The Unknown Blogger

Broken Halo

2006-09-25T23:26:00.000-05:00

If you've posted comments here before, you may have noticed that they periodically disappear. This is the fault of Haloscan, not me. So to counteract this annoyance, I've reset comments to be strictly Blogger-controlled. It doesn't make Trackback as simple, but I'd rather have that be a hassle than have the things everyone has written on my blog keep vanishing. That, and Blogger's comment system had a major upgrade since I started this two Octobers ago.

A Bulletin

2006-08-25T00:32:00.000-05:00

In case you're wondering, I didn't disappear again. I've been adjusting to another year in Morgantown, which has included fighting multiple computer crashes. That's a big rarity for me, but everything seems to be working now. I'll try to blog again within the next few days...there's certainly enough going on here and in the world to write about. Bookmark my RSS feed if you have a reader and have not done so already; that way, you won't miss my posts when they come up. I'm trying to keep the blog relevant to my fellow Mountaineers, so I will probably be focusing on local issues more than within the last year. Don't worry if you're not from these parts, I'll still be sticking my nose in national business as well.

The Day They Stopped The Sky From Falling

2006-08-12T22:53:00.000-05:00

As probably everybody knows by now, a terrorist plot to destroy as many as 10 planes flying from England to the US on August 16th was foiled by British officials this week. Dozens of suspects have been (and are still being) arrested, security has been seriously ramped up on both sides of the Atlantic, and the UK is at its highest terror alert level. (We are at Code Orange, thankfully, unless you count commercial flights.)

Aside from obviously preventing terror and death to thousands of innocent people, what did catching these guys accomplish? For starters, it reminded everyone what we've been fighting against for the last five years. I say "what" instead of "who" because Terror, though a great adversary indeed, lacks a singular face. We have been fighting everyone, and yet no one, ever since the day the Twin Towers collapsed. It's human nature to need more clear definitions of our foes, whether by marking boundaries on a map or by targeting specific people. At this point, I believe this is the reason why we went to war in Iraq; we saw a suspicious character in charge of borders and a government, and we leapt at the chance to make a pre-emptive strike. Saddam Hussein ended up not having the WMDs, despite his non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors and persistent bluffing. On the bright side, we toppled an incredibly corrupt dictator; on the darker side, we jumped the gun. Many will cite oil, globalization, and personal vendettas as our reasons for going to Iraq, but not I. For better or for worse, human nature was the cause.

We know that it's easy to target another country in a faceless war, but targeting other people may be a simpler task. Osama bin Laden has topped the FBI's Most Wanted list for a very long time now. That much makes sense; he's the head of Al-Qaeda and could only be more responsible for 9/11 if he had been flying one of the hijacked airliners himself. However, the vast majority of our opponents are Arabic and Muslims, and that's led to a lot of questions about racial/religious profiling. These questions were given new breath as arrest reports came in this week showing most suspects to be British citizens of Pakistani descent. Is it right to tie a group of people together on any occasion? If you've had enough "diversity training", the automatic answer is no. But if you know that almost all of your opponents come out of a specific grouping, it's hard for you to totally resist when you consider the time (and potentially lives) saved looking for the enemy. It's almost like hearing of an impending Viking attack and then not bothering to stop the bearded guy with the horned helmet that's hanging around near your village. That said, I'm still disgusted when I hear about the innocent Arabs and Muslims attacked by their fellow Americans after 9/11 happened. This is the darkest side of human nature, and when you stare it in the face, it's easy to understand why people still get upset over profiling regardless of who we're fighting. Yet maybe, to the smallest extent humanly possible, such profiling helps keep us safe.

One unexpected positive to all of this is that all those hare-brained 9/11 conspiracy theories might finally kick the bucket. Vanity Fair had just released an exclusive report detailing panicked reactions within NORAD as the 2001 attacks were happening, complete with voice recordings. Yet as recently as Monday, MSNBC was airing a Scripps Howard national survey in which 36 percent considered the possibility of a conspiracy "very" or "somewhat" likely. Never mind that the figure was lower than those who believed in a Kennedy conspiracy (40 percent) and in withheld proof of alien life (38 percent), which is really kind of sad. What got less press than the round number itself was who were more likely to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy: minorities, people with no college education, Democrats, and people who use the Internet but do not regularly read newspapers or listen to the radio. And anyone is surprised? To add to the irony, pro-conspiracy protesters from 911Courage.org were busily passing out leaflets at theatres when the Oliver Stone movie World Trade Center released on Wednesday. Just afterwards, the British stopped the sky from falling. For once, I think it's safe to say that this was entirely coincidental.

When it comes right down to it, the only drawback to being reminded that the threat is real - and that those seemingly superficial terror alert levels really do mean something - is the gravity of the reminder. We are at war with an enemy without borders, without fear of death, and without remorse. Al-Qaeda appears to be behind this latest effort, which recalls a name we had thought to be a shadow of its former self. And judging from the simple efficiency of the liquid explosive-planting strategy the terrorists had concocted, they are more clever than any of us would have wanted to believe. The phrase "fear-mongering" has previously been directed at those who would remind us of these simple facts. May that phrase never be applied again except to our enemies, the real fear-mongers: the terrorists.

[A side note: If you didn't catch it, check the URL on the first link in this article. Yes, that is the most bizarre location for a Seinfeld reference that I have ever seen...but it's great. - Ed.]

Because Your Baby Isn't Metal Enough

2006-08-05T16:17:00.000-05:00

Just when you think you've seen every specialty version of a popular band's music, another always seems to turn up. Many platinum-selling acts, including My Chemical Romance and Hawthorne Heights, already have string quartet tribute albums. (I believe the Arctic Monkeys do as well, though they aren't as big Stateside as in Britain.) But these acts all have a lot of catching up to do to Metallica, both in terms of sales and in bizarre tribute albums.

Let's see here: the public already has Fade to Bluegrass, a Metallica tribute recorded by, yes, you guessed it, bluegrass musicians. The string quartet thing was already outdone by the full live band and orchestra of S&M, so there's no reason to go there at this point. The only logical solution left to tribute hounds would be...a collection of lullabies?!?

No, I'm not making this up. There's even 30-second sample clips at the link. From what I've heard, the album will be very soothing; that is, it will be if you don't pay attention to how creepy it is. The idea of turning "Enter Sandman" into a lullaby is especially freakish when you consider the original's polar opposite lyrical content. "One" (about a landmine casualty robbed of his senses and limbs), "Fade to Black" (about suicide), and several other modern classics are featured here in a form your baby will love. In other news, I should never work in PR.

The CD, which releases August 29th, does have three major things going for it. For one, it theoretically could be used for its intended purpose. You shouldn't have to worry about creeping out your kids until they get older and hear the originals, because the lullabies are strictly instrumental. Secondly, it has the Metallica name and will therefore sell; even more traditional fans might be interested, as the samples I heard are musically identical to the source material. It actually sounds more like an ambient movie soundtrack than anything in this format, and the songs still sound just dissonant and minor-key enough to be worth a grown music fan's time. Admit it, you're curious to see if "Battery" could possibly be soothing to a small child. Finally, none of the album tracks were pulled from anything Metallica did after the zillion-selling Black Album, which the cover spoofs.

