 |
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. |
December 30, 2004
| Rossi lossi |
A couple of weeks ago when Dino Rossi was the psuedo Governor-elect, Republicans statewide were crying to let the vote stand.
The liberal mantra of "count every vote" was dismissed as a high-pitched whine intent on delaying Rossi from his rightful throne.
Now here we are, in this last week of December and now it's the Republicans who are crying for a recount, the very same Chris Vance Republican Machine who wanted nothing to do with any measure that might incluude a recount. It wasn't necessary and it was an unethical waste of time, he said. A recount was a sign of fraud, he said, a threat to the integrity of democratic process.
Oh but how quickly the ideals of preserving the perfect democracy shift when the benefactor suddenly becomes the goat. Now Rossi is the Gregoire of last week, and now Vance and Rossi are fighting for the very thing they condemned when it suited their interests.
There's no question this election was a mess and should be a glaring indicator for effective voting reform. But to hear Rossi and company shift their position so quickly makes me think these clowns don't stand for anything but winning at all costs -- which isn't anything new, but I think the term "hypocrite" fits nicely.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:16 PM |
December 23, 2004
| Holiday or battle cry? |
I wonder what the self-promoting saver of Christmas, Bill O'Reilly, thinks about someone erecting a Festivus promotion on public land.
To hear it from him, any time a strand of Christmas lights anywhere goes out, it is further proof of the aggressive secularist movement enfringing upon the holiday and trying to destroy good Christian cheer.
With the vast majority of Americans celebrating Christmas in one form or another, I really have to wonder what the conservative right and their lunatic mouth pieces at Fox News are so concerned about. If your traditions are the dominant ones, you shouldn't be whining, but any viewer of O'Reilly's whine fest can tell you that indeed the very tradition of Christmas itself is at the threat and if America doesn't preemptively crush every last secularist there will be no Christmas holiday sometime in the near future.
Personally, I think O'Reilly is a paranoid loudmouth who wants to pick a fight with the underdog, but the unveiling of the Festivus shrine puts things in perspective, if the right wants to cry about how they can't have absolute cultural domination, we can always fight back with humor and Seinfeld, it puts things in perspective.
Christmas is a holiday, not a battle cry, lighten up O'Reilly and gang.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:05 PM |
| Beasty burgers |
Some fast food chains, like McDonald’s and Wendy’s, are promoting healthier menu items. However, St. Louis-based Hardee’s unabashedly breaks the mold, offering six sandwiches over 1,000 calories.
In November, Hardee’s introduced the Monster Thickburger: “two one-third-pound slabs of Angus beef, four strips of bacon, three slices of cheese and mayonnaise on a buttered sesame seed bun.”
The Monster Thickburger contains a whopping 1,420 calories, and makes McDonald’s 600-calorie Big Mac look like a diet sandwich in comparison.
In theory, there’s nothing wrong with offering such a burger. Hardee's chief executive Andrew Puzder said the Monster Thickburger isn’t for “tree huggers,” but for “young hungry guys who want a really big, delicious, juicy, decadent burger.”
True, but young, hungry guys aren’t the only ones eating the Monster. An MSNBC poll showed that 53% of respondents said they’ve already tried it and eaten every bite, and 46% tried it and couldn’t finish it.
If Hardee’s is going to promote such a terribly unhealthy sandwich as obesity rates rise, they should at least be responsible and post nutritional information. Although the burger is obviously unhealthy, a notice of the 1,420 calories in it would hopefully prompt second thoughts.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:53 PM |
| Bloggers beware! |
Personal blogs are changing the way young people express themselves and interact with each other. These days, Xangas and LiveJournals provide flexible places to write almost anything, ranging from an account of one’s day to soul-searching ruminations to a detailed laundry list of complaints.
However, I’ve just read a creepy Newsweek article that reminds me of the need to keep personal blogs private. The article suggested that so-called “armchair anthropologists” should read college students’ blogs to get a sense of what college life is really like.
The idea of some random old guy reading my LiveJournal seems a little sketchy, and I don’t even write personal stuff in it. I have friends who do, however, and it seems strange that their college angst might come under the scrutiny of an “armchair anthropologist” or weirder still, of curious parents.
“Clearly the student blogs that tell us most about college are the ones that speak from the heart,” writes Newsweek. This reminds me that I never know who’s reading my LiveJournal, and that privacy settings exist for a reason.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 12:47 PM |
December 22, 2004
| Re: Baby kidnapper |
Chris, of course we both left out plenty of information in our blogs. After all, we're not writing an encyclopedia or textbook on the history and philosophy of abortion here. It's a blog.
And we could go back and forth forever and not come to any kind of agreement, which is exactly my point.
Nobody can ever provide definitive proof of when "life" begins that we will all agree on. That is why many people who personally oppose abortion support pro-choice politics. Pro-choice isn't arguing that you are wrong. It is only arguing that, in the absence of actual proof, I have as much right to hold my belief as you have to hold yours, and that the law shouldn't seek to force your belief on me.
Pro-choice is pro-American! I say let's just agree to disagree; though unfortunately pro-lifers won't be happy until a cop is telling me I don't have the right to disagree, it seems.
And I still think you are stretching it a bit trying to make Stinett's case into a launching point for abortion discussions. Yet sadly, I ended up discussing abortion to make that point. Doh!
But really, what "important questions" does it raise? Whether an 8-month-old in-utero baby should be taken from its mother's stomach by force? Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no, that was wrong. Ditto to whether women should be aborting 8-month-old in-utero babies without legitimate medical reason.
But again, good luck finding many people who would argue otherwise. As I said, I don't see this as an argument against abortion, but rather another sad example of mental health issues, if anything.
As for the Peterson case, which I think is a huge waste of valuable news space, same thing. Wrong to kill a woman? Yep. Wrong to kill a woman's baby? Yep. Wrong to abort a baby against the mother's will? Yep. Again, good luck finding anyone to argue anything else.
