One year later, it's still my soapbox

One year ago today, I reluctantly published the first post to this blog. On one hand, as a writer and an opinionated person who thinks too much about issues that piss me off, I had no medium through which to freely publicize and discuss those thoughts — and, in turn, hear the thoughts of others. This was an obvious solution. On the other hand, I've visited too many clearly defunct blogs that haven't been updated for months or years. I hesitated to create a site whose fate could be the same. I also didn't want a blog focused exclusively on one issue. Those blogs are the best candidates for failure, because people get bored of them quickly, including the writer. There needs to be variety and balance, unless you're good enough to pull off a single-issue blog. I'm not.

Somehow, I've sustained this thing for a year, presumably because I'm obnoxious enough to never stop giving my opinion on almost any issue. I don't believe I've pulled any punches here, either. I say what I think, and that's all there is to it. This has sometimes generated heated debate, even occasionally luring people I've never met, which I appreciate to no end. That debate is essential. In its absence, this blog would be pointless. I'd be troubled if no one ever disagreed with me. We must take seriously our right to free speech, particularly in an era when some seem intent on chipping away at it. I stand by my description of this blog: all comments are welcome. Free speech is not a 'conservative' or 'liberal' value; it's an American value. So is independent thought, which the aforementioned political constructs — no, stereotypes — undermine.

Sometimes I'll go through the archives of this blog for a look back at the past year. Certain posts leave me sentimental; others, angry; and some leave me asking, quite frankly, what the hell I was thinking. The one constant, though, has been the people who have truly made this blog a possibility. Without your readership and comments, it wouldn't be. Thank you. Here are the stats as of today:

• Posts: 92
• Comments: 256
• Times I've considered shutting it down: 0

Snuffing out a public health hazard

In the state of Washington, it is illegal to smoke in almost any public facility, or within 25 feet of entrances, windows, or ventilation intakes at such facilities. This includes all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, casinos, and at least 75 percent of rooms at hotels. I was at a German pub in Seattle — a stereotypically smoke-filled type of establishment where one expects to leave smelling like an ashtray. I was pleasantly surprised to breathe clean, healthy air the entire time I was there — and I didn't need to do laundry when I got home.

Thus, it pleased me this week to read in the Chicago Tribune that my home state of Illinois plans to adapt the same measure. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law a measure that will take effect on Jan. 1 and apply to the same types of public facilities mentioned above all across the state.

I've always been unimpressed by arguments against smoking bans — that they'll cause mom-and-pop businesses to go under, or that they're a prelude to banning fatty foods and other unhealthy behaviors. Both assertions are nonsense. People want to be able to breathe clean air in public — a right that unequivocally supersedes the right of smokers to light up, by the way. One dissenter of the smoking ban interviewed for the Tribune article contended that the people of Illinois should be able to decide the fate of such a measure. I'd respond by betting that Illinois residents would approve the law with at least 60 percent of the popular vote. So would people in many other states.

Second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard; and smoking is a habit that differs from consuming Krispy Kreme doughnuts in that it affects everyone in close proximity, not just the person engaging in the act. That said, such laws are the only responsible action to take in the interest of public health, and I applaud officials who take steps to apply smoking bans at the state (not municipal) level.

Where our attention is directed

With a headline like this, one might be misled to believe that all other problems in the world have been resolved. Either that, or MSNBC and the Associated Press have completely exhausted their coverage of other issues of consequence.

Have I ever mentioned America's desperate need for an independent media? Oh, yes. Last November, I believe there was a similarly earth-shattering issue covered relentlessly in the news over which I made such a remark.

Other examples abound, but thinking about it just makes me too tired. I need to get some rest so I'll have time before work in the morning to find out whether Lindsay Lohan will return to rehab.

Mitt Romney's plan to save the world from its sin

I've already taken the liberty of writing a blog post about the colossal disgrace known as presidential candidate and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., so I won't repeat myself. Instead, I'll use his reprehensible traits as a launch pad for discussion of the brand of American politician that Mitt so perfectly embodies.

This brand to which I refer is seen in many of the worst public officials of our time. They're the ones who trumpet their self-proclaimed moral authority on the so-called "values" issues: abortion, gay rights, obscenity laws, abstinence-only education, stem-cell research, prayer in schools, and so on. They're the ones who leverage fear and anger over terrorist threats to continue arguing for failed policy — the "let's just go kill the bastards" policy. They're the ones who endlessly assert their righteousness on issues they know will divide and piss people off the most. And as a consequence, they're the ones who successfully avoid dialogue on issues that really matter, because they've distracted their constituency with questions about whether kids should be allowed to rent R-rated movies. (No, I don't care nearly as much about that as I do about whether kids should be allowed access to health care in the world's richest nation.)

Distracting voters with polarizing, rage-inducing debates over gay marriage or posting the Ten Commandments is a brilliant strategy for someone like Romney (or yes, George W. Bush), because it veils the fact that politicians like them have nothing to offer on matters that truly affect society's well-being. Indeed, if you visit Romney's campaign site, it explicitly states that health care is the responsibility of the individual. Tell that to the single mother who ends up $22,000 in debt for taking her sick child to the hospital without insurance, because she can't afford the $700 monthly premium. (I'd hazard to guess that Mitt Romney has an excellent health insurance plan, and that it costs him next to nothing.)

So, while 6,000 children are orphaned each day at the hands of the AIDS crisis, and more than 1 billion people are forced to drink water tainted with feces, political candidates of Romney's brand choose to emphasize teaching 5-year-olds that sex is bad. And that's why we're supposed to elect such candidates to be president of the United States. (By the way, it's too bad Romney wasn't president when I was in kindergarten. Had he been, maybe I wouldn't have been so promiscuous at that age.)

