Good luck to all you graduates. I just found this link to this

New York Times article about blogging and its social impact among young people.

Okay, regarding today's KaLeo article "It's Time for the Naked Truth on Breasts". As a woman, I was surprised, and slightly disturbed by what "Arrora Borealis" found in her survey. I suppose it could be interpreted that men aren't as superficial as previously thought, since they rated her higher without the cleavage! However, what about women who are naturally endowed with large breasts? Are they forever doomed to be seen as sluts? Will men always make obnoxious sexual comments about them and ignore all other aspects of their bodies and personalities? This really bothers me... it's wrong for people (especially men, I must say) to be this superficial. Are people so uneducated that they always rush to such hasty judgements? I can't get over the difference between what men said about her with and without the cleavage. Women's bodies weren't created just so men could look at them and say, "I'd do her". I find the whole thing discouraging. What do you guys think about this? And honesty would be appreciated. I know that most guys, when hanging out with their friends, have made comments like this about girls, so I won't believe guys who respond by saying "I never think that way about girls!" Or, "I'm totally different. I don't care about a girl's body." Let's hear some realism. Is there any way around this type of thinking? It's like, girls have it bad either way. They feel inadequate if they have small breasts, and self-conscious if they have large ones. Is there any way to win?

Lance D. Collins finally leaves
Ka Leo.

I read part of Fast Food Nation when it was excerpted in Rolling Stone in 1998. Our Starbucks has a drive-through, greatly increasing its convenience, thus popularity. In today's Tribune-Herald publisher Jim Wilson writes, "University of Hawaii President Evan Doebelle [sic] still hasn't figured out Hawaii. That was in full evidence last week with his remarks about the university logo flap and the rancor of using a mainland company. His statement 'You know, the local thing is kind of interesting to me, we don't have these conversations in California or Massachusetts or in Florida.' Doebelle [sic] is still not aware of island sensitivities after two years on the job."

I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments about previous submissions. While I definitely dislike the leftist belief that corporations are automatically evil, exploitative organizations, etc.-I do think that there are a lot of corrupt corporations out there. Then again, there are a lot of good ones as well... In regards to McDonalds, I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". I was a huge fast food eater before I read that... now I won't touch the stuff. In general, I do think local, smaller businesses are better for our economy, and better for society in general, since they represents the efforts of individual entrepreneurs. Starbucks though, I might add, is well-known to be a responsible corporation that treats its employees extremely well! So Ms. Klungness is obviously jumping to fallacious conclusions.. surprise surprise.
The other comment I wanted to make was about Casey Ishitani. I actually know him from one of my classes, and I've found all this controversy interesting. To me, he's like the Eminem of UH. He's just mouthing off, and everyone reacts just the way he expects them to. I don't take any of it seriously... He's actually a really nice guy, and really intelligent. I wish everyone would stop getting so excited about everything he writes... most of it is just talk, he doesn't really believe it. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but I ignore it. Just like Eminem... would I listen to him if I really believed he hated women and homosexuals? No, but I understand it's just hype. I think a lot of people at UH need to loosen up! The PC police are rampant.

Happy belated May Day, everyone. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald has a nitwitted letter by one Gretchen H. Klungness entitled "We don't need another Starbucks." In part it says, "While I realize that any company has a right to expand all over the world, I don't think it merits front-page coverage. Starbucks is a perfect example of corporate greed run amok, and your double coverage [the April 17 paper had a front-page article as well as a business-section feature] on the same day simply amounts to free advertising for a company that has put small shops out of business all over the country.

We need a Starbucks here in Hilo about as badly as we need another tsunami--and that would at least merit front-page coverage."

I'd refer Ms. Klungness to the April 29th New York Times, which has an article about the expansion of fast-food chains Subway and McDonald's into India. Corporate greed run amok? Think again. Both are "tailoring their menus to local tastes. Their offerings here, liberally flavored with Indian spices, bear little resemblance to the American originals..." Actually, I'd recommend this article to everyone: "McDonald's says that Indians are voting for the Golden Arches with their feet. More than two million are served in its 16 outlets in Bombay every month, the company says. "'Most new shopping malls clamor to have us,' Mr. Jatia said. Much of McDonald's effort has been devoted to building a local supply chain to support its stores here, including measures to keep produce fresh given India's tropical heat and sometimes-iffy electric power supply. Some 95 percent of its ingredients are now bought locally. With new stores to come in high-traffic locations like train stations and highway rest areas, McDonald's hopes its Indian operations will reach breakeven in 2004."

I don't have to tell you that chains aren't merely huge vacuums sucking money out of local economies. By hiring and buying locally, they in fact put much money back into the economy.