About the only relevance I see there is that Bush and friends have made killing a pregnant woman equal to double murder, implying that a fetus is equivalent to a fully developed and birthed baby with all associated rights. Yet another clever way they are attempting to erode a woman's right to choose through backdoor legislation.
But public opinion, and the Constitution, will keep abortion legal for the foreseeable future.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:53 PM |
| Re: EPA blues |
A reader responded to my Environmental Protection Agency blog by stating that Bush is conducting business at the EPA like it has been done for years and that if you examine the bigger picture, Bush is no worse than any of his predecessors.
My thoughts:
I don't think complacency is the answer. Nor do I think it is right for the government to flat-out lie to make itself look better than it really is, regardless of the administration in question.
Ideally, public outrage would drive effective reform. Do I expect that any time soon? No. Does that mean that I shouldn't fight for it? No.
Things can get better but if nobody's trying, they won't.
I think Bush's environmental track record speaks for itself. It's literally the Republican Party at odds with the majority of the developed world. Look at the administration's insistance that the debate on global warming is still open. Look at the Kyoto Treaty. Look at the Healthy Forest Initiative.
As a resident of Washington state, I can tell you that logging is out of control. If
you think backcountry clear cutting has gone by the wayside, try flying over the Cascades on a clear day. It's getting worse.
More egregious than anything is the reclassification of mecrury as non-toxic in the revised Clean Air Act. Look it up; it isn't a liberal conspiracy -- it's a fact of life and it's a slow death sentence for many.
Clinton was no saint when it came to a consistent environmental track record,
but comparing him to Bush is a joke. This isn't a matter of opinion nor did I devise these ideas to fit into my liberal mindset.
I'm a Washingtonian and an outdoor lover before anything else and before I can turn a blind eye to Bush's environmental apologists, I must call it like it is. Bush is an environmental tragedy.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:40 PM |
| Re: Baby kidnapper |
In response to Randy’s post: The sickening murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett is pretty despicable. So was the brutal murder of Lacy Peterson. Both of these cases raise important questions, however, that can and should be discussed. It doesn’t disrespect these women’s lives by talking about the issues involved here.
As for the legal information on abortion laws you gave -- most of it is correct, but there’s always some information that is left out, so I’ll fill in the gaps. Yes, Roe v. Wade made abortions past six months illegal, except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at stake. A ruling made that same day defined “health” in a very loose way -- the health exception has been used to give late-term and partial-birth abortions to women who are pregnant in their third trimester because of minor health threats or even psychological reasons.
I support the life exception, but the health exception (which is not banned in most states) allows abortions at any time in a pregnancy, though partial-birth abortions make up less than half of 1 percent of abortions.
The second issue: when is a fetus a “baby” with human rights? If viability is our standard -- when a baby can survive outside the womb then it’s human -- then this is not only an ethically loose definition for when human life begins but it should, by definition, preclude most third-trimester abortions.
I did an article this summer about a woman who had a baby 24 weeks into her pregnancy (three months early). The baby, Conner McCloud, is now 1 1/2 years old and is a normal child, though about three months behind his peers, developmentally-wise.
Thanks to constantly improving technology, fetuses can survive outside the womb after only 22 weeks of gestation. Under the viability argument, as technology improves, the definition of when a human is human changes -- that’s a scary ethical place to be.
Respond to Chris |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 10:27 AM |
| It's the vote, stupid |
For those two people who haven't heard, there are several hundred absentee ballots that Washington state Republicans and Democrats are fighting over. These ballots were not counted in the original vote count due to a combination of human and system errors, but have since been determined to be legitimate votes.
A judge recently stated that she could not find a legal reason to allow the votes to be included in the recount.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Isn't our fundamental right to vote, and have our vote counted, the legal justification?
I think most sane people would agree that it is. However, this isn't about making sure every vote counts. It is about winning elections. So, because the ballots are King County ballots and therefore likely to favor Gregoire, the Republicans are fighting to keep them from being counted.
And while I'd like to believe the Democrats would take the high ground on this, the realist in me believes that if the situation were reversed, the Democrats would be disputing them as well.
So here's what I would like for Dino and the state Republicans who are fighting the inclusion of these votes to do. Go around to each of the voters you are trying to block, and say the following to them personally:
"Currently, over a thousand Americans have died in Iraq attempting to bring Democracy to that country and allow the Iraqis to vote. And for the last half of 2004, you have been bombarded by messages that voting is an honor, a privilege, a duty, and that you should absolutely exercise that right.
"It is our understanding that, unlike many Americans, you actually engaged in the election process and did indeed vote.
"However, due to technical difficulties beyond our control, your vote was not counted in the original election count. We have since discovered the error, and now have a chance to count your vote.
"However, we have found a technicality in the recount rules that will allow us to throw your vote in the trash bin since it was not included in the original vote count. As a result, we are spending a lot of money and taking this case to the state Supreme Court to ensure your vote does not count.
"Thanks anyway, and remember to vote Republican in the next election."
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:20 AM |
| Re: Baby kidnapper |
Chris, the in-utero baby snatcher won't be the next Scott Petersen mostly because people don't care that much about unattractive, poor folks killing each other.
People are murdered every day in America but for some reason, it only garners major media attention if it's middle- to upper-class, white people. Trailer park stabbings and ghetto shoot-outs are so cliche. It's takes a scandalous affair and/or a high-end murder-for-hire plot any day of the week as far as staying power is concerned.
While the baby snatcher is unusually creepy due to the gruesome nature of the crime, I bet a year from now no one on earth will remember the name of the woman who committed this heinous act.
Now if she lived in Malibu and had a nice tan and drove a fancy car, well ... you get the point.
Unfortunately, Americans and the media are fascinated by hideous, isolated crimes against the beautiful, but are virtually indifferent to larger crimes happening to poor people every day across America.
It takes the government years to even locate the origins of an entire social epidemic, but kill one suburban wife and suddenly you got the president's ear.
