well, once more a letter i wrote is getting published; this time it looks like it's going to be in print in tomorrow's Seattle Times. i couldn't be more pleased.
the letter i wrote to the Times already appears below; i included it here in its entirety yesterday, titled concerning widening the scope of legalized gambling in Washington State. it already has its own permalink so i won't bother making another one.
i've updated this post to link to where it was published online below. note that they edited it somewhat.
here's my letter to the editor on the Seattle Times Opinion page.
it's damn satisfying to make a point and have it validated like that.
2004-04-02
hey i got published -again- :)
this is another letter someone deemed fit to publish in the Seattle Times NEXT blog. As I'm sitting here combing the classifieds and WESD WorkSource websites for a job, it seems natural to just include it here:
As someone who chose not to go to college, I speak from experience when I say that it's impossible to overstate how much more difficult it is to attend college after you've taken on other responsibilities which demand your time, attention, and financial resources, such as a mortgage payment or raising a family. Pausing your education following high school and then returning to school is like training hard to run a marathon for a year, then picking up the remote and pigging out on the couch for a few months.
Aside from the monetary advantages to a college education, there are other benefits, such as a continuing opportunity to network socially. Many people look back on their college years as having a profound impact on them as individuals. Indeed, many people are exposed in college to ideas which change their entire outlook, as well as become introduced to their future business partners, spouses, and lifelong best friends.
All other points aside, the increased earning potential and employment opportunities for degreed individuals remain the most important reasons to get a college education. It would be nice to think that reasonably intelligent, talented people, willing to work hard, could succeed at whatever they choose, but the reality of the situation is more often disappointing.
I'm a 36-year-old, divorced, single father with a mortgage payment, an IQ near 140, a voracious appetite for knowledge, a history of diligent service at every position I've held, experience running my own small business, and the company of millions of others like me competing for ever-more-specialized positions.
Ability to perform a task is not equivalent to prior training in it, and it doesn't help you break the barrier between unstable $22,000 per year jobs and a $40,000-$100,000 per year career. Given the opportunity, why not give yourself the advantage of a college education? If I had a dime for every time I heard the phrase, "For this I skipped college?" I could afford to go now.
As someone who chose not to go to college, I speak from experience when I say that it's impossible to overstate how much more difficult it is to attend college after you've taken on other responsibilities which demand your time, attention, and financial resources, such as a mortgage payment or raising a family. Pausing your education following high school and then returning to school is like training hard to run a marathon for a year, then picking up the remote and pigging out on the couch for a few months.
Aside from the monetary advantages to a college education, there are other benefits, such as a continuing opportunity to network socially. Many people look back on their college years as having a profound impact on them as individuals. Indeed, many people are exposed in college to ideas which change their entire outlook, as well as become introduced to their future business partners, spouses, and lifelong best friends.
All other points aside, the increased earning potential and employment opportunities for degreed individuals remain the most important reasons to get a college education. It would be nice to think that reasonably intelligent, talented people, willing to work hard, could succeed at whatever they choose, but the reality of the situation is more often disappointing.
I'm a 36-year-old, divorced, single father with a mortgage payment, an IQ near 140, a voracious appetite for knowledge, a history of diligent service at every position I've held, experience running my own small business, and the company of millions of others like me competing for ever-more-specialized positions.
Ability to perform a task is not equivalent to prior training in it, and it doesn't help you break the barrier between unstable $22,000 per year jobs and a $40,000-$100,000 per year career. Given the opportunity, why not give yourself the advantage of a college education? If I had a dime for every time I heard the phrase, "For this I skipped college?" I could afford to go now.
2004-04-01
concerning widening the scope of legalized gambling in Washington State
The Washington State legislature is proposing to widen the scope of legalized gambling in this state by making telephone betting on horse races legal. At least one on the Seattle Times editorial staff thinks this is a bad idea; here's my opinion:
I fail to see the point of objections to increasing the scope of gambling legally sanctioned in Washington State, or anywhere else for that matter.
Gambling is a consensual activity participated in by adults. Prohibition and limitation of gambling (or any other consensual activity by adults) is motivated by moral judgements by those who would save people from themselves; they have no place in a free society.
