There are two things that I want to talk about, the first being the story that was written about the new Homecoming “rally” being in the HUB. I think that the new way that they are doing the Homecoming rallies are infinitely worse compared to what they used to do in Red Square. Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there are budget cuts and the economy is down, but the consistent highlight of those rallies was that the captains of the team and the coach would always come up and give the crowd a speech and get everyone pumped up for the game the next day. With this new format, there is potential, but something about getting my hand dipped in wax, root beer kegs, and castle-building doesn’t get me excited to watch a football game.

The other subject I would like to talk about is the sad state of The Daily’s sports section. Every Tuesday when I read The Daily, I always like to read the Battle Royale and hope that it will be actually good. Every week I am disappointed by at least one of the writers who just brush off questions. For example if you’ll look at last week’s Battle Royale, there was a comical question about biceps and one of the writers denied answering the question, saying “I’m not here to discuss biceps,” or something to that extent. Obviously it is your job to write something in there, so yes, you are there to talk about biceps. This just shows the consistent lack of effort that the sports writers put into their stories. There are some stories that are pretty good, but most of the time, they show a lack of effort and don’t really tell much about what is going on. This is the UW’s paper. I think they should have a little more passion about their school’s sports. UW athletics is something that I am very passionate about and have been my entire life. If you want better sports stories with actual passion, Daily, I’m looking for a job.

Tyler Hurlbut

Senior, history

Ballots for the Seattle mayoral election are still being counted and the main issue separating the candidates, the elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV), evolved due to new information released by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

It would appear that seeing the still-suspect (no collapsing older buildings further inland) video of a viaduct failure and extrapolating that to any elevated structure in the AWV footprint, caused WSDOT and elected officials to terrify the public about AWV safety.

Having watched WSDOT representative Ron Paananen present the partially collapsing AWV graphic simulation of results during a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on TV on Oct. 24, 2009, I have a few questions, particularly where he said it represents what we believe will happen, and then watching the full video on YouTube with the explanatory comments.

1. Was this video tied to a computer simulation with adjustable parameters, or was it just a scary movie?

2. If it was based on a computer simulation, how was it validated? Was data from the 6.8 magnitude 2001 Nisqually earthquake used?

3. Where was the epicenter of the 7.0 earthquake referred to in the graphic movie?

4. Were computer simulations done changing the location (three-dimensionally) of the epicenter, and if so, what were the results?

5. Was a computer simulation done with the same 7.0 at the same epicenter, considering a rebuilt seawall and an AWV rebuilt from Sout Holgate to Battery Street to current federal safety standards? If yes, what were the results? If not, why not?

6. Was a computer simulation done with a 9.0 earthquake at the same epicenter for a rebuilt AWV and seawall?

These are important questions because the majority of Puget Sounders preferred — until scared ­— a retrofit or rebuild of the existing elevated SR 99 AWV.

Perhaps qualified College of Engineering folk could analyze the computer simulations if they were actually done.

If not, and if it was just a scary movie, perhaps political science, psychology, etc. types could analyze how scare tactics are used in political decisions. Finally, journalism types could investigate to publicize who is behind the scheme.

Harvey Friedman,

Staff, ‘75

In response to “What they are not,” by Lael Telles, Nov. 2, 2009

In the Nov. 2 lifestyles piece by Lael Telles, Southern Baptist-raised atheist Chris Busby stated that he was unable to provide a moral framework on his own, but acquired a belief system from the Secular Students Union.

As an agnostic, I am most frequently frustrated by that question: “How do you get your morals without God?” My understanding is that humans constructed a set of moral principles and later attributed it to being inspired by a god. As social beings, a moral code based upon reciprocal altruism is a product of evolution in human beings. I have no innate desire to kill, rape or steal, and I do not need the threat of a thunderbolt-throwing deity to protect the rest of you from my antisocial urges. My personal experience with employers, family and friends suggests that this assumed lack of morals among non-theists is widespread and incredibly ignorant. We do not feel licensed to judge homosexuals, suppress women or convert non-believers from an interpretation of Old Testament scripture. My moral code is innate, deduced from the world around me, and learned from being raised in a loving environment, where kindness, responsibility and tolerance were taught. Like many non-theists, Christian parents raised me, but even from a young age, I could never practice blind faith without objective reasoning; and like others, I kept my skepticism secret. To quote Bill Maher, by remaining silent and allowing theists to continue to mischaracterize our morals, we are “enablers.” I urge non-theists to illustrate by example that non-theists do adhere to well-defined moral codes that are humanistic and congruent with a healthy society.

