new generation of hopeless rockers.
With the exception of big hair and Michael J. Fox, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of revisiting a culturally bankrupt decade.
Where's Jerry Falwell when we need him?
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:10 PM |
| Dead week |
I went through my day Wednesday as usual. Woke up, studied, went to class. But I, along with many people around me were in mourning. It was a mourning not just of electoral defeat -- Bush having won the presidential election -- but also a related fear about the future.
What will happen in the next four years?
The weeks leading up to the election created a great sense of empowerment and civic responsibility among young people. Kerry and Bush supporters campaigned like mad on UW's campus, passing out stickers, standing in the cold and rain. Professors urged students to vote. Election posters lined bulletin boards and light posts around campus.
On Tuesay many people were missing from classes -- caught up in lines to vote. People didn't give a second thought to whether they should vote or not. It was their responsibility to do so. Their votes had the power to change.
So, Wednesday was a shock for many young Kerry supporters. And it was a shock that for many, made them lose hope about their ability to cause change. For others, it was a shock in understanding the stark disparity between their political beliefs and those of the majority of the country.
But 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.
After weeks of lively campaigning and excitement, much of the UW's campus was dead this week. I hope that's not an indicator of how this election has changed political activism among young people.
Respond to Anne |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 12:07 PM |
November 03, 2004
| Angry doesn't equal winning |
I remember thinking early on in this election that the Democratic anger reminded me of the ’96 election, with Dole going against Clinton. I predicted then that anger could not win an election by itself, and obviously it didn’t -- although I’m not entirely sure what the alternative would be classified as...Christianity?
I have to say I was fairly surprised at the strong showing by the Republican party. Significant gains in the Senate and House, which give President Bush no margin for error in pushing his agenda for the next four years.
Early thoughts...Do the Democrats who so cried about the electoral college and held up the popular vote instead give the president (and the Republicans by extension) the mandate that the margin of victory deserves?
Thank God that Kerry didn’t go into legal action. I couldn’t have taken that again. His concession speech showed a lot of class.
I stayed up until 2 am. That was incredibly stupid of me, but it did offer the entertainment of Larry King on CNN.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:23 PM |
| Youth vote? |
“This was not the breakout year for young voters that some had anticipated. Fewer than one in 10 voters Tuesday were 18 to 24, about the same proportion of the electorate as in 2000,” reports the Associated Press.
I find this surprising. Over the past few weeks at the UW, I’ve witnessed a very visible excitement surrounding the election. For instance, at 4 a.m. this morning, I was woken up by the sound of TV election news coming from my neighbor’s room.
But despite inspiring signs of political activity, the numbers show a discouraging reality: A significant number of young people still aren’t voting.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:31 PM |
| Youth vote pathetic |
This was the groundhogs day of the apocalypse: FOUR more years of winter...
To be a little less dramatic, the youth vote was pathetic. Young Americans showed once again that they would rather play their X-box and watch "Real World" than get off their butts and take a stake in their future.
To quote Hunter S. Thompson, "Four more years of Bush would be like four more years of syphillis."
Better get used to it.
Respond to John
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:25 PM |
| Resigned |
While I respect the need to count every vote, it is safe to say Bush won. The GOP has gained even further control of Congress.
While certainly the results are based in small part on lies spread about Kerry's record, and Republican undermining of democracy in some ways and so forth, in truth that would only be a small part of the picture. Just as a Democratic victory would have been in small part due to their fearmongering about the draft and social security and so on.
Ultimately, thre results are an indication of the feelings and trends of American thought at this time, or at least the Republican party's successful mobilization of more people who share their thoughts.
And the overriding concern of people right now is security, which the Republicans have done a successful job of making their issue in spite of their record.
And so Kerry ends a long record of service to his country. Thank you, John Kerry. And Bush continues his record of service to, well...I'll just say congratulations, George Bush.
And so I will give a martyred sigh. And shake my head. And guess this is how progressives felt while they had to weather the McCarthy era. And we will move forward (well, technically, we will probably continue to move backward in many areas, but you know what I mean).
There. Got that out of my system. And now, America can get back to stories about murder trials, celebrity wedding rumors, and monitoring the weight of the Olsen twins and put all this silly politics stuff behind us. I hope.
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:22 PM |
| Belief isn't automatically law |
Readers of my abortion column in NEXT last Sunday have responded with a number of predictable responses.
The arguments include that pushing pro-choice is the same as pushing pro-life, and I just think my "belief" is better than theirs.
Also, that all laws are passed because we believe them to be right, and therefore are based on belief obviously. This argument also included the fine examples that murder and stealing are illegal because we believe them to be wrong.
My response is that no, my belief isn't "more right" than anyone else's. Which is exactly why you have the choice to live by your belief, and I have the choice to live by mine. The difference is, I am not advocating having the government come in and force you to have an abortion, but you want to have the government come in and force women not to.
As for murder and stealing, those are illegal because they harm a universally acknowledged human being, or the property and security of said person. It doesn't take "morals" or religion to know that if you punch me in the face, that hurts, and I don't like it, or if you steal my car, that sucks and I don't like it.