Only one problem with this whole thing, though: the metal-to-lullabye floodgates are wide open now. Yes, these bands have recorded songs that were supposed to be very surreal or horrific takes on lullabies (refer back to "Enter Sandman" again for the shining example), but this is a new frontier. I don't see it catching on, but it would be hilarious to see metal artists performing lullabies, as opposed to lullaby artists performing metal. Just try to imagine "Rock-A-Bye Baby" as recorded by Ronnie James Dio.

[By the way, if you don't know who Dio is, you're probably not a Black Sabbath/80's metal/Tenacious D fan. And if you're in college and not at least one of the three, you might want to take Bob Marley off repeat. -Ed.]

Quick Info For Those Wondering

2006-07-29T00:22:00.000-05:00

After a lot of debate with myself, I've decided that I will post roughly once a week. There may be a few more posts than that occasionally, but I expect this to become my new regular pace. I am more of a longform blogger anyway, and the quality always suffers when I post too much. I think this will keep me fresh. I'll still probably blog more frequently than most newspaper columnists would get printed, so it all works out. So if I go a little quiet for a few days...just check back the next week!

UPDATE (8/1/06): It appears that the site hosting my news submission script has been taken offline. I'll leave the submission box up for a little while in case it comes back again, but if it stays down, I'll reclaim the sidebar space for other purposes. In the meantime, send your tips to my e-mail address. I check out everything I get, believe me.

Why I Don't Like Politics

2006-07-25T18:10:00.000-05:00

For a little while now, I have been debating whether to continue with my blogging. I only did any kind of truly regular (read: almost daily) posting during the spring of 2005, when the dialogue between the DA and myself was moving at its highest speed. I have found plenty of topics worth getting passionate about since then, but somewhere along the way, I fell into a trap that I now realize almost destroyed my blog.

Yes, I said “almost” – I’m going to continue as the Unknown Blogger, so this is certainly no goodbye. In fact, it may be a hello of sorts after a four-month hiatus plus intermittent posting beforehand. My leave from blogging was self-imposed, so that I could better see my way out of the rut I was stuck in. I can finally describe to you the trap that I was just talking about. It has two names: journalism and politics.

But especially politics.

As I continued studying politics with more than a passing interest, I became even more moderate than I was before. Don’t get me wrong, I still lean slightly conservative from a personal perspective; however, I have come to see politics as something not to be expressly defined as points between far-left and far-right on a line. Everyone would like me to take a side, and that’s fine during a political campaign, maybe even the best thing to do. But in daily life, being too strong a Republican or Democrat can hurt your ability to see the big picture. It’s not that I don’t like politics at all, because I clearly do; otherwise, I wouldn’t even bother to write this out. The kind of politics that I don’t like is modern American politics, which is founded on the most perfect of principles yet always seems to degenerate into some kind of overheated sports rivalry.

I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. I can set up the whole scene, and it’ll still play out like football.

Hardcore Democrat: “Bush lied!”
Hardcore Republican: “You crybaby liberals are ruining everything!”

Of course, they’re just trying to score points. It’s overtime now, and I get to flip the coin. But no matter who goes first, this will end in a tie.

The final score: 0-0. Both sides are wrong. Obviously, it should be clear at this point that Bush didn’t lie; he just didn’t know any better. Even the 9/11 Commission will tell you that much. But the other, equally-heard complaint is the kind I have discovered to be entirely wrong, no matter who says it or who it is directed towards. We need both sides, or the best policies – the ones most representative of and beneficial for the American people – will never be agreed upon.

In fact, our entire system of government requires the hidden checks and balances within the two-party system. You see, the United States government is based on federalism, which dictates a certain balance between national (federal) control and state control. That balance is set by the government, but can change over time. (Germany’s federalism, for example, is nationally-focused; on the other hand, Canada has a very state-centric form of federalism.) One of the absolute core issues between the parties involves where our balance falls, with Dems pushing for centralized control and Reps trying to spread the power out to the states. The golden secret of our political system is the end result of this constant struggle: Our balance never stays in exactly the same place for very long. It changes as needed and as the present state of our country dictates, which is why I call it “elastic” federalism. When the parties have equal input, elastic federalism allows the nation and its states to work together without trampling all over each other.

A good example of this is what happened with Hurricane Katrina. When New Orleans flooded and chaos ensued, liberals criticized FEMA (and eventually, President Bush by extension) for not acting quickly enough. Conservatives attacked the local government for not following evacuation procedures properly and put more responsibility on Louisiana’s shoulders. So how did it end? The national government provided aid, the states provided aid, and your grandma provided aid with a donation to the Red Cross. Everyone does their part in America, which is what gives us elastic federalism and what makes us truly great. Such is my small contribution to political theory, which dawned on me in part because I couldn’t accept that any one major political party (both subscribed to by about half of our population) could be consistently wrong about everything. To assume that one side is always right would be nothing short of ignorance, potentially arrogance.

So where does journalism factor into this? Well, when I started the (sadly neglected) College Blog Alliance, the blogs I added all dealt with the media in some way. But because I only included college students and professors, the opinions that I found and started paying more attention to were all coming from institutionalized journalism. As you may know, part of the reason blogging exploded was because dozens of perceptive citizens got tired of journalism as an institution, rather than as a craft. I began as an outsider like them, and was then pulled so far inside as to be rendered inconsequential. I am here before you again because I could never be a true insider; I am not liberal enough or politically correct enough to ever fit perfectly. The facts should always triumph over what might be popular thinking in the newsroom. My definition of speaking truth to power never has required the AP Stylebook-approved version of truth, and it never will.

I have learned that journalism is really more about a way of thinking than about a set of guidelines. If you’re a good driver, you can probably be a good journalist. Think about it: When you drive down a busy road, you’re looking for possible hazards, and you have to be able to pick up on them fast. It’s important to slow down for the kids playing on the sidewalk, but be ready to stop the minute their ball comes bouncing out onto the road. That’s the impulse moment. You have to look for that symbolically when you interview people, and when they drop the ball in conversation, that’s the moment where you put the brakes on and get the story. It’s not hard, so long as you’re not shy. The trap I fell into is what happens when you start thinking that it’s really that much more complex than that. You don’t need 300 books by journalists to do the job, nor do you need experience at seven different newspapers. You just do it.

So if you’re wondering where the blog is going from here, I would say it’s going towards something much more true to myself. If that includes oddball news reports and quirky little bits of info, so be it. If it includes music reviews (because I wouldn’t mind a little practice in case I have a shot at Blender), that’s okay too. I make no promises to post every single day, however, as I have a life and don't want to discourage myself. [Link Attacks are not coming back, sorry - Ed.]

But the media and politics still concern me, as they should everyone in this country, and so I’m definitely going to write about them. I don’t even have to like them much to do that.

The Scalia Chin Shuffle

2006-03-27T23:45:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been a major topic of discussion across the country today for reportedly flipping the bird at the media as he was leaving Sunday mass in Boston. Thoughts on this from bloggers and the MSM have been varied, ranging from amusement to admonishment. Some people don't even seem to think he should be a Supreme Court justice if he can't act in a more dignified manner. (Most of those people were also probably right behind Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, but that's to be expected.)