I don't understand how people can place so much emotional grief into the death of one person and can be relatively indifferent to the deaths and suffering of so many others. The exponential decline in emotional concern for the poor is confusing and makes for a startling commentary on the collective state of our priorities and interests.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 10:14 AM |
December 21, 2004
| Re: Baby kidnapper |
Chris, the definition of fetus is pretty well understood. It is a developing child from about 3 months until birth. When is it considered human? It is considered genetically human the instance it is conceived. Even before, if you want to count the sperm and egg it comes from. The DNA won't allow it to develop into an aardvark.
When is it considered an independent person with all the rights of a post-birth child? The easiest answer is whenever it reaches a stage where it is developed sufficiently to survive outside of the womb.
What you are obviously angling at is that this story of an almost fully developed baby somehow is relevant to the question of when "life" begins, which is central to the abortion debate. I think you may be stretching a bit there. Even pro-choice supporters would agree that 8-month-old babies are well beyond the point where abortion would remotely be an option except possibly in the extremely rare medical emergency case.
Approximately 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Even Roe v. Wade made abortions illegal past 6 months, and even further gave states the right to intervene during the second trimester.
In the end, this debate will never be resolved, because there are only two ways to resolve it.
First, you have to determine what level of mental/cognitive capability or awareness equals life; and even then, there will be exceptions for the developmentally challenged.
Second, you would have to prove that there is such a thing as a soul, and then prove when a soul enters a developing mass of cells, or later the fetus; and that is something that will never be proven.
So in the end, you either let people make their own choice based on their own beliefs, or you make the decision for them and force your opinion onto them through law.
Debate is fine and good, but if your hope is to convince someone that abortion in the eighth month is wrong, well, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who'd argue with you.
Personally, I think the story of the woman stealing the baby and killing the mother is terrible and sad, period. No need to find deeper meaning in it. But if I did look for deeper meaning, it would probably be more about mental health issues than abortion issues.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:48 PM |
December 20, 2004
| EPA blues |
Sure, voting Republican ensures more lip service paid to family "values." But peal the layers of rhetoric away from the self-proclaimed moral majority and you get those creepy, ugly little truths, like this unsurprising piece on the toothless EPA and its culture of illegal and immorral indifference to the poisoning of its fellow red staters, among others.
What's disheartening and pathetic at the same time is how so many Americans feel threatened at the mention of hot button issues like gay marriage and abortion, things that generally never actually affect them in any direct way. But in matters of wide spread poisoniong where people actually are directly affected for the worse, it's hard to get people to care or pay attention.
Voting Republican in spite of your health is inherently foolish. But what's even more criminal is the fact that the EPA is now operated as a smokescreen to protect polluters. The government has taken an agency whose very definition is to protect the environment and transformed that arm of government into the polar opposite of its stated purpose.
Why even have an EPA if its only function is to reinforce the illusion of corporate responsibility?
Isn't the government supposed to work for the people? Why pay taxes if we are just subsidizing corporate welfare and our own slow deaths? Why don't liberals make the environment our own nasty version of the gay marriage argument? This is actually threatening the stability of our "great civilization."
I couldn't dream up a more typical generalization of Republican environmental policy run wild. This is the Bush party at its worst. And it isn't even a surprise to those of us who pay attention to trivial social matters like our collective poisoning at the hands of a government who would rather lie to us than save
us.
But don't take it from me or the article in question. We're just part of the "great liberal media conspiracy." After all, if it makes conservatives look bad, it can't be true.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:49 PM |
| Baby kidnapper |
This is the next Scott Peterson case.
A 36-year-old woman, apparantly desperate to cover the fact that she had said she was pregnant but had no baby, killed a pregnant Missouri woman and cut out her 8-month old baby from the mother's womb. Miraculously, the baby survived and was even showed off to local townsfolk only hours after the murder and kidnapping.
There's a lot unexplained right now, like why Lisa Montgomery, who killed pregnant Bobbie Jo Stinnett, went to such extremes to fool her husband into believing that she had given birth to a baby. And like why Stinnett's husband, Zeb, seems to have reacted so calmly to this apparantly horrific tragedy (Zeb Stinnett issued a brief statement through the hospital calling the survival of the kidnapped newborn "a miracle." Zeb: "I want to thank family, friends, Amber Alert and law enforcement officials for their support during this time.") -- though perhaps he was genuinely thankful to have his baby in safe condition despite just suffering the brutal murder of his wife.
It's also amazing that the eight-month old baby, crudely removed from her mother's womb, is in good condition. This further begs the question about when a fetus is a human. At eight months, at least, it is a human. Notice how the AP story reports the incident: "MELVERN, Kan. - A woman charged with killing an expectant mother and cutting an 8-month-old baby out of her womb was showing the child off to people at a cafe and to her pastor hours before she was arrested, residents said today."
Wherever this story goes, it's for sure going to be a big tabloid headliner in the next few days (not necessarily such a good thing) and will hopefully continue the important debate over what qualifies as human and what is simply a fetus (a good thing).
Respond to Chris |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:37 PM |
December 17, 2004
December 16, 2004
| Tom Carr is a sell-out disgrace |
A King County judge ruled in favor of Qwest Field retaining its atrocious logos atop the stadium roof for which it is named.
A group calling itself Save Our Skyline filed a lawsuit against the city saying the city had illegally granted Qwest the right to erect such a hideous, corporate eyesore in the first place. Qwest quickly responded, citing a small loophole that would permit the logos to remain if they opened a small Qwest Service stand inside the facility, therefore making the signs technically legit.
Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr was dedicated to defending Qwest's right to deface our skyline all along, stating that he knew the lawsuit would be tossed out because it wasn't filed in time.
IN time for what? A reconsideration. Is Tom "I'm fighting for big money" Carr really serious? Does he really think it is in Seattle's best interest to have huge corporate logos trashing our city? Never mind that these logos can be seen from space, much less from any skyscraper higher than 15 stories. Carr is setting a presidence that if a company has enough money they can muscle themselves into the Seattle aesthetic for the worse.