Wiping away a wasteful habit — or privacy?

This headline represents a critical and often hotly contested battle between personal privacy and environmental concerns. Public facility owners can now opt to purchase automated toilet paper dispensers that substantially limit the number of sheets to which each restroom user is entitled (five, or arm's length, according to the report).

My initial reaction to the idea, admittedly, was one of complete agreement. Most Americans use far more toilet paper than is required on an average bathroom visit — double that of Europeans, according to the MSNBC reporter — and this is a technology that could easily stop such waste. If you take into account the amount of toilet paper used in public buildings across America every day — coupled with the volume of paper towels in facilities that haven't yet installed hands-free air dryers (shame on them) — we're talking about tons of paper and tons of trees, whether the products are composed of recycled material or not.

After giving the concept a bit more thought, however, I've developed some serious reservations. The manufacturer of this dispenser argues that people will simply "take what you give them." The problem with such logic arises during the inevitable restroom visit when a mere five sheets simply will not suffice for some people. How awkward would it be, as a facility manager, to receive complaints from building occupants that they weren't able to get the job done under the new eco-friendly system? And what solution would be advisable for such a dilemma? Should they simply try again a few minutes later? Unfortunately, trying to be a good steward of the environment can have unintended consequences.

I propose a middle ground on this: an automated dispenser that provides a generous amount of toilet paper on the first request, and on subsequent requests, provides progressively smaller amounts (conveying a subtle message to the consumer), until, once a certain threshold is reached, it refuses to dispense any more. Is that a fair compromise? Maybe not, but when environmental protection is weighed against personal rights and privacy, a fair compromise is often difficult to find.

Rating the states

These are based upon my impressions of the states themselves, not the people who reside within them. I learned long ago that there's a big difference. I hope this (somewhat nonsensical) post generates meaningful dialogue, to the greatest extent possible. After all, this solely represents my opinion.

• States in which I wouldn't live if paid a handsome figure to do so: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada


• States in which I'd be happy to live: Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, New York (upstate, not the city), Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, Hawaii


• States I neither love nor loathe: Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Alaska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, North Carolina, California, Colorado


• The most overrated states in the country: California, Colorado, Arizona, Florida
  

Obviously, personal background and experience had some bearing on the categories above. Still, if anyone is surprised or disagrees with one or more of my choices, I'll write a blog post for each state I'm asked about. I have reasons for these ratings.

Where the heart is

Shown here is an image I took last weekend from atop Hurricane Ridge in Washington's Olympic National Park. I've got the whole album posted, in case anyone is interested.

The Northwest is hard to beat in the summertime. The days are long and generally warm, but rarely too hot, and the nights remain cool enough to occasionally require a light jacket, even in July. I can count on one hand the number of genuinely cloudy days I've experienced since arriving here, which has already been nearly three months ago. Living here in the summer is a bit like being on vacation all the time — but still having to go to work. Fortunately for me, that hasn't been a hardship so far.

Despite my acclaim for Seattle's scenic offerings, though, I've quickly discovered that I'm a Midwestern boy at heart, and a Midwestern boy is who I'll always be. I miss my friends and family at home no less now than I did when I first left. Sure, I can make new friends, but the people in Iowa and Illinois are irreplaceable. They're the best friends I have, and they're friends for life, regardless of where I go. And for a relatively unassuming person like myself, they represent a community that is nearly impossible to replicate.

Perhaps such adjectives are indicative of the Midwest in general — unassuming, yet impossible to replicate. Yes, it lacks the glacial peaks and ocean vistas that the Northwest boasts, but when I hear people arrogantly point this out, I usually just nod politely and assume that they've never seen the more subtle and gentle beauty of America's middle region — espoused through its landscape, people, and culture.

My move to Washington state was the right decision for this point in my life. I've learned a great deal about myself through this journey, including the deep connection I have to my home — a connection that transcends geographical distance. For those considering the next big step in life, go for it. But don't think for one second that you won't look back, or that you won't miss the people and place you're itching to leave at this moment.

Recycle, when inconvenient

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that, effective July 1, bans his city from purchasing bottled water for its offices, according to this CNN article. By December, the ban will extend even to bottles purchased for stocking water coolers. In announcing his decision, the mayor pointed out the adverse environmental impacts of bottled water, noting specifically that more than 1 billion of them end up in California state landfills annually. San Francisco municipal employees will now simply have access to tap water at the workplace.

What's particularly disquieting about the landfill statistic is that water bottles are perfectly recyclable. It highlights a much more widespread problem of environmental laziness. Many Americans recycle items that would otherwise land in the trash — but only to the extent that it's convenient. This is why you'll still always see pop cans, water bottles, newspapers, cardboard, and glass in the garbage at public facilities, despite the recycling station that's most likely situated just a few steps farther away at those places. It's those few extra steps that convince a lot of people to not bother — or, perhaps, benign indifference toward the impact they create through a seemingly mundane act.

Granted, it's not productive to harp on others' choices, but observing recyclable items disposed of as trash is an especially jarring experience for me. It represents a popular myth that the choice of the individual somehow does not contribute to circumstances that affect everyone. Our landfills ought to be clear evidence to the contrary. And recycling is hardly the only good option we have as consumers. How about reusing that water bottle, rather than pitching it? Or bringing a cup from home and skipping the bottled stuff altogether? This, in fact, may be the best option of all, since disposal of the bottles is just part of what makes them bad for the environment.

In any case, Mayor Newsom's order is commendable, and should be adapted nationwide. Bottled water usually isn't worth the cost, anyway, particularly in a country where tap water everywhere is safe to drink.