What you're not hearing very much about is the question that provoked Scalia's response, which the AP now reports was actually a dismissive Italian hand gesture. You've probably seen it before; the post title is a fairly accurate description of what it looks like. I have yet to find an exact quote of the question. However, according to the article above, a reporter from the Boston Herald asked Scalia, as he was leaving Catholic mass, if he "faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state." Scalia's response makes sense in that context:

You know what I say to those people? *makes hand gesture* That's Sicilian.

The implication here is subtle, but it reeks of anti-Catholicism. If you honestly believe that Catholics cannot think independently of the Pope (as people used to back when JFK ran for President, which is why it was such a huge deal that he won), then you might come up with a question like that. You would also have a response similar to Scalia's if you were used to hearing this kind of stuff all the time. It's also disturbing because a line of questions not far from this one was levied at Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearings. Roberts is also Catholic. Honestly, who has the nerve to ask him a question like that? It appears to have a logical basis at first, but ultimately it becomes a thinly-veiled attack on what someone stands for and assumes that their judgment would be somehow impaired.

The other point of contention for me is that the original Boston Herald report is not exactly impartial. An excerpt:

Although one of his sworn duties is to uphold the freedom of the press, a jocular Scalia told the shutterbug, “Don’t publish that.”

This may be one of the most loaded sentences that I have ever seen in a mainstream newspaper article. Though he really can't stop the photo from being printed [prior restraint - Ed.], attaching the qualifier "jocular" would imply that Scalia was joking anyway. So why come out and state the obvious...unless you're editorializing?

Another Weapon In The Stalker Arsenal

2006-03-26T22:31:00.000-05:00

Normally, discussing competition in the field of technology is about as exciting for me as folding my laundry. This case, however, is a little different. The college networking site Facebook (which you know about unless you've been living with cavemen for the past two years) has been running banner ads at the bottom of each user's home page. One of the ads in rotation is a banner for the new Windows Live Local mapping service. This, like the Windows Live main page, appears to be Microsoft's answer to Google. WLL works in a manner similar to that of Google Maps, but it focuses more on its "bird's eye" functionality. If a location is supported, the resulting view is incredible, allowing for closer and more realistic-looking imaging than Google Maps. As an example, compare Google's version of New York City with the Microsoft version. A little more crisp, a slight angle for added depth...yes, Microsoft has the goods right now.

The implications for a student should be obvious. A newer form of bonding between people at college (especially large colleges) has been to sit at Google Maps and find the exact location of your house to show your friends. With the view provided in WLL, you can now pick out individual windows and even the front door, assuming your city's in the database. Morgantown, sadly, is not in the database at this time. Charleston isn't either, but other midsize cities allow close enough a view to allow you to see storefronts (assuming the stores existed when the photographs were taken). It's quite simply a great, semi-educational time killer as far as students are concerned, and also another way to put off doing homework, as I must confess to be doing right now.

Now here's where it gets creepy: Because it allows you to type in full addresses, it would theoretically be possible to find someone's house without their knowledge so long as a mailing address could be found. It doesn't bother me personally; my house would probably never show up in the database, and I'm generally not paranoid enough to feel threatened if it did. But what about the beleaguered ladies of Facebook colleges, who have dealt with so much harassment as to add the term "Stalkerbook" to the lexicon? I know that some of these women might want to hand a restraining order to any anonymous blogger that crosses their paths at this point, but I honestly am a little concerned. This is why privacy concerns have been such a big deal lately; simply put, the Internet is making it almost too easy to find any information you desire. A stalker barely has to try to find your house now if you're in the database and your address is sitting around somewhere in the Web. Protect yourselves, people.

Sidebar Update

2006-03-23T19:34:00.000-05:00

A quick note about the links: I came across the WVU College Republicans website the other day and added it to the sidebar. Should the Young Democrats also happen to have a website, I'll link to that as well for the sake of fairness. Keep sending me your links, people!

The Stereotype Breaker

2006-03-23T18:08:00.000-05:00

If you follow politics at all, you've most likely heard all of the stereotypes. Republicans are supposed to be the hawkish wackos, Democrats are supposed to be either immoral or pansies (depending on what part of the country you're in), and Greens supposedly really, really love trees.

(Notice how I left out libertarians. There's rarely much to suppose with them: they're usually structural conservatives who may not like wiretaps much and tend to know how to party hard. Needless to say, a lot of Republicans at WVU are not-so-closet libertarians. But I digress.)

But what if I were to tell you a new study just came out today that turns some of these stereotypes on their heads? It's true. The report, a special to the Toronto Star, claims that whiny kids grow up to be conservative adults. The article goes on to say that "the confident, resilient, self-reliant kids" usually turn out liberal. Wimpy conservatives? Tough-as-nails liberals? It almost sounds sacrilegious.

Alright, reality check time. If you haven't followed the link (and you should), let me help lay a few key points out for you:

1.) The study in question was conducted by UC Berkeley professor Jack Block, who tracked about 100 people in the Berkeley area from nursery school to adulthood. In other words, the study was longitudinal and was conducted over the course of a few decades, starting back in the 1960s. Character traits were determined by personality tests.

2.) The participants all grew up in one of the most liberal areas of the entire country. UC Berkeley is so infamously liberal that I've seen some commentators refer to it as "Berserkeley." Like conservatism in the Bible Belt, liberalism is the status quo there.

3.) As anyone who's taken a basic psychology course knows, correlation does not equal causation. There could have been other variables determining what these people became politically when they grew up. In that part of the country, wouldn't it make sense for stable people from stable homes to be liberal out of tradition? After all, "liberal" and "non-conformist" are not necessarily synonyms. As Star writer Kurt Kleiner wonders, "The results do raise some obvious questions...does an insecure boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?" And of course, no study should be immediately taken as gospel, though journalists have a nasty habit of doing just that.

I do find it comical that some conservatives have already expressed outrage at this study, because when you consider all the potential variables and how non-representative the sample is, it's not indicative of the general population whatsoever. If there were several hundred of these people being tracked from all different regions of the US, and a correlation showed up, that would be a story. As it is, it's more of a basis for a philosophical discussion. Why do we hold the political opinions that we have? Are they dependent on how we were raised, or are they intrinsically tied to our personalities?

I was very self-reliant and confident as a kid; though blogging may suggest otherwise to some, I'm pretty well-known for not whining. I'm conservative, yet more liberal than either of my parents. Some of their strongest political views never really got passed to me. I still do a lot of back and forth reasoning on the hot-button issues of our day, often to the point that I end up becoming a true moderate for specific arguments. I really do keep an open mind, so much so that I find myself using liberal arguments on occasion because I'm so used to putting myself in left-wing shoes. I've always found it arrogant to believe that roughly half of Americans can be consistently wrong on any given topic, which is why I try never to bash a liberal for the sake of bashing them.

If the study is right, I guess I'm sort of unique. Then again, one man, much like this study, can't hope to be an accurate example of everyone.