If De Ja Vu had enough money, would we see giant neon strippers shaking their legs atop the building across from the Market at 1st and Pine? Carr thinks it's a First Amendment issue -- if a company has enough money, they have the right to advertise in everybody's face, for better or worse.
Freedom of speech and digging up loopholes so a lousy midwestern cell phone company can associate its lousy product with an entire city is not a matter of free speech. Tom Carr is a disgrace to fight in Qwest's defense.
Further, Carr's argument that SOS' lawsuit was filed too late leaves me with an unsettling question. Does Seattle now officially have a timeline for which bad ideas can't be overturned? What kind of argument is that?
So much for the greater good. Qwest has the deeper pocket and Carr has their back, not to mention a new enemy.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:46 PM |
| The benefits of consumerism |
Unless you buy strictly American, chances are that most of the stuff you are going to buy as gifts this Christmas were made in China, Japan, Mexico or elsewhere.
But you might as well send your money someplace where it will not only help impoverished workers but as a result do a little to help reduce local incentives toward terrorism as well.
For example, buy gifts via websites like the worldstock section of overstock.com, which sells goods made by women in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:25 PM |
December 15, 2004
| Time for a change |
Earth to the GOP: Obnoxious guys don't make for good television, especially flame throwers like state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance who was granted live television time on KING 5 to accuse King County in no uncertain terms of trying to steal the governor's race, among other things.
While Vance remains an issue all to himself, the matter of inconsistent and low-tech voting methods is not exclusively King County's fault.
The more time you spend digging around in any election mess, the more likely you are to come up with discrepencies and irregularities. How many elections are Washingtonians, and ultimately Americans, willing to participate in before we realize the need for a dramatic reappraisal of the entire system?
This particular dam has already burst. Let's see to it that it doesn't happen again. We need one uniform, federal method, with a paper trail intact that most can agree is consistent. And we need to implement it in every county of every state so there is no more room for failures and Vance's accusations.
The rules and scoring for NFL games don't change from city to city. Why would we allow something as important as the voting process to remain so confusing and incompetent? It can't be that hard to remedy, considering the deluge of disillusionment spilling forth from these debacles. It seems as if it is a matter of national security to shore up any doubts.
As Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me..." Anyway, you get it: the cat's out of the bag, the dubious election process sucks, and it's
time for a fix. Let's see to it that our federal leaders get this ball rolling.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:11 PM |
December 14, 2004
| Plastic pride |
Next Saturday, China will host the country’s first beauty contest for women who have undergone plastic surgery. Bring on the widened eyes, narrow faces, full lips and artificial breasts. And all, supposedly, in the quest to help the public understand “‘manmade beauty.’”
“'Manmade beauty is a trend in China,'" said Xia Lingsheng, who heads one of the companies in charge of the event. 'We want people -- especially young people -- to understand that they should not blindly seek manmade beauty. They need to understand it.’”
What’s to understand? First, plastic surgery companies want to promote their services to “‘young people’” through the pageant.
Second, regular beauty pageants already give numerical scores for how women look. Ranking how women look after plastic surgery further perpetuates a damaging view of women; they’re to be judged solely on looks, like objects on display. Now, they’ll be held up to an even more impossible ideal of “manmade beauty.”
For instance, a 62-year-old woman in the competition has jet-black hair, a slim figure and a wrinkle-free face (perhaps the result of hair dye, liposuction and whatever complex skin treatment procedures are now available?) This is definitely not normal.
Whatever happened to natural and inner beauty? Hopefully, this type of ludicrous pageant will never, ever become popular.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:54 PM |
December 13, 2004
| A little too late |
Senator McCain masquerading as a liberal once again offered his two cents on Rumsfeld -- a whole month and a half too late to do the rest of the world any good.
I don't know what bugs me more: the consistent barrage of bad ideas and shoddy policy ushered forth by the Bush administration, or the constantly drifting, "sometimes I'm a Bush supporter, sometimes I'm with the liberals"
positioning with which McCain is so comfortable.
How can you endorse the Bush administration wholeheartedly during the RNC and then bash the basis for its entire foreign policy after the fact?
Either you're with us or you're against us, Senator McCain, but please stop trying to appease us loser liberals. The election is over and in our time of need, you sided with the party of "no confidence."
Thanks, but no thanks.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:16 PM |
December 10, 2004
| Scandal-ridden UN |
LA Times columnist Max Boot put things in perspective Thursday when he noted that if appropriate media attention were given to the scandal-ridden U.N., we would have some pretty spectacular front-page headlines.
I look at today’s Spokesman-Review (Spokane) and see a few local stories, something about "American Idols" and a ploy for the paper’s charity. Here’s some suggested, under-reported front-page stories from Boot:
"Imagine if U.S. troops were accused of sexually exploiting children in impoverished nations. Imagine if a U.S. Cabinet secretary were accused of groping a female subordinate, whose complaint was then swatted aside by the president. Imagine if the head of a U.S. government agency and the president's own offspring stood accused of complicity in the biggest embezzlement racket in history.
"Those would be pretty big stories, no? Above-the-fold, top-of-the-newscast stories. Yet the United Nations has been mired in all these scandals and until just recently hardly anybody outside the right-wing blogosphere has noticed.
"Even now, if you're not an inveterate U.N.-watcher, you probably don't know that Ruud Lubbers, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate, only to have the charges dismissed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan despite an internal investigation that supported the woman's complaint.
"Or that U.N. peacekeepers have been accused of a variety of sexual offenses involving children for more than a decade, most recently in Congo.
"Or even that Annan's son, Kojo, and Benon Savan, the head of the U.N. "oil for food" program in Iraq, are said to have benefited financially while Saddam Hussein stole $21 billion."
Boot says pulling out of the U.N. would be "unrealistic," which I definitely agree with -- but ignoring the crises within the international organization, its standard internal paradoxes (having gross human-rights abusing countries on its council for human rights, etc.), and many conflicts of interests only allows a heaping pile of scandals to heap on more scandal.
