Kirsten's musings...

Friday pix

Pumpkins and alcohol do not mix:

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or is the Republican view of "less government involvement" just a little naive?  In all fairness, if everyone was working toward the same goal it would be a fine idea, but that isn't the case.  If executives were paid reasonable salaries, if bosses treated employees fairly, if shareholders were happy with modest gains, then I'd be all for less goverment.  However, news from the banking, mortgage lending, insurance and power companies have showed us time and time again that without regulations greed rises to the top and destroys companies and it destroys people.

Friday pix

Thanks to Kris for the helmet, to Jim for your help with the face mask, and to Jose at the UW Athletic Department for the decals.  Go Dawgs!

Friday pix

Even the animals are getting into Breast Cancer Awareness month!

Is it just me?

Okay...my apologies.  Salty language ahead.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Sorry about that, but I just heard something that pissed me off more than I have been in recent memory.  A radio ad paid for by the "Reject R-71" group.  For those who don't live in Washington, here's a recap:

Washington Referendum 71 is an effort launched by the Washington Values Alliance to overturn Senate Bill 5688 through the veto referendum process. SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples.

A "YES" vote approves SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples. A "NO" vote rejects SB 5688.


No surprise here.  The so-called "Defense of Marriage" folks are trying to deny same-sex couples the same rights that they enjoy.  Nothing more, nothing less.  What got me all riled up was the message of the ad.  It's one woman trying to convince her friend to reject this referendum.  Her reasoning?  There are so many other problems in the state - budget shortfalls, people losing jobs and homes - that the lawmakers shouldn't be have to deal with such a trivial matter as same-sex partnerships.  So let me see if I got this right.  You want to punish same-sex couples by taking away rights that they've already been granted because they made lawmakers deal with a referendum proposed by a citizen's group?  If you were really concerned that lawmakers' time was being wasted maybe you should take it out on the group that proposed the referendum, the Washington Values Alliance.

Unbelievable.

Washington Referendum 71

An open letter to Coach Steve Sarkisian

Dear Coach Sarkisian;

Thank you.

I don't know if you'll ever really understand what this season has meant to me.  I've bled purple and gold since the 1978 Rose Bowl victory over Michigan.  Somewhere in my 11-year-old brain I decided that I wanted to go to the University of Washington and be a part of this community.  When it came time to apply to colleges I only filled out one application.  Fortunately I was accepted and the indoctrination was complete.

As a UW student I had season tickets to UW football each year, and the ritual of joining friends for breakfast before trekking down to Husky stadium was something I looked forward to each fall.  Sun or rain, win or lose, we were always there.

When we won a National Championship in 1991 I was ecstatic.  Don James had found all of the right pieces to the puzzle and had executed that season to perfection.  I rode that high for several weeks.

Then came the scandals, the accusations of cheating, the resignation of Coach James in protest, the revolving door of coaches, none of whom were able to fully bring the program back.  Even Rick Neuheisel, while producing wins, brought back the scrutiny of scandal to my beloved program, so he had to go.

When Ty Willingham was named as Keith Gilbertson's successor, I breathed a sigh of relief.  Gilby had tried hard, but there was too much baggage left from Coach Neuheisel's departure.  I had seen that Notre Dame had fired Coach Willingham, but never believed that we would be able to hire him.  When we did, I was convinced that his no-nonsense style would bring the program back to the top of the Pac-10 and back into the national scene.  We all know how that ended up.

But even through that 0-12 season I believed that things would turn around.  I admit that I rode the Coach Willingham bandwagon longer than my fellow fans, being the naive optimist that I still am, even into my 40s.  After the Apple Cup loss last year, though, even I had to admit that he wasn't going to be the savior that I hoped he would be.

Which brings us to you, Coach Sark.  When you showed up you promised to bring a belief in winning, something that was sorely lacking here in Montlake.  Coincidentally I believe that the Huskies lost it while playing BYU last season.  Jake drove the team down the field for a game-tying touchdown only to have the Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty called.  The Huskies never really recovered from that game.
 
Everything I've seen and read about the team this year has shown that the players have drunk the Kool-Aid that is your optimism and spirt, and they believe in themselves again.  It will be a very long time before I forget the feeling of watching the last minutes of the USC game, tears streaming down my face as I watched Eric Folk's field goal split the uprights and the fans flooding the field in celebration.  However, if the win against USC closed the door on last year's season then the win against Arizona bolted it shut.  Toward the end of the Arizona game most of the fans had given up, convinced that it was over with close to three minutes left on the clock.  Even I figured that we had put up a good fight but still had some work to do.  Your players didn't give up.  They fought hard and were rewarded with a friendly bounce of the football that allowed them to win the game.  I didn't cry like I did after the win over USC, but I was deliriously amazed.

So thank you.  I know that you're only halfway through your first season here, but you've lifted up an entire nation.  I hope that you understand just how much we needed someone like you here.  I hope it's a long ride.

Friday pix

Ladies and gentleman, your Nobel Peace Prize winner.  He knows how to keep the peace at home too.

Friday pix

We didn't get a lot of roses this year, but this one bloomed quite nicely.

Is it just me?

Is it just me or do people need to calm down and take a deep breath before spouting off about the proposed health care bill?  I'm constantly amazed at the people who are vehemently opposed to the idea of offering lower-cost health care to those who cannot afford public insurance.  The health insurance industry has to be one of the most corrupt industries in the country that has one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in the country.  I swear I want to make all of these people read John Grisham's "The Rainmaker" before they can utter any more nonsense.  I understand that the book is a piece of fiction, but I'm certain that some Insurance CEO somewhere thought to himself, "Hey, that's not a bad idea."

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage (i.e. some kind of insurance)."  We have fallen far behind other nations that provide coverage to all their citizens and still deliver better quality care at lower cost. We desperately need to catch up before health care costs threaten to destroy us. America spends more on health care than any other country, yet in 2004 we ranked 26th in life expectancy and 32nd in infant mortality.  JSOnline

Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) told a 27-year-old single mother that she'd rather give subsidies to families to allow them to buy private insurance.  YouTube clip Umm...why?  Why should she be limited to purchasing insurance from a private insurance company?  What if there were a low-cost government option that she could afford instead?  Instead of paying her to pay an insurance company, she'd be paying the government.  Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The other argument I hear is that giving people the option of selecting a cheaper government policy over a public policy might put the private insurance companies out of business.  Seems to me that it might force the private insurers to rethink their business practices and make themselves competitive.  They can start by not paying their CEO's multi-million dollar salaries plus bonuses.  I guarantee that everyone in America is NOT going to want to switch to a government policy.

Of course the biggest change that needs to happen is an overhaul of the malpractice system.  That would help doctors, patients, insurance companies, just about everyone.  If some of the most frivolous lawsuits could be stopped before they ever got started, it might make this whole argument moot.