Not The Return You Were Expecting

2006-02-21T16:59:00.000-05:00

LA Daily News - News

The link will take you to a story about a mysterious blob in the middle of downtown Los Angeles. Why should you care? Because it's awesome, that's why. Assuming the reporter didn't take dramatic license with the facts, this thing sounds like it's straight out of a B-grade 1950's horror movie.

(And yes, I know this is an odd way to break a month-long silence. Never fear, more will come later, be it today or tomorrow [*cough* or after that *cough*].)

UPDATE (2/22/06): This story dropped off the radar quicker than I expected, but I managed to dig up this UPI article. The "blob" was actually oil. Seriously. It took the fire department, plus who knows who else, way too long to figure it out.

It was then authorities remembered that St. James Oil Co. had a petroleum drilling site two blocks away and discovered workers were injecting water at high pressure and temperature to extract leftover crude from old wells.
When the company stopped pumping Monday, the street bulge began to subside.

Duh.

Link Attack #2: Special MLK Day Edition

2006-01-16T19:21:00.000-05:00

The second Link Attack has arrived! To mark Martin Luther King Day, I figured I'd hold off on releasing it until today. I've still not decided if Link Attacks will show up on a specific day of the week, as Fridays do get hectic sometimes. Send me your thoughts, please.

-Mark your calendars: On Thursday at 9 a.m., a 400-page report involving the Clinton administration will be released. As you might imagine, Dems have been trying to block it for months. And you thought the independent counsels were done with Slick Willy....

-Hardcore Bush critic David Corn has written the unthinkable...an article that says trying to impeach Bush would be a waste of time. Gratuitous political moves usually are.

-I am not NFL quarterback Trent Dilfer. But oddly enough, our writing styles are kind of similar. The link goes to his analysis of what would happen during the Seattle-Washington playoff contest, and his final prediction was perfect (low scoring, Seattle wins). The difference between us? He makes millions more dollars in a year than I may ever make. Oh yeah, and I've never won a Super Bowl.

-Could Bill Clinton work for Microsoft?

-William Stewart has written a full guide to the West Virginia legislature. Ever want to approach a state representative and have them remember what you asked them to do? Stewart can show you how.

-According to the Washington Post, the Seattle Times decided to be politically correct and not refer to the Redskins as anything other than Washington during the week leading up to the Seahawks-Redskins game. The Redskins are from Washington. The Seahawks are from Washington. As Wizbang noted, hilarity ensued.

-A new Italian study shows that couples with a TV in the bedroom have less sex. Raise your hand if you've ever heard this line: "Not tonight honey, CSI is on."

-Jim Carrey says he's happier now that he's cut back on caffeine. Honestly, we've seen his movies. This man should never be given any kind of stimulants on any occasion. Maybe Ace Ventura was a product of the seven cups of coffee he used to drink.

Why The AP Deserves Applause

2006-01-12T19:48:00.000-05:00

Political hypocrisy always makes me laugh. What's even better is when the mainstream media (MSM if you prefer) laughs with me. At a press conference today, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.)called for the House ethics committee to investigate Republican members of Congress with ties to Jack Abramoff. She repeatedly referred to them as "corrupt." But this time, despite all of Pelosi's attempts to spin this, Associated Press writer Jim Abrams called her on it.

See, there are two things that Pelosi never mentions. For one - and this doesn't make the article, sadly - scandalized lobbyist Abramoff has also given money to Harry Reid (as I wrote last week) and Hillary Clinton, among other Democrats. Secondly, as Abrams points out, both a letter from Pelosi to House Speaker Dennis Hastert and her aforementioned comments did not ask for an investigation of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.). Jefferson has been accused by a former aide of demanding bribes in exchange for promoting business opportunities in Africa. The court documents were filed...wait for it...wait for it...yesterday. Now why in the world would Pelosi be charging headlong at the GOP within a day? I wonder....

I never thought I would see a member of the AP completely own Pelosi, but Abrams objectively follows up this information with a killing quote.

Pelosi didn't comment on the Jefferson case, but stressed that "we have said all along that, Democrat or Republican, anyone who doesn't follow the rules or the law has to be held accountable. That's the difference between us."

I would fully agree with you, except I'm not so sure you agree with your own words. Ms. Pelosi, please, spare me.

And to Jim Abrams: Thank you.

News Script Update

2006-01-10T19:03:00.000-05:00

A quick bit of blog maintenance news is in order. The server that hosts my news tips submission script is down right now, so I can't access the tips that any of you have sent or will send to me. If you have any information for me, direct it to theunknownblogger@gmail.com until the domain is back online.

UPDATE (1/12/06): The server is back online. Feel free to use the news tip submitter as you like.

Changing The Elevator Music

2006-01-10T18:59:00.000-05:00

A new report from English researchers has basically concluded what I already suspected: Our generation no longer cares very much about its music. Not to say that we don't generally like it; obviously, that much isn't true, or you wouldn't hear everything from Dave Matthews Band to Kanye West blaring through dorm halls. The researchers concluded that the problem here is how impersonal music has become, partially due to the rise of downloading and MP3 players.

"The accessibility of music has meant that it is taken for granted and does not require a deep emotional commitment once associated with music appreciation," said music psychologist Adrian North on Tuesday. [...]They concluded that because of greater accessibility through mass media, music was nowadays seen more as a commodity that is produced, distributed and consumed like any other.

From the perspective of a media scholar (which I'm not, though some of my readers are, Dr. H), music is a commodity, and a very profitable one at that. But as the article mentioned, music used to be a communal experience unlike any other. When the thing about music that makes it so powerful - its ability to communicate beyond words - is diluted, it becomes a passive, casual experience.

Chances are, you have probably listened to music on your computer before. You've also most likely listened to it through headphones. I always felt that headphones could enrich the experience if used correctly, and that's because they allow you to hear every instrument and lyric in clear detail. At that level, you're communicating in a sense with the performers. In a group setting, you experience music with the people near you.

Here's why I don't own an iPod: It's too easy to use one as you walk places (particularly classes), and if I'm just hearing my own brand of elevator music without really listening, the music stops mattering. Music is a very intimate thing for me, and it would be tragic if I no longer had songs that reminded me of old flames or days gone by. Music should become a part of you, and to think that it never does for some people is truly sad. Besides, using iPods and such in public is kind of a barrier to interaction anyway. Have you ever noticed what a huge compliment it is when someone takes their earbuds out to talk to you? It means something because most people don't want to step out of their elevator music.

You know, if people don't really appreciate music anymore, maybe that's how 50 Cent went multi-platinum. Or maybe it's just what it is: A tragedy. Nothing more, nothing less.

The First Ever Link Attack

2006-01-06T15:45:00.000-05:00

Because I almost never post on weekends, I thought it might be a good change of pace if I started providing a small load of quick links on Fridays. Yes, that's right...for one day each week, I will make a post that looks strangely similar to InstaPundit's entire blog. Except, unlike Glenn Reynolds, I will do my best to weed out the chaff. [Buuurrrrn-Ed.]

With respect to dial-up users, I will try to keep the number of links fairly low. With that in mind, I give you the first, soon to be weekly...Link Attack!