Josh Carmichael

Graduate student,

geophysics

In response to “Mail-in voting a good idea,” by Gavin Verhey, Nov. 3, 2009

Dear editor,

I read an article recently in The Daily about mail-in voting by contributing columnist Gavin Verhey. In the article, the author praised the benefits of mail-in voting. He apparently felt that between his schoolwork and personal obligations, he did not have time to physically go to a polling location. It does not fit into his schedule. I realize this requires that he must learn the location of his local polling place, but I feel he can do this if he can learn the location of a musical group he would like to see. The author also stated that voting by mail was convenient. God forbid he be inconvenienced in any way. He comes across as very arrogant in that he cannot be bothered because, as a young person, he is too important.

The author states that mail-in voting allows a significantly higher number of people to participate. He tries to tie lower voter turnout to not having mail-in voting. He fails to consider other things such as voter apathy. In the recent Washington state election, only 56 percent of the registered voters voted in King County. He goes on to claim that mail-in voting makes it easier for the elderly and disabled. Unless I am mistaken, being elderly is not a condition that prevents participation. As far as the people who are disabled, prior to all mail-in voting, members of both political parties had numerous volunteers that would drive people who requested to go to their polling place.

Basically, all the reasons the author stated contribute to a greater problem: the loss of the feeling that a person is part of a community. I miss the opportunity to chat with my neighbors while standing in line waiting for a chance to vote. If students feel that they can’t vote any other way other than mail-in voting, I suggest they get a voting place or two on campus.

Hopefully, the county will realize the error of mail-in voting and restore the polling stations again.

Robert W. Foedisch

Administrative Assistant

In response to “Don’t be that guy,” by Colin Gorenstein, Nov. 5, 2009

· Don’t be that guy that writes lists of social regulations in an attempt at humor.

· Don’t be that guy who admittedly focuses his ”sole purpose” on hedging individual expression toward flock psychology.

· Don’t be that guy actually enjoying icebreakers (that wouldn’t be cool, yo) or the guy photo-editing at 2 a.m.

· Don’t be that guy bemoaning all behavior he finds a “nuisance.”

Mr. Gorenstein does not appreciate many things that you and I do. They must stop flagrant acts such as “making a clever observation by pointing out that the world’s largest book in Suzzalo Library has changed pages since yesterday,” which is clearly as grievous a blunder as TPing the campus. So make sure, if you see Colin and three of his friends heading toward your study table, to clear out!

Articles detailing how to appropriately act — and not act — in society, explicitly highlight the private judgments we hold about the world and how to avoid its scornful eyes. You can find these sorts of articles in classy publications such as Cosmopolitan (post 1960s) and GQ. We UW students, as young adults, can generally forgive these magazines for their adolescence, as our very own Daily is heir to a richer history itself. But within our campus, is this tendency toward thumbing up or down anyone who stands out a liberative function of the university newspaper or a method of preserving like style?

Do these traits Colin listed even add up to one person, or are they an amalgamation of all the disturbing qualities “those guys” exhibit? In other words, how many of you are “that guy (or girl)” in at least one way? I certainly am guilty of committing sins similar to a few examples listed (i.e. playing a “jazzy rendition of ‘Chopsticks’ on the dorm lobby piano, unaware of the fact that 10 people before [me] have done the same — and better”). I don’t feel bad about this. Perhaps refusing to hang my head in shameful absolution is another reason I am “that guy.” Shoot!

I am sure (and hope) most of this is tongue-in-cheek for Colin. It’s an opinion page and so we should not take him too seriously, right? It seems all we have to do is recall our friend — and I do consider John a friend, though I fervently disagree with his agendas — John Fay’s famous man-and-sheep column of last year to illustrate how much these talking heads do indeed matter.

In Colin’s universe we all would abide by his every preference. It surely is unfortunate, given his wide readership, that Colin’s preferences do not include taking himself and his messages as seriously as we do. There are certainly issues worth addressing, like global warming and human rights (i.e. Don’t be that guy riding to El Gaucho in the stretch Hummer), which require social cooperation to overcome. But as us environmentalists have learned, you can’t stop people’s “need” for affluence by listing what they shouldn’t do. All that accomplishes is added guilt.

Don’t keep your opinions to yourself, Colin, but consider what it is you’re advocating. If you need a more explicit version of my response, check the men’s stalls in Odegaard.

Tye Rogerson

Senior, environmental studies