Respond to Chris |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:08 PM |
December 09, 2004
| Abstinence-only doesn't work |
It looks like the majority of abstinence-only sex ed curricula taught by federally funded schools presents inaccurate information to teens on the effectiveness of contraceptions and abortion.
Hmmm. Do we need any more indicators that abstinence-only programs aren't the best method of sex ed for teens? Not only are they ineffective, but they can't even get the facts straight. Such programs aren't giving students the information about their own bodies that they deserve.
Respond to Anne |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 04:21 PM |
| Re: Tillman's death |
In response to Andrew’s blog about Pat Tillman’s death, let me understand: Even though Tillman died in combat, he’s not considered a hero because it happened to be friendly-fire and miscommunication?
How does this tarnish the sacrifices made by other soldiers? Regardless if you die from a tree falling on you or if you are shot point blank by an enemy, these soldiers are all sacrificing for their beliefs, if not their country.
Andrew wrote that if the news was “released right away it wouldn’t have hurt the image of the man who gave up an NFL career to do what he felt was right.” And it hurts Tillman’s image now? So we ignore all the sacrifices he made because of friendly fire? We forget about how instead of whining like Eli Manning, Tillman stood up for beliefs and convictions instead of money and team jerseys?
Tillman is much more than just a “famous image.” Tillman is still an example of all the soldiers who sacrifice more than money, who sacrifice being away from their kids, from their spouses, from the freedom to sit and blog about how a fallen soldier is not a hero.
Written by Leonceo Angsioco, a former NEXT writer
Respond to NEXT |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:17 PM |
December 08, 2004
| Nativity creativity |
I find this pretty darn amusing. Apparently religious leaders, including the Vatican, are pretty ticked about a wax museum nativity setup with David Beckham as Joseph and Posh Spice as the Virgin (there’s a joke all by itself) Mary.
I once made a Nativity scene using pop cans (a crushed can was baby Jesus), with pictures of myself and my friends as wise men, shepherds, etc. My conscience is still fairly clean about it.
Basically, lighten up Vatican.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 11:24 AM |
December 07, 2004
| Democrats against Annan |
Well, just to throw something else out there about the Oil-For-Food scandal at the UN, the Democratic Leadership Council (which Clinton used to chair) has called for Kofi Annan to step aside from dealing with the scandal. The editorial doesn’t pull many punches either… so it’s obviously not just a single Republican senator who feels that he’s in the clear.
Does this mean it’s bipartisan enough to now be taken seriously?
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:17 PM |
| Pant size variations |
A recent study by the University of North Texas School of Merchandising found that pant sizes vary considerably. Researchers “measured the waist circumference of 139 pairs of pants labeled ‘size 4’ and found they differed by nearly 9 inches.” Furthermore, some size 14 pants are smaller than other manufacturers’ size 4 pants!
How’s a girl to know, then, if she’s a size 4 or 14? No wonder it’s so hard to shop for pants and to have a consistent “size.”
Interestingly enough, the study found that pricey pants are usually cut larger. Perhaps, upscale stores engage in “vanity sizing”: “making the pants bigger to get size-conscious women to pay extra for the little white lie on the label.”
It’s stupid to have huge size disparities and create endless shopping confusion -- all for the sake of having a smaller number on a label, which no one will really see anyway. I wish they’d cut the “vanity sizing” and end the disparities, in favor of consistent sizes everywhere.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:12 PM |
December 06, 2004
| Play, don't whine |
Seahawk's Runningback Shaun Alexander is trying to pull a Griffey on the wrong city at the wrong time. Apparently the highly overrated Alexander doesn't like it when paying fans boo a lousy product.
"I think it's ridiculous," running back Shaun Alexander said. "We don't go to people's jobs and boo them if they have a bad day. I just think it's one of those things that when this year is over with I don't want people cheering for us that can boo us that easily."
Apparently Mr. Alexander never worked in customer service, because if he did, he'd realize that normal people catch flak at work all the time.
More enraging is the fact that he threatens Seattlelites with his off-season departure because we don't appreciate an over-hyped, under-achieving team. Griffey used to threaten Seattlelites with demands to keep him from moving to greener pastures, like forcing Mariner's management to resign Jay Buhner for more than he was worth because he was Griffey's "best friend."
Frankly I think Seattle is sick of seeing the Seahawks lose. Even if we are a play-off contender, we are the weakest post-season link. If Alexander thinks himself or anyone else in that organization deserves sympathy, he is sorely mistaken.
Professional athletes are paid to perform and entertain, not whine and lose. When they start doing the latter, they begin digging their own grave.
As of last week, Alexander was leading the league in rushing yards. But make no mistake, he isn't anywhere near the best of the RBs in the NFL. From an entertainment standpoint he could be the most gutless, boring runner of them all. He avoids hits, runs out of bounds and smiles big after every game -- win
or lose.
I want a killer with a chip on his shoulder, not some moron who has miscalculated Seattle's appetite for a winner. There's a place for manners and sympathy and that place isn't anywhere near a NFL playing field.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:13 PM |
| Tillman's death |
A report in The Washington Post Monday indicates that the story of Pat Tillman's death was exaggerated. While Tillman did die in combat, it appears now that it was a result of friendly-fire and miscommunication, not from a heroic charge.
In addition to making the military look foolish, this tarnishes the sacrifices made by other soldiers. If the truth of Tillman's death had been released right away it wouldn't have hurt the image of the man who gave up an NFL career to do what he felt was right. Tillman would still be the famous image of those who fight the war on terror.
Respond to Andrew |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 05:04 PM |
December 03, 2004
| Remember the First Amendment? |
Just so that no one ever says that I don’t think there are nutty Republicans, I give you Rep. Gerald Allen of Alabama, who wants to ban books that have gay characters and that “promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."
Allen does this for the “admirable” reason to protect our children from the “homosexual agenda.” This is frankly laughable, not to mention unconstitutional.