-Ever wonder what happens to merchandise that gets printed up for a would-be sports champion? Volokh found out that the clothes get donated to children in poor countries. So even though some Haitian kid is about to get a free shirt, he'll still think USC won the Rose Bowl.

-The Washington Post reports that Men's Fitness magazine has named Baltimore, a land where crab cakes and beer flow like water, as the fittest city in America. Chicago, home of Da Bears and the deep-dish pizza, was ranked the fattest. Isn't it a push, really?

-Remember Rathergate.com? Its creators have now concocted Swannblog in an unabashed campaign to get Lynn Swann elected as governor of Pennsylvania. Sweet.

-Scientists say they might be able to create a hyperspace engine within five years. It's a big might because the design centers around a highly controversial physics theory, but imagine the possibilities if it works.

-While other senators continue to give back money donated to them by scandalized lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is keeping $30,500 of his money because he feels it's a "Republican scandal." Both sides of the aisle got money from Abramoff. What's wrong with this picture?

-Ana Marie Cox is handing control of Wonkette to David Lat, who became famous for blogging (as a woman!) about hot members of the judiciary, and to 20-year-old NYU dropout Alex Pareene. If this means Wonkette will actually be funny again, I'm all for it.

-The Sago mine tragedy was made all the worse when false reports circulated early that 12 miners survived. As William Stewart notes, the front pages of the next day's newspapers could not have been more cruelly ironic.

I Just Couldn't Help Myself

2006-01-06T01:13:00.000-05:00

As I was on my way to bed, I was scouring the Internet for links to be used for an as-yet unannounced addition to my blogging. Though I rarely link to satire, this fake headline from ScrappleFace got me laughing pretty hard. The article's good, but boy, this headline....

Stewart to Host Oscars, Rumsfeld to Give GOP Response

Two Sides Of A Similar Coin

2006-01-05T22:35:00.000-05:00

If you turned on the news at any point today, you already know that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has had a massive stroke. The reason I say "former" is because:

1.) I'm being realistic (sadly),

and 2.) Doctors have told reporters that Sharon is "unlikely to return" to his position.

While the power struggle begins to quietly play out in Israel's government, certain forces have no intention of sending the would-be Middle Eastern peace architect any get-well cards. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently made headlines and irked 99 percent of the free world by claiming the Holocaust was a "myth," stated that he hoped Sharon died. Another typically heartless statement from a radical who seems to be begging for war with every country in the United Nations, right? Absolutely. But an equally heartless, and possibly even more tasteless, statement has emerged from the lips of none other than America's own Pat Robertson.

The Christian broadcaster has stirred the pot in his own right by suggesting today that Sharon's stroke was a punishment from God for "dividing" Israel. Robertson is a favorite target of liberals (who hold him up as an example of the religious right) and of the press (who know his extreme remarks are newsworthy and can sell papers). But he often gets a free pass from conservatives. Some on the right really do agree with him, though I don't know any of them personally. Others tiptoe around him, as well as Jerry Falwell, because they would rather tolerate his views and stay allies with his sizeable base of supporters.

I'm not one to tiptoe.

I prefer to never, ever mix religious and political discussions unless I have to. So I'm not going to get into any differences in interpretation of the Bible or anything of the sort. But for anyone to imply that he has an absolute knowledge of God's current will - which Robertson did today and has done in the past - disgusts me and implies a form of elitism potentially more dangerous than anything Hollywood has ever had to say. He had to know that anything he said would get carried on wires all over the world, much to the disgrace of his country, yet he said it anyway. Now Israel's ambassador to the United States is outraged, rightfully comparing Robertson's remarks to something that Mahmoud A. of Iran probably wishes he had come up with first. I do not question Robertson's faith, and I am not judgmental enough to label him misguided. However, I have very little respect for a man who constantly gives his supporters a bad name just by representing them. I really do wish that mainstream conservatives were quicker to denounce this sort of thing, but until we value our own convictions more than what our friends and allies might think about them, the Pat Robertsons of the world will continue to speak loudly and often.

Last Year From The Rear View

2006-01-03T20:19:00.000-05:00

As I wind down from celebrating WVU's Sugar Bowl win over Georgia last night (Coach Rod, if you're listening, that fake punt was absolutely genius), I think it's time to take a look back at 2005. Most news sources would do a fairly bland overview covering the major stuff, but because I'm sure you've all seen those already, I'm going to put the emphasis on the things you may not have heard much about. Without further ado, here are my award winners.

Book of the Year

This choice will come as a surprise to many people, but I wanted to pick a non-fiction work that's having some influence. After all, picking Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince wouldn't seem fair, now would it? So this award goes to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America by Bernard Goldberg.

As many of you may remember, I asked people to recommend me some new reading last summer. Though all of those choices were very good, there was nothing I enjoyed more than 100 People. In the book, former CBS anchor Goldberg gives us a sometimes funny, sometimes scathing, and very sincere look into why each of these people made his list and where he thinks our culture is going wrong. The first half of the book is basically a collection of his analysis on everything from the kind of people he listed ("Hollywood Blowhards" and "America Bashers" among them) to controversial topics such as modern feminism and gangsta rap. With a voice ranging from biting sarcasm to righteous indignation, Goldberg then goes on to give us his list. Some of his picks are just funny, such as Courtney Love at #95, who gets a simple, one-word description: "Ho." Others, such as political hacks Kitty Kelley (a left-winger at #80) and Michael Savage (a right-winger at #61), deserve every bit of the biting commentary they get. The self-described "liberal the way liberals used to be" does turn his guns on the hard left more than most other liberals would be comfortable with; however, his quarrel is not with their politics, but with their methods. Even on the rare occasions when his writing feels strained, it still works out; he uses the dreaded "fake interview" tactic on Al Franken at #37, but it somehow holds weight because Franken's "responses" sound like they came right out of his own mouth.

One of the most remarkable things about this book is that, unlike Goldberg's previous two, it got quite a bit of mainstream media coverage. That's possibly because his earlier books, the bullseye-hitting Bias and its sequel Arrogance, went right after the MSM with style less befitting a mere disgruntled ex-employee and more befitting a well-armed whistleblower. Bias, in particular, is an essential bit of muckraking that I would recommend to anyone with even a passing interest in journalism. Those books might get even more readers now, because the humor and press afforded to 100 People have gained it a surprising audience: young teenagers!

Several of my younger friends, mostly between middle school and early high school, have been raving to me about this new book lately and how intriguing and funny it is. Most of them have no clue that I'm into politics at all, let alone that I have a blog; however, it's leaving such an impression on them that they're telling anyone who will listen about it. When a $25.95 book about politics and the media can gain younger readers in droves, that makes it a lock in my eyes for Book of the Year.

Link of the Year

You may have heard about a lot of big-time studies in the media lately, but unless you read Drudge regularly, I doubt you've heard anything about this one. A study conducted by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri economist Jeffrey Milyo shows that there is generally a liberal bias in the media. The study, which compared media outlets politically by using members of Congress as a reference point, was conducted by looking at everything from citation patterns to references to specific interest groups. Because the study managed to assign ADA scores to rank how liberal or conservative an outlet was - a tactic common in political science when applied to politicians - it is believed to be the first objective quantifying and ranking of media bias in history.