Truly, many gamblers are compulsive and would be wise to refrain from the activity, but ultimately the responsibility for their actions rests with the individuals, not with government.
Washington State enjoys the company of virtually all other state governments in a long history of straddling the fence on consensual "crimes". For decades it held the duplicitous position of blanketly denying gamblers the right to engage in their consensual activity of choice, while holding a monopoly on the distribution of "hard" alcohol, in order to directly (and solely) benefit from the consensual activity of another group.
I submit that the social repercussions of alcohol use far outweigh those of gambling- "problem gambling" or otherwise.
Laws limiting the rights of adults to engage in activites which cause no harm to others or their property, or infringe upon others' rights, diminish freedom for all. I may not condone your activity, but until it adversely affects me, I defend your right to engage in it.
Constitutional and moral arguments aside, the proliferation of casinos in our state since the decriminalization of gambling is proof that the industry has growth potential. In an economic climate as bad as ours, with the budget crisis faced by our state, we would be wise to keep our moral posturing to ourselves and foster that growth.
I fail to see the point of objections to increasing the scope of gambling legally sanctioned in Washington State, or anywhere else for that matter.
Gambling is a consensual activity participated in by adults. Prohibition and limitation of gambling (or any other consensual activity by adults) is motivated by moral judgements by those who would save people from themselves; they have no place in a free society.
Truly, many gamblers are compulsive and would be wise to refrain from the activity, but ultimately the responsibility for their actions rests with the individuals, not with government.
Washington State enjoys the company of virtually all other state governments in a long history of straddling the fence on consensual "crimes". For decades it held the duplicitous position of blanketly denying gamblers the right to engage in their consensual activity of choice, while holding a monopoly on the distribution of "hard" alcohol, in order to directly (and solely) benefit from the consensual activity of another group.
I submit that the social repercussions of alcohol use far outweigh those of gambling- "problem gambling" or otherwise.
Laws limiting the rights of adults to engage in activites which cause no harm to others or their property, or infringe upon others' rights, diminish freedom for all. I may not condone your activity, but until it adversely affects me, I defend your right to engage in it.
Constitutional and moral arguments aside, the proliferation of casinos in our state since the decriminalization of gambling is proof that the industry has growth potential. In an economic climate as bad as ours, with the budget crisis faced by our state, we would be wise to keep our moral posturing to ourselves and foster that growth.
well whaddayaknow- i got published in the Seattle Times Opinion Blog too
i really MUST have too much time on my hands. a short letter i wrote in response to a post by Times writer Bruce Ramsey, concerning an artist's use of hundreds of gallons of red "paint" to completely cover the exposed tip of an iceberg in the Arctic, got published in the Seattle Times Opinion Blog (STOP). it can be seen here, about mid-page (for now); or here permanently, in the archives of the blog. someone hire me as a writer already- i'm on a roll.
i've edited this post to include my letter in its entirety for those who don't want to surf to another site to read it:
Re: Toxic art
Regarding "Toxic Art," a reader writes:
The "artist" in question probably got the idea from the incredibly bad logo for Sherwin Williams Paint. It features a representation of the Earth being drowned in red paint.
The slogan? "Cover The Earth". How they've escaped the wrath of environmentalists is beyond me.
i've edited this post to include my letter in its entirety for those who don't want to surf to another site to read it:
Re: Toxic art
Regarding "Toxic Art," a reader writes:
The "artist" in question probably got the idea from the incredibly bad logo for Sherwin Williams Paint. It features a representation of the Earth being drowned in red paint.
The slogan? "Cover The Earth". How they've escaped the wrath of environmentalists is beyond me.
hey i got published i love it
i recently responded to an article in the Seattle Times' NEXT blog; it's a blog which they're paying a bunch of young adults to write for- a great concept and worthy of checking out. my letter was a response to a post concerning the overt sexuality of Britney Spears, and someone either actually liked what i had to say or they desperately needed something to print. in either case- there's nothing like getting your opinion posted on a blog with more readers than THIS one! my post can be seen here, and the main page for the Seattle Times NEXT blog is here.
i updated this post to include my original letter for those who don't feel like surfing to another site to read it:
Re: "Cinderella turned Stripperella," by Christina Asavareungchai (NEXT, March 14):
Anyone who viewed Britney Spears' video for "Baby One More Time" as a projection of an "innocent" image missed the point. It was a standard, softcore "school-girl-fantasy," plain and simple. The bad-girl image began right there, in a calculated manner, in as explicit form as practicable for a 16-year-old girl in this society.