Do I believe those acts are wrong? Heck yeah! But they aren't wrong only because I believe them to be. These acts have very real, evident harm to me, or my property. And protecting the safety and property of citizens falls within the duty of government.
If I walk onto your property and cut your trees down, that is destroying your property, and it is illegal. But if I tried to make it illegal for you to cut down your own trees because I believed that doing so killed pretty little tree spirits inside them, that is a different matter. I can't prove that pretty little tree spirits live in your trees (and if I tried, I'd likely be tested for drugs). You'd be all up in arms if I tried to tell you what to do with your own trees.
Yet you are fine telling others what to do with their own body, their most private possession?
You can't prove that human souls exist, let alone exist in a fetus. Mel Gibson tried throwing his self-created holiness around again, talking about how we all came from embryos and therefore they shouldn't be destroyed. Okay. Putting aside the obvious flaws in that simple view, embryos come from sperm and eggs, but I don't see anyone trying to make it illegal to masturbate, or menstruate. Maybe we're flushing half-souls down the toilet! No? How do you know?
I'm not saying you are wrong in your belief. I'm only saying that many people don't share your belief, and you can't prove your belief. Heck, I'm not even saying I believe abortion is good or right. I'm only saying that each person has the right to make their own decision, and to remove that right is antithetical to everything America is supposed to stand for.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:18 PM |
| Voting reflections |
On Tuesday I voted for the first time. A few reflections:
#1: Corny as it sounds, I feel a little different than when I was too young to vote. Even though my vote is just one out of millions and millions, it’s still MY vote. I said “yes” for Referendum 55, for example, and it was MY yes. It’s an empowering feeling.
#2: Many youth, and I’d like to think a growing majority, aren’t apathetic about the election. On the UW campus, aggressive voter registration people have asked me multiple times if I’m registered to vote, at my current address, with an absentee ballot. While it’s gotten excessive about the fifteenth time around, overall, it made registering almost too convenient to not register.
#3: The atmosphere of a politically active campus is pretty cool. I hear people asking each other, “Did you vote yet?” as if not voting isn’t really a choice. In English, my teacher did a head count of how many voted; it was almost everyone in the class.
Walking to lunch, students were handing out Kerry-Edwards stickers to those who’d already voted. My dorm neighbor got annoyed at two “Bush” and “Rossi” signs that two boys down the hall had posted on their door. So she made a big sign that said “Tomorrow, I’m voting for Kerry-Edwards,” and put it on HER door.
It’s inspiring to see how involved UW students have been with this election.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:09 PM |
November 02, 2004
| Standing in line |
Weird. When driving around, I've seen all these lines of people at churches and community centers and things. Something going on today?
Oh, wait, I know. This must be the start of the bread and soup lines for all those hit by Bush's economic policies and the cuts in social programs.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:02 PM |
| Is it over yet? |
I'll be glad when this is over. I haven't felt this anxious since the last Alias cliffhanger.
I should think that the Republicans have it much easier right now. If Kerry wins, they can feel comfortable knowing that a Republican controlled Congress and conservative majority Supreme Court will be able to block most of Kerry's efforts, then blame him for the failures and win the White House back in 2008. If Bush wins, he'll retain imperial powers and continue to further the right-wing agenda. Not a bad position to be in.
In fact, watching the clever and efficient way the Republican leadership (not Joe Smith Republican) has rolled over the democratic process to victory (redistricting, inflated felon lists, registration fraud, returned mail challenges, intimidation mailings, voter "challengers," funding and registering voters for Nader, etc.) it is impressive in the same way that makes you cheer for the clever thief in a good robbery caper like "Ocean's Eleven" or "The Thomas Crown Affair."
Still, when someone is writing "the Rise and Fall of the American Empire" in a century or two, these last couple of "elections" will no doubt be well discussed.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:00 PM |
| Some election thingie |
It's election day and I'm surprisingly confident about President Bush's chances of re-election and about the overall outcome of this year's election.
If Bush does win, and I think he will, the GOP will be talking about this year's election for a long, long time. The Bush campaign which has been focused on avoiding a "lonely victory" for a long time, will surely get its wish. It looks like John Thune will defeat Tom Daschle in South Dakota and that overall the GOP will pick up a net gain of two seats (and perhaps three if Murkowski manages to defeat Knowles) in the Senate. Although, that's a bit disappointing because they should pick up four.
In Washington state, things are a bit more grim. At best, the GOP maintains its current control of the State Senate. At worst, it loses four or five seats. Realistically, the GOP loses two seats. In the house, I expect a couple of seat drop, even though my friends working for House candidates keep talking about a few strong candidates, specifically Matt Rice in the 23rd, Joshua Freed in the 1st and Mike Hope in the 44th. Even still, this looks like a hard year for House Republicans.
The statewide offices are interesting. The consensus within the lobbying community and GOP is that Rob McKenna will be the next Attorney General. The polls preceding the election also agree; Mckenna had a three point lead coming into the final weeks. As someone who used to work on McKenna's campaign, it's hard not to be enthusiastic about that. Rob's a great guy, a tremendous talent and someone who will serve the state of Washington with honor and distinction.