The study did not take editorial content into consideration, which led to an unlikely conclusion: When it is reduced strictly to its news content, The Wall Street Journal is actually the most liberal newspaper. (The next two in line are the more obvious New York Times and LA Times.) The most liberal television news source is CBS Evening News (cue shock), which is the second most liberal outlet overall.

Out of the 20 outlets tested, 18 scored left of the average American voter. The ADA scale, which ranks from 100 to 0 with 100 being the most liberal, scored the typical voter at 50.1 for the study. Only FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored lower than the 50 mark.

Two other conventional theories were bent a bit here. Drudge scored left of center, but only because the material linked by Drudge and "very little of" Matt Drudge's original reporting was taken into account. Also, NPR, which almost always gets flagged by conservative as an ultra-liberal outlet, had a score on par with the major newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News) and slightly right of The Washington Post.

So how can we get a perfectly balanced version of the news? Says Milyo, "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching FOX's Special Report as ABC's World News and NBC's Nightly News, then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news." If you prefer to read your news, however, consult your friendly neighborhood McPaper. That's right, what I've believed for a long time has held true: USA Today scored the most centrist of any newspaper tested.

Now why haven't you seen this on the news? Well, can you imagine having to admit on the air what your own media outlet scored?

Quote of the Year

One is a small chunk of an interview that explains a lot about Memogate. The other...well, you may remember it if you were with me months ago.

-Grand Prize

Brian Ross, reporter for Good Morning America: Do you still think that [the Bush National Guard memo] story was true?
Mary Mapes, producer of the Memogate segment: The story? Absolutely.
Ross: This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards.
Mapes: I'm perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there's proof that I haven't seen.
Ross: But isn't it the other way around? Don't you have to prove they're authentic?
Mapes: Well, I think that's what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet.
Ross: Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn't that really what journalists do?
Mapes: No, I don't think that's the standard.

-Taken from a segment aired November 9 on ABC. This extended quote was also the conservative Media Research Center's choice for Quote of the Year.

-Runner-up

Peter Arnett, in response to whether the media is liberally biased:
Oh, it was! But it's being well-balanced now.

-Excerpt from a presentation given by Arnett in West Virginia University's Clark Hall on February 17. Arnett is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former reporter for the AP, CNN, and MSNBC. He famously lost his job at MSNBC in 2003 for telling Iraqi TV that the first U.S. war plan had failed.

Frequently Asked, Finally Answered

2005-12-24T23:48:00.000-05:00

I thought it was about time for me to post some of my most frequently asked questions from readers. And so, on this night right before Santa can make his grand arrival, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'll probably link to this post in the sidebar for reference. This is all stuff that people have asked me in the past; should you want to ask me something else, contact me at theunknownblogger@gmail.com. I always check my letters and comments, and I read every last one of them.

So what are you waiting for? On to the questions:

What do you care about?

God, the truth, and the balanced pursuit of both. I never mix religion and politics unless I have to (it gets ugly), so I try to stick to a more official sense of truth when I blog. That means I aim to get to the heart of an issue, no matter how ugly the facts become.

What do you like about politics?

I love the intrigue of politics, and I love talking about political issues because it keeps the mind open and thinking. But contrary to popular belief, I hate politics. They should be viewed as a means to an end; they are a necessary evil that we must take part in to reach the best decision possible. Too many people on the left, the right, and in between view politics strictly as the end. This turns what should be a purposeful debate into the mindless taking of sides, much like kids fighting on a playground. If you're looking for a true partisan, find another blog. Crosstalk (two opponents attempting to talk over each other, as with political TV shows - Ed.) has no place here.

What exactly do you consider yourself politically?

A right-of-center Republican with a fierce independent streak.

Who are you?

Now, that would be too easy...All I can tell you is that I'm a journalism major at West Virginia University.

Why do you blog anonymously?

There's a few reasons, but the best that I can give is that I want my writing to stand separate from any reputation I might have outside of the blog. I don't want first-time readers who might know me from before to base their expectations on anything but my writing. I think not signing my real name makes you think a little more about what I talk about. This is also how I express the more logical side of my personality; if you were to talk to me in casual conversation, I would probably be the last person you would suspect to be the Unknown Blogger. I don't blog because I have nothing better to do; I blog because I literally have to express this part of myself.

And before you ask, I don't hide my identity because I'm scared of negative feedback. Trust me, when someone doesn't know that the person they're talking about is sitting right next to them, they tend to be brutally honest!

Will you ever reveal yourself?

I probably will eventually, but it would be quite a while from now. However, in the interest of my personal ethics, I will reveal myself immediately if I assume a major official position.

Why didn't you blog about (insert event here)?

I tend not to blog about major political events while they're happening because it's so hard to get unfiltered information about them. Case in point: The Valerie Plame scandal, which has been like Kryptonite to me. The bottom line is that I should not be the only news source you have anyway. Instead, I should be where you look for the news you may have missed. I try to blog about what isn't going by on the ticker tape.

Also, I get a lot of readers who ask why I don't touch on certain issues. A good example involves property rights laws, a very important discussion which unfortunately puts me to sleep. Just because I should care about something doesn't mean I will enough to blog about it. I look at every tip and every piece of information that gets sent to me, however, so keep sending feedback so I can see what matters to you. I often get persuaded to write about a topic if enough people are talking about it.

Why don't you blog more consistently?

Believe it or not, I do my best. I'm a very busy college student who can't afford to sit at my keyboard all day. I also love a little something called "fresh air," which is probably why I do my best blogging in the chilly winter months.

In the last months leading up to this post (September to December 2005), I had major obligations to attend to both as a writer and as a person. I have learned the best ways to handle them, and they should be a non-factor from this point on. If you want to check whether I've made a new post recently, I strongly suggest you subscribe to my RSS feed. If you use Firefox as your browser, just add me as a Live Bookmark. You should easily be able to tell when I've updated that way. I prefer to blog at least every other day, so check back often!

Will you link to my blog?

Sure. Just ask me.

The Scourge Of Braxton

2005-12-14T09:06:00.000-05:00

Somebody get ahold of Ry Rivard (DA columnist and semi-inactive blogger), because I've got some news for him: His home in Braxton County, WV, might be getting an unexpected visitor.

Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo has posted a photograph of a creature that might just rival Point Pleasant's Mothman. Captured by a motion-activated wildlife camera about a week ago near a home in Braxton, the "Braxton Beast" appears to be an animal of some sort in the Bigfoot mold. What makes this bizarre is that two other similar sightings happened previously; one in 1952, the other in 1960.

Before you ask, no, I don't give a lot of credit to Bigfoot and Loch Ness sightings. Leave the overblown conspiracy theories to the liberals, right? But my journalistic curiosity demands that I at least take a look. The link above has a picture (I think it's just a leaf, but see for yourself) as well as a ton of comments from readers discussing the whole thing. Check it out.

By the way, who knew that there were blogs dedicated to this kind of thing? You learn something new every day.