It’s one thing to not have “Why Jimmy Has Two Mommies” in a preschool, but something completely different to ban books on a wide scale of a socially accepted practice. It's all part of the nut section of the right’s pursuit to ignore or ban anything they don’t like.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:32 PM |
| That crazy cannabis |
I generally don’t have much of a position on the whole marijuana-legalization thing, although I’m usually afraid of change as a rule. I did find this study interesting, which found that there is a significant risk of developing psychotic mental illness in the 14-24 age bracket, up to 25% if one was predisposed to such a condition.
I don’t think this is a nail in the coffin in any way, shape or form (there is such a thing as a “mean drunk”) but it definitely can show that marijuana isn’t a benign relaxant.
Respond to NEXT |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:26 PM |
| Merry Christmas to you, too |
Ah, the joy of the Christmas season, the time of the year when we as a nation struggle mightily to distance ourselves as much as possible from the religious underpinnings of the holiday.
I believe Wisconsin might have taken this a tad too far, as evidenced by the picture here (you’ll have to scroll down to find it).
I think there’s a difference between the separation of church and state, and hostility against religion. In my mind, atheism is just a different type of belief about the existence of God. Therefore, if the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed this is just as bad.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:16 PM |
| Baseball blues |
The state of professional baseball and the White House aren't that different.
Bud Selig, acting president of MLB turns a blind eye in the face of a rampant steroid scandal that has been ongoing for at least the past 10 years. Shame has fallen upon America's pasttime, and regardless of fan sentiment over corrupt statistics and swollen players, Selig has been reluctant to act.
To say Selig has been slow to remedy the credibility-lacking institution would be an understatement. If Selig discovered heroin might help baseballs fly farther he'd probably be on board as well.
On his watch, President Bush has witnessed a healthy share of scandals and reacted with a similar pattern of denial. His unwillingness to address any reality that doesn't support his image as America's best leader is well known.
Both Selig and Bush react the same way to scandals at their feet: they don't.
But pretending a problem doesn't exist can only buy so much time, and as the
old folks say, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
Come to think of it, George W. Bush once was an owner of the Texas Rangers,
so I guess he knows this kind of game well.
Respond to John
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:11 PM |
| You fix yours, I'll fix mine |
People support Bush for all kinds of reasons. And Bush has plenty of things to earn him that support. He has conviction and a strong sense of direction, and an ability to connect with the common citizen, all great attributes in a leader.
They are the same attributes that made Reagan popular. Such attributes are sought for in periods of American history where there is a lot of doubt and fear and uncertainty, such as was the case for Reagan, and is the case for Bush.
I just disagree with many of the things he has strong convictions about, the direction he wants to lead in, and his inability to admit when he is wrong in either.
Bush also had the wisdom to surround himself with people who have experience and knowledge in all the things he doesn't. I just happen to disagree with the narrowness of their views, their outdated agendas, and Bush's refusal to listen to opinions or expertise from outside that small circle of like-minded loyalists.
Bush has a strong sense of faith and morality. These things can give a leader great strength and guidance in hard times and difficult decisions. I just don't agree with his pushing his strictly personal beliefs onto me through law, or with the apparent flexibility of his morality when it comes to issues like the poor and the ill, the environment, war, executing people, or corporate favoritism.
And Bush cut taxes. Hey, that's great. A lot of working families can use every dollar they can get, and when he proposed the cuts we had a huge surplus to cover them.
Unfortunately, he didn't adjust his plans when the budget surpluses disappeared, or when 9-11 or the Iraq War occurred, nor did he restrict spending, leading to huge deficits and national debt.
And he played a big shell game, giving the real breaks to the wealthy while shifting the tax burden onto the poor and middle class, and onto the States. We also are paying in the form of lost services once paid for by our taxes.
It is also true that, just as the Democratic platform appeals to peaceniks and the more naďve utopian end of the liberal spectrum, the Republican Party platform and agenda appeals to homophobes, racists, fundamentalist extremists, and of course those who want to make abortion illegal so bad they'd make a deal with the devil to do so.
Unfortunately, whenever I say, for example, that homophobia contributed to Bush's election I get an outraged letter telling me how the writer is a PhD well-informed individual who supports Bush based on good reasons, how dare I call them a homophobe, etcetera and so forth. Problem is that I never said that that person voted for Bush because of homophobia. I said homophobia contributed to Bush's victory.
As a socially progressive, fiscally conservative Democrat-by-default, I don't take it personally when people complain about old-school tax and spend liberals like Ted Kennedy, for example, or criticize the idealists who want peace, love, and equality and want it now, or mock Ben Affleck's attempts at political discourse. Because I know what I don't like about the Democratic Party, I know what I personally believe and do, just as I know what I don't like about the Republican Party.
So if you don't like being associated with homophobia, racism, religious extremism, warmongering, corporate corruption, or slashing education and social programs, etcetera and so forth, don't blame me. I didn't make the Republican Party what it is.
And if you don't share any of the attributes I criticize, well then, I'm not talking about you. So don't get mad at me for reminding you of the uncomfortable truth about the party you support. Do something to change your own party, and I promise to try and change mine.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:06 PM |
December 02, 2004
| Supporting our troops |
I admit, I cannot truly know what combat is like having never been in it. Watching "Saving Private Ryan" or "Hamburger Hill," reading "Jarhead" or books by Tim O'Brien, learning the history of American warfare, and hearing the stories of friends and family that have served, I have done these things but they are not the same.
But I'm not questioning the actions of our troops. I'm not even questioning the strategies of specific battles. I'm a civilian questioning the decisions and failures of a man who is, really, a civilian leader.
Any criticisms I have for Bush and his administration with regard to the war are based not on an attempt to "aid the enemy," grind a partisan axe, undermine support for our troops, or anything ridiculous like that. But rather, to ensure that our troops, including my friends, are not sent into harm's way unless absolutely necessary, and then with the best possible planning and support.