The Governor's race is definitely a toss-up, with I believe, a slight advantage for Gregoire. The most recent KOMO-4 and King-5 polls had Gregoire with a slight lead and Rossi's internals had him slightly up. Rossi needs to do better in Clark and Pierce Counties than he's been polling and hopefully independents will break slightly for him. This one's going to be a nail-biter.
Nethercutt will lose, and that's unfortunate because he's by far one of the nicest guys I've ever met in politics. Unfortunately, there were just too many factors going against him, and his campaign failed to define Murray before she was able to define herself -- a huge strategic mistake. Nethercutt should have hammered Murray with the Osama bin-Laden tape months ago, but I'm sure they thought that the race would be closer as the election approached than it was.
Finally, the Congressional races come basically down to just the 8th district showdown between Dave Ross and Dave Reichert. The GOP will retain the 5th with McMorris and all of the other races aren't really close. Other than the flood of e-mails I get daily from the Reichert campaign, I really don't have much insight into how this race will break.
The district, which is wrongly pegged as conservative, voted for Gore in 2000 and will break for Kerry this year. The recent visits of Blunt and Hastert seem to suggest that not only is the race close, but that Reichert might be slightly behind. A Ross victory would definitely be a blow to the GOP, especially considering the guy is not the "moderate" that The Seattle Times editorial board seems to think he is.
Respond to Brent |
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 11:00 AM |
| About time |
The Huskies finally fired Keith Gilbertson. Thank goodness. He couldn't coach at Cal and if the last two seasons are any indication, it's time for him to go back to being an assistant.
It will be interesting to see who the Huskies bring in to coach next year. I've heard some speculation about Norm Chow, USC's Offensive Coordinator but I couldn't possibly imagine him wanting to leave USC for a system in shambles. Ditto for Coach Tedford at Cal.
Frankly, I don't see the Huskies picking somebody up from the PAC-10. Look for Emmert to do what he did at LSU: get an up and coming coach from outside the region.
Respond to Brent |
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 10:55 AM |
November 01, 2004
| Kerry and world-o-sports |
Yet another ominous sign that Kerry will prevail ala the wacky world of sports.
By defeating the Washington Redskins Sunday, the Green Bay Packers did their
part, in the minds of us supertisious sorts to ensure a Bush ousting on Tuesday.
Bush may be a victim of bad scheduling, but I'd take my chances with Favre and Kerry over Brunell and Bush any day of the week.
Respond to John
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:24 PM |
| Missing the bomb for the Bush |
A reader responsed to my two blogs on the explosives:
"You write with a great deal of enthusiasm and feelings, but generally not much in the realm of truth ... Friday MAJ Austin Pearson, commander of the 24th Ordnance Company described his unit's removal of 250 tons of explosive from the Al Qaqaa facility. He also talked about the demolition of more of what was found. As you, the NYT, CBS and Senator Kerry flail about without the facts your credibility is lost. Senator Kerry continues to belittle our troops on the ground calling them incompetent."
Well, first, thanks for writing.
I actually did mention that Pearson had reported destroying the 250 tons of materials (which were TNT, blasting cords, munitions, and some plastic explosives). However, if you are familiar with the story, then you know that Pearson did not remember destroying anything with a seal on it.
Further, Pearson's team removed the materials on April 13. The video showing the barrels of high explosives with the seals still on them was taken April 18. So I doubt Pearson's team destroyed much, if any, of the explosives in question.
Regardless, a couple hundred tons is a drop in the bucket. There are over 250,000 tons of ammunition and explosives still missing from Hussein's regime. Some of this has certainly fallen into the hands of insurgents and is being used against our own troops. And some of it may very well have already been given or sold to terrorists.
As for belittling our troops, the only person who blamed this on the troops that I know of is Giuliani, while defending and campaigning for Bush. Kerry blames Bush, declaring this as another sad result of Bush's poor handling of the war. Both responses are of course motivated by election time politics, but Kerry's happens to also be true.
For example, we controlled a coalition of 700,000 ground troops in the Persian Gulf war. If Bush had been able, or willing, to gather a true coalition even approaching that size for the invasion and securing of Iraq, I'm sure we would have been much better able to secure the ammo dumps, borders, etc., not to mention accelerate the reconstruction and security training, and reduce American casualties and costs.
It is a shame that we still struggle with confusing criticism of a war as somehow being criticism of the warrior, or confusing the need to hold the Commander in Chief accountable for actions, mistakes, and deceptions as somehow questioning the brave actions and loyal service of those he commanded.
Finally, the only person flailing about without the facts here is Bush and Rumsfeld. They are the ones who tried to convince us that the explosives disappeared before we even invaded, until video evidence showed otherwise.
But then, they didn't have to worry about losing credibility since that was lost with both Americans and the world long ago, in a time of unity and trust far, far away...
Respond to Randy
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:20 PM |
|
Back to top