(Hat tip: BoingBoing.net)

Freedom Of Choice

2005-12-13T22:08:00.000-05:00

New drug acts as marijuana in the brain (UPI)

Now this is interesting stuff. According to a study at McGill University in Canada, a new drug called URB597 has an impressive anti-depressant effect. It works by raising the brain's levels of endocannabinoids. Translation: It's kind of like smoking up.

Lead investigator Dr. Gabriella Gotti was very much encouraged by the results.

The results were similar to the effect we might expect from the use of commonly prescribed antidepressants, which are effective on only around 30 percent of the population....Our discovery strengthens the case for URB597 as a safer, non-addictive, non-psychotropic alternative to cannabis for the treatment of pain and depression.

If she is implying that this is more effective than traditional anti-depressants, then this is big news for sure. What makes it even bigger news is that the study says it might be a safer alternative to medical marijuana. Somewhere, I can hear a NORML rep crying.

I've really never been a fan of the whole legalization movement anyway. I'm actually fairly liberal on private use; the way I see it, I have no more right to tell you what drugs to take than to tell you what to feed your kids for dinner. I may not agree with what you're doing, but it's your choice. That said, I've got some issues with people who want to smoke pot in public. Supporters argue that getting high is the same as getting drunk, but at least I don't have to get drunk just because I'm standing next to a beer drinker. Second-hand cigarette smoke is bad enough as it is. Do what you want with your body, but I'm keeping mine clean.

An Executive Decision

2005-12-13T16:15:00.000-05:00

Once again, I can't help being reminded of how much more socially liberal Europe is than we are. In the wake of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision not to commute the death sentence of convicted killer and Crips founder Stanley "Tookie" Williams, there was speculation of rioting in that state. But so far, it looks as though the strongest reaction has come from - of all places - Austria, Schwarzenegger's homeland.

In Austria, leaders of the opposition Green Party actually called for Gov. Schwarzenegger's citizenship to be revoked. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel rejected these demands as being "absurd," which is exactly what they were. Many have been talking up the fact that Williams showed a reformation by speaking out against gangs and the violence they create. He even wrote children's books on the subject. That's all fine and good, and I commend him for having turned himself around to that extent.

But what often gets ignored here is a very simple truth: Williams (I almost called him Tookie just now, but that name makes me chuckle for some reason) never apologized for the deaths of four people during armed robberies in 1979. That was the crime he was convicted of, but he professed his innocence until the unfortunate end. Commuting his sentence would have given him life without parole, but if he were so proud as to refuse to confess, then what precedent would it have set to spare him? The proof showed that he killed those people, or he never would have been convicted in the first place. And even though Jamie Foxx and other celebrities were calling for him to be given clemency, the families of his victims were calling for his execution. Call it catharsis, but if he had just admitted his wrongdoings, I doubt the victims' families would have been as eager to see him dead as they were.

Anyway, Schwarzenegger's opinion was very similar to mine: "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption." But notice when you read the article that every viewpoint except the governor's comes down on the side of clemency. What, you mean to tell me they couldn't have found at least one other counterpoint source in the name of journalism? Or was it unimportant to the AP writer, who sounds as though she's in mourning?

There's no way it should have been hard to find someone who agreed with what the "Governator" did. Heck, they could have asked me.

Consumer Inconfidence

2005-12-06T18:30:00.000-05:00

Since Viacom is splitting into two companies (Viacom and CBS), the two corporations just began trading on the stock market today. The new, MTV-owning Viacom rose 5.8 percent from its initial price. But oddly enough, CBS Corp.'s stock fell 11 percent from its starting price.

I wonder why people wouldn't want to buy CBS? I mean honestly, who wouldn't want a piece of that fine, reputable organization with a history of quality journalism?

*snicker*

A Long Time Coming

2005-11-15T18:54:00.000-05:00

Something supremely cool is about to happen. Tomorrow, a new media website called Open Source Media (OSM for short) will launch. Normally when you say "media website," there's a temptation to zone out for a second. (There's a reason why only journalists and bloggers read Editor and Publisher - Ed.) No worries here: This site is going to attempt to blend standard journalism with blog commentary. In other words, what I currently have to go to about 14 different websites to see can now be found in one. Nice.

Roger L. Simon (whose blog isn't in the Blogroll, but always very good) and Charles Johnson co-founded the venture, and although both are conservatives, OSM will feature bloggers from every part of the political spectrum. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, The Nation editor David Corn, and roughly 70 other Web journalists have agreed to participate. OSM itself will link to blog postings, carry news feeds from the wires, and form blog-like discussion panels on major news events.

Given that the top bloggers are some of the best commentators out there, I have a really good feeling about how this will turn out. A few years from now, we may view tomorrow as a turning point for journalism. At the moment, only the most interested readers browse more than a couple of blogs per day; there just isn't enough time for most of us to read more than that. Also, some of the less Internet-savvy users still haven't caught on to blogs. And if you use a 56K modem, you're most likely thanking your god of choice right now, because many large blogs (especially Instapundit) rely too heavily on links for casual readers with slow connections. I've always tried to keep gratuitous links out of my blog as much as possible for that reason.

I'll put a link to Open Source Media in my template permanently as soon as it launches. I'm not sure exactly what URL they'll use, but I just tried www.opensourcemedia.com and got an administrator page. So I guess that would be as good a guess as any.

UPDATE (11/16/05): The website just launched at 10:00 this morning! But it's not at the .com I noted above (although I'm now kind of curious as to what the previous address could be). Point your browser directly to www.osm.org. It's somewhat sparse at the moment, but I like where it's heading.

ANOTHER UPDATE (11/17/05): According to OSM, opensourcemedia.com is owned by them, but they aren't using that because they "do not consider Open Source Media to be [a] protectable name by anyone...which is why it's not our name." So apparently, even though OSM stands for Open Source Media, the name itself has no significance beyond three letters. Riiiight. This is why I really hate copyright laws sometimes.

Sincerity Would Be Appreciated

2005-11-13T23:22:00.000-05:00

As you may remember from this past August, I blogged about attempts by the West Virginia state government to curb the costs of the Promise Scholarship. The merit-based scholarship, which pays full tuition to any public college, is projected to cost nearly $42 million a year by Fall 2008. The level of Promise scholars, however, will likely stay near 9,000. At the time of my posting, I urged the state government not to go back on the Promise by capping the award or changing its requirements. Sadly, they have taken the first perilous step off the cliff.

According to the Charleston Daily Mail, the PROMISE Scholarship Board voted 9-4 on Wednesday to recommend the legislature put a cap on the award amount. This is exactly what former state Senator Lloyd Jackson (who wrote the bill that created the scholarship) advised against. Another alternative that has been bandied about is raising ACT/SAT score requirements, but Sen. John Unger (D-Berkeley Co.) believes that would be unfair to lower-income students.

"There's this idea that because you're low income, or because you come from a low-income family, that you can't meet higher educational standards...And I think that's a false statement. You can't tell kids that." (Source: Daily Mail)

Wow. Who would have guessed that this would devolve into some kind of a class-based argument? All the time, I hear people (usually Democrats, but not always) complain about how unfair standardized tests are to minorities and the poor. If you really want to increase the requirements, which I personally don't see the sense in doing, then why don't you just raise the GPA bar by 0.1? I've never heard anyone complain that requesting higher grades would be unfair to these people. The controversy around the real fairness of the ACTs and SATs won't be going away any time soon, but I have yet to see an even mildly effective argument be made against asking for better grades. If I absolutely had to put a revision on Promise, that is what I would do.