When they are not, I want to hold those who failed our troops accountable, and not just via elections. After all, Nixon was re-elected in 1972 despite his illegal actions in Cambodia and expansion rather than ending of the Vietnam War, only to be impeached shortly afterwards.
Let's assume that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Even with the recent announcement of increasing our troop strength in Iraq to 150,000, and with the roughly 25,000 coalition troops, that still falls far short of the 700,000 strong coalition that the U.S. led in the Gulf War.
Whose failure was it to raise such a true coalition here, an army that would have prevented so many of the deaths and problems we are seeing today? Whose failure to raise such a coalition even after it became clear we didn't have enough troops to secure post-invasion Iraq?
Whose failure to truly prepare for the possibility of insurgency? Whose failure to ensure our troops had properly armored vehicles, or that the ammo dumps and borders were secured to prevent the arming of insurgents or a flood of terrorists into the country?
Who failed to prevent Abu Ghraib or hold anyone in the administration accountable for it? Whose fault is it that tours are being extended far beyond expectations, that stop-loss programs are creating a "back door" draft? Whose actions threaten future recruitment and thus the security of our nation?
In short, who failed to support our troops as they deserve to be supported, not with patriotic rhetoric or a macho challenge to the enemy from the safety of a podium to "bring it on," but with real leadership, real planning, real concern?
That was not me. I merely ask the questions. Don't blame the messenger for the bad news. Blame the person who caused the news to be bad.
I support our troops one hundred percent. Our troops are doing the job they were given with excellence, and it is thanks to their skill, competence, courage and sense of duty that the incompetence and blind agendas of their leadership haven't caused even more American deaths, or allowed the insurgency to succeed.
War is sometimes necessary and in war, deaths are unavoidable. But not all wars are necessary. Not all deaths are unavoidable. And not all decisions by a president that result in our troops dying should be automatically assumed to be perfect and unassailable in order to justify those deaths.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:19 PM |
| Re: Wheel of pundit |
There are a multitude of ways a given power structure can stifle and eventually censor the ideas and expressions of the masses. Gavin recently wrote, "I find myself agreeing with his main point -- this is far more an attack on free speech than anything Bush has or will do." This was in reference to the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
First, we don't know what Bush will do to free speech in the future, but his endorsement of the Media Deregulation Act two years ago is the single most underhanded attempt to monopolize the national discussion in a LONG time.
Selling the rights to broadcast the biggest ideas to the largest audiences to the highest bidder is not democratic or in the interest of free speech. It gives the over dogs all the clout and air time, and they get to decide what the vast majority of the mainstream hears and sees.
For whatever reason, most Americans are oblivious to the notion that media control is an infringement on free speech when it reaches scales of this proportion. It isn't in any of our interest and it effectively takes the greatest weapons of communication away from those who need it the most.
Americans need to be aware of the dangers of monopolized thought control. It
isn't just a Noam Chomsky conspiracy theory -- it's real and Bush made it happen. My hope is that conservatives and moderates see expression as something they should own as individuals and not just support as part of their party's larger, corporate goals.
The people are not endowed by the shrudeness of the impersonal machine structured soley for profits and fruitless distractions. Media deregulation in our economy IS censorship and that's a social ill. Unfortunately, most Americans don't even know it's happening.
Respond to John |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:11 PM |
| College gender gap |
“Among the 4,550 undergraduates at Santa Clara, 57 percent are female. That matches the percentage of U.S. bachelor's degrees now awarded to women,” says The Seattle Times.
The effects? “Vincent Garcia, a college counselor at the Los Angeles prep school Campbell Hall, said liberal-arts colleges, especially, can be ‘more forgiving of the occasional B or even a C’ from a boy.” In addition, some counselors say it can be a “ ‘strategic advantage’” to be male.
Lowering or adjusting admissions standards for boys is ridiculous. First, males as a gender group haven’t been historically barred or prevented from attending college. Second, lowering standards will create a less qualified, less accomplished college class.
Of course, diversity enriches the college experience, both academically and socially. But if colleges want to attract males, they should mail extra brochures, make extra phone calls and attend more college fairs.
The focus should be on increasing the college’s publicity and recruitment efforts, not on dumbing down the admissions process.
Respond to Christina |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:02 PM |
| Re: Republican sense of accountability |
Yes, the election is over, and here I am asking that Bush be held accountable for his actions. What was I thinking? Everyone knows that a president can do whatever he wants to, and the only time we can question it or criticize it is during an election.
Well, I guess all those silly Republicans who hounded Clinton for years to finally impeach him for lying about oral sex were really running an extended election campaign. And hey, now that I think about it, it worked. After all, didn't Bush run on a platform of returning morals and dignity to the White House? And boy, has he.
I still haven't figured out Nixon's impeachment though, as it followed so close after a second election. I guess someone forgot to remind America that Nixon won, so hands off.
So my bad for daring to raise those ancient issues like Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Enron or Halliburton. Those are so, like, last year you know? As are the Valerie Plame scandal, the energy commission meetings, and definitely the 2000 election issues. And since Bush won't be running for election in 2008, well, I guess any chance I had to question or criticize him has passed.
As for the question of whether the oil for food scandal can compare to Bush's actions...$21 billion vs. the hundreds of billions we've spent on Iraq, or that Bush has added to our national debt and deficits, or that oil companies will gain from the energy deals?
Or taking food and medicine away from Iraqis under Saddam's brutal regime versus approving the torture of Iraqis, and possibly causing the unecessary deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians due to poor post-invasion planning, under Bush's regime? And lord knows there has been no kickbacks, deals, or fraud by Halliburton. Oh no.
I will admit though that I did overgeneralize Coleman's call for resignation to a general Republican leadership agenda. My apologies. I wasn't trying to draw serious parallels, though, only highlighting what I see as the hypocrisy of the situation, and trying to not give Bush a free pass just because he won the popularity contest.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:58 PM |
December 01, 2004
| Re: Republican sense of accountability |
I find Randy’s recent post regarding Senator Norm Coleman’s call for Kofi Annan’s resignation just another example of how “Anybody But Bush” can infect all of our dialogues.