That many people viewed this as "innocent" speaks volumes about just how mainstream sex-based marketing has become. But it fooled the kids, not the adults. Sure, Britney's career (think Disney) was originally aimed at a young market, but it's obvious it isn't anymore; and of course it isn't, she's not 12 anymore.
"Shocking" revelations about masturbation get press — for awhile. Britney is only the latest sex-symbol pop-tart in a chain that started when the recording industry began exploiting video as a marketing tool in the 1960s. How many ugly female pop stars do you see? It's not that there aren't ugly girls who want to be pop stars, even talented ones. The industry calls them "writers." Someone has to supply all these pretty girls with their material.
Why sign artists who don't look good on camera? There'll always be plenty of good-looking girls willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune. The RIAA and every other group of softcore pornographers will always be willing to exploit that.
Crass is a perfect description of Britney's career; get ready for more of the same. Sex sold yesterday, sells today, and will continue to sell tomorrow. Britney and countless other quasi-talented "artists" are making their hay while the sun shines. Too bad these same "artists" have to deal with all this competition from the porn industry; it's gotta be hard for marginally talented girls to get some press in a field this crowded.
Boycotting of Britney and her ilk is already done by countless people at the checkout line. She has a right to whatever share of the market she can get. I admire Christina Asavareungchai's call to support artists who convey a more worthwhile message — she isn't not the first to do so and she's certainly not alone — but the reality is that more substantive work by popular female artists has been largely marginalized in favor of easy-to-market sexual content that became mainstream a long time ago.
Periodically the popular taste pendulum swings back the other way, as in the case of Seattle's "grunge" movement, but when there's a lull in that momentum, the RIAA will always have another Britney to throw in the mix.
i updated this post to include my original letter for those who don't feel like surfing to another site to read it:
Re: "Cinderella turned Stripperella," by Christina Asavareungchai (NEXT, March 14):
Anyone who viewed Britney Spears' video for "Baby One More Time" as a projection of an "innocent" image missed the point. It was a standard, softcore "school-girl-fantasy," plain and simple. The bad-girl image began right there, in a calculated manner, in as explicit form as practicable for a 16-year-old girl in this society.
That many people viewed this as "innocent" speaks volumes about just how mainstream sex-based marketing has become. But it fooled the kids, not the adults. Sure, Britney's career (think Disney) was originally aimed at a young market, but it's obvious it isn't anymore; and of course it isn't, she's not 12 anymore.
"Shocking" revelations about masturbation get press — for awhile. Britney is only the latest sex-symbol pop-tart in a chain that started when the recording industry began exploiting video as a marketing tool in the 1960s. How many ugly female pop stars do you see? It's not that there aren't ugly girls who want to be pop stars, even talented ones. The industry calls them "writers." Someone has to supply all these pretty girls with their material.
Why sign artists who don't look good on camera? There'll always be plenty of good-looking girls willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune. The RIAA and every other group of softcore pornographers will always be willing to exploit that.
Crass is a perfect description of Britney's career; get ready for more of the same. Sex sold yesterday, sells today, and will continue to sell tomorrow. Britney and countless other quasi-talented "artists" are making their hay while the sun shines. Too bad these same "artists" have to deal with all this competition from the porn industry; it's gotta be hard for marginally talented girls to get some press in a field this crowded.
Boycotting of Britney and her ilk is already done by countless people at the checkout line. She has a right to whatever share of the market she can get. I admire Christina Asavareungchai's call to support artists who convey a more worthwhile message — she isn't not the first to do so and she's certainly not alone — but the reality is that more substantive work by popular female artists has been largely marginalized in favor of easy-to-market sexual content that became mainstream a long time ago.
Periodically the popular taste pendulum swings back the other way, as in the case of Seattle's "grunge" movement, but when there's a lull in that momentum, the RIAA will always have another Britney to throw in the mix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)