Coleman has acted in a bipartisan fashion, writing a letter to Annan just a few weeks ago along with the Democratic co-chair asking for Annan to give congressional investigators access to files about the Oil-For-Food scandal.
Is it possible to treat these separately? Can Randy honestly believe that his differences with Bush’s policy that millions of Americans disagree with are paralleled to Annan’s watching over a 21 billion dollar disaster that took food, medicine and hope away from Iraqis under Saddam’s brutal regime? That there appears to be evidence showing that financial kickbacks to France, Russia and Germany may have correlated to their opposition to the Iraq war?
As far as I know, this is the first politician of any stripe who has called for Annan’s resignation. Hardly a representative sample.
This is ridiculous. We don’t need for every discussion to deteriorate into partisan hypotheticals. The election is over.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:24 PM |
| Healthy Debate |
In his letter on my column about liberals moving to Canada, Mr. Helwick said that "while Canada has universal health care, the hospital care received is shockingly bad. Henderson needs to read a little more on that subject before he talks glowingly about it."
Well, I didn't talk glowingly about it. And no doubt, many people in Canada receive terrible health care. But guess what? So do many people in America -- those who receive any health care at all. Two hours waiting to see a doctor for five minutes who won't bother to order the test you really need since your HMO doesn't cover it, all for a $1,500 bill, is not a great system.
I have a friend who had a rotting tooth. She had no dental insurance. She had to sit all day, from 8am to 5pm, in a dentist office that accepted public emergency patients on the off chance they could fit her in as a free patient. At the last minute they had a cancellation, but at the same moment another woman walked in whose tooth was slightly more painful and infected than my friend's, so the woman got in and my friend had to come back the next day and wait all over again. And in the end, her only options were to have the tooth yanked out, or ... have it yanked out.
That's American health care for those without insurance.
Let Americans who can afford insurance get the doctor with the shiny new machine that goes ping twice as loud as last year's model. Canada's health care may be a step down for them. Maybe. But for the millions of Americans without any health coverage, and for many with crappy coverage, a universal health care system like Canada's is a vast improvement.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:09 PM |
| Don't need to be old... |
A reader wrote this to Randy Henderson:
"No offense but I think you are way off base on most of your pieces. You are still in college, you don't really know anything about the real world except what you 'learned in a classroom.' When I was in college I was an idealist too until the real world set in and there were real bills to pay and taxes affected my family and our standard of living. When I started seeing how all of the political correctness was robbing my children of a decent life. You think you know everything about politics and war based on some classes but you don't know anything. Go to war, then sit there and talk to me about it."
I get lots of these types of responses. In the hopes of at least reducing the number of them, let me point out a couple of things.
First, I don't claim to know everything about anything. Second, you shouldn't assume that because someone is in college they are young or have no life experience. People are 75 and going to college. Likewise, don't be dismissive of the young. There are 12-year-olds who have traveled the world and seen horrible tragedies, and have something to say on it.
In short, ignoring and dismissing any valid point I might make by simply saying I am too young to know anything or I'm still in college is a pretty lame response. If you have a problem with what I said then explain to me why what I said is wrong, don't just tell me I'm not qualified to have said it.
Finally, what I learn in college is as worth sharing as anything I learn through experience. If not, why bother teaching it in the first place? How our government, our nation, and our world has evolved, the mistakes and triumphs of our past and present including the wars, all are important to know when examining current events.
Sociology, psychology, philosophy, criminology, the sciences all contribute to my understanding and perspective as well. As do interactions with friends, family, and coworkers, including those in the military.
I don't need to fight in a war to discuss the wartime actions of Truman, Johnson, Nixon or Bush. I don't need to run for the Senate to know when I don't like a law. I don't have to play a sport to recognize a bad call. And certainly, I don't need to have children or grow old before I know anything.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:02 PM |
| Holland's quiet murder rule |
I don’t quite understand the logic behind what is coming out of Holland today. The Groningen Academic Hospital has given doctors the right to decide if a child up to age 12 has the right to live. If they decide that the child will live a painful, short and unhappy life, the child can be euthanised, with or without parental consent. I can’t even begin to describe how against this I am -- it’s condoned murder.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:38 PM |
| Wheel of pundit |
Pat Sajak, the erstwhile host of Wheel of Fortune, has written a surprisingly thoughtful column asking the Hollywood establishment where its anger is at the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands.
I find myself agreeing with his main point -- this is far more an attack on free speech than anything Bush has or will do. At least a condemnatory quote if we can’t have a preachy documentary. Generally speaking, killing people for expressing themselves is bad, and it’s not like Mr. Van Gogh was exactly a conservative, if one looks into past films he has done.
Respond to Gavin |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:34 PM |
| Getting good grades |
Do good grades in college matter to employers? According to this MSN article, not so much.
But people with college degrees earn up to 75% more than high school graduates, and good grades are important to getting that diploma in the first place. And if everything else is fairly equal between you and another applicant, it might come down to the grades after all.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:25 PM |
| Republican sense of accountability |
Republican Senator Norm Coleman is calling for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign over the Iraq oil-for-food fraud scandal. Or, as he puts it, "because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. The world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that occurred under the U.N.'s collective nose while Annan is in charge."
In other words, the Republicans would like to see the leadership be accountable for the events that occurred on its watch.
I can only assume then that next the Republicans will be calling for Bush to resign for his Iraq-related scandals as well, right? You know, for launching a war on false intelligence, for poor planning and mismanagement of the aftermath leading to thousands of unnecessary American and Iraqi deaths, and for the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan and Guantanamo?
What about for letting Osama bin Laden wander off while Bush pursued his dream of war in Iraq?
Certainly, without a real investigation at least, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks, and under-the-table payments that occurred with companies like Enron or Halliburton while Bush is in charge.
Respond to Randy |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:21 PM |
|
Back to top