That said, I cannot see why in the world Promise needs any adjusting. As I mentioned in my first post, Promise is funded by the state video lottery, which was a billion-dollar industry last year. Why is this not getting press?!? Some are trying to say that costs will rise as tuition goes up, but I say that gambling revenues will increase right along with it as new "grey machines" are installed and as venues like the Charles Town Races get bigger.

Most in-state college students like myself might not care about this very much, as most agree that these changes should take effect with the next class of high school freshmen. Problem: This will still affect the state in the long run. WVU is finally starting to get recognition for its academics over its party atmosphere, and it's largely thanks to the influx of those ever-studious Promise scholars. Unger said he would also like to see Promise graduates have to "pay back" their earnings by working in-state, but this plan ignores the other benefits that the Promise has produced on the actual campuses. Here's a concept: WVU is getting so much favorable recognition that out-of-state residents are starting to flock here. Should they settle down in this area after college, that would be a huge boost to our economic growth. More state residents=more taxpayers=more money. Even for a tax relief-loving Republican like myself, that's a very simple equation.

I've made my point nicely, but since this is an issue that gets me fired up, I'm now going to skip pleasantries and go right for the throat. With all due respect to you Sen. Unger, if you or any of your colleagues - Dems, Repubs, or otherwise - go through with capping the Promise, I will vote you out of office. Before you protest that I can't, Sen. Unger, not only do I live in your district, but I also vote in it. Should Gov. Joe Manchin approve such a cap, I will do the same for him. To that end, I will actively campaign for the removal of all offending parties both on this blog and off. Trust me, I am not alone in this.

This is not a partisan issue. I believe that a cap on this award will be hurtful to our great state in the long run. As a voter, I will act in the interest of the state and of its people. As for our legislators, who would represent the desire of the public, I suggest you do the same.

Liberal Would Be An Understatement

2005-10-18T14:48:00.000-05:00

I thought about just editing my previous post, but this deserves a new (albeit quick) entry of its own. As I noted earlier, Steve Nicholas is going to run for the WV House of Delegates. William Stewart went a step further and found the platform that Nicholas will be running on. Among his causes of choice: the end of the PATRIOT Act, the abolition of the electoral college, the end of the Iraq war, ending "the doctrine of pre-emption," and the removal of the Star Wars missile defense program.

First of all, if he clears the primary, I will honestly be shocked. He would have trouble getting elected pretty much anywhere except New England, and even there, he would have no guarantees. The man is just too liberal for public consumption in most parts of the country, especially West Virginia. He's also fairly young (mid-20s), and he suffers from what I'll refer to as Dukakis Syndrome. In other words, he's very short for a political candidate. Height and age won't be as important in a state government election as it would be at the national level, but it will still make a difference.

Another thing: Why is it that every hardcore liberal wants to see the electoral college abolished? The biggest problem with this idea is that the way candidates campaign caters entirely to the system we have in place. Going to a popular vote-based system would completely change how they get their voters. I think you would see less attention being paid to individual states and much more focusing on national TV spots and ads. Here's a question to think about: Since there would no longer be battleground states, would candidates start competing for airtime on cable channels (such as MTV) that draw certain demographics? And for that matter, who gets commercials during Desperate Housewives? Just something to think about.

Can Byrd Be Flipped?

2005-10-13T23:30:00.000-05:00

Much as I said a month before the official announcement, Sen. Robert C. Byrd will run for a record ninth term in 2006. What I didn't get to tell you was the final decision of Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. It's old news, but still worth reporting. Capito will not challenge Byrd for his seat, which is a shame because she was the only real competition he had. So do we go ahead and pencil the King of Pork's name in for his seat, or will a worthy opponent step forward?

From what I've seen so far, the competition doesn't look too promising. The biggest potential adversary is former WVU basketball coach Gale Catlett, but he left under the cloud of an NCAA investigation and (to the best of my knowledge) has no prior political experience. He would literally be running on his popularity and espoused viewpoints, which is not encouraging because his popularity took a hit when he left and his viewpoints are unknown. The GOP is high on him, but I think it's because he's better than some of the other potential candidates.

Hiram Lewis is going to run, and although he has experience, he's nothing special. However, one guy I've heard a lot about, George Johnson, doesn't have a prayer. His website emphasizes his stance on property rights, but word is he wants to see the Constitution (and therefore the entire law) reset to its original format. Yes, that would include the removal of judicial review and the return to a gold economy. He's actually saying this stuff. I don't know if he'd like to see every amendment after the 10th removed too, but I'm sure that would make for a fun debate question. Fun like a train wreck, but fun.

So what will Capito do now? Obviously, she'll try to hold on to her seat in the House, which I figure she will win easily. Whispers are creeping around that she could be a contender for the 2008 presidential bid, but barring some kind of political miracle to boost her over Giuliani, McCain, George Allen, and a hypothetical Condi, that's not going to happen.

But aside from Capito and Byrd's non-contests, at least one of the state's elections could be a real trip. Remember Steve Nicholas, former VP of WVU Young Democrats and a DA writer so ideological that I didn't even bother to dissect his columns? He's going to run for the state House of Delegates in 2006. God help us all. I'd like to think that the conservative Dems that make up the party base in West Virginia wouldn't go near this guy, but stranger things have happened.

A Very Special Announcement

2005-10-12T23:50:00.000-05:00

I would like to take a second to thank those of you who have been reading. October 1st marked the first anniversary of the blog's creation. At the time, I was blogging into a void and promoting myself like crazy in hopes that it would catch on. (Let me tell you what, it's hard to promote yourself when you can't tell anyone who you are!) Over 5,000 hits and 120 posts later, this ship is still on course and ready to navigate through the turbulent waters of tomorrow. I have some administrative fixes coming to the Blogroll and CBA, and thanks to new and improved blogging techniques, I will finally be posting with some kind of regularity. Grades come first, so I'll try to let you know when I run into an exam week.

Part of why my posts have been lagging lately was a serious flaw in how I organized my browser's bookmarks. I was concerned that friends of mine would notice if I left the administrative stuff out in the open within my Internet browser. To hide it all, I made a folder, labeled it "Homework", and put my most important blogging links in there. A month later, I looked at the folder and was shocked to discover that I was subconsciously considering this to really be homework. I hate doing homework. So I wasn't touching the folder. I promptly renamed it with something that sounded more fun, and now I'm back with one of the most hilarious excuses for not blogging in the history of blogs. Good stuff.

Dusting Off The Cobwebs

2005-10-12T22:33:00.000-05:00

After recovering from a severe case of blogstipation and placing my hand into a lot of different projects, I'm drawn back today by the incredible amount of controversy generated by the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Many strong conservatives have expressed outrage at President Bush's pick, particularly because of fears that she will be too liberal. This near-contagious fear of getting another David Souter (the stealth liberal that Bush Sr. nominated and got confirmed) has some on the Right, particularly religious conservatives, absolutely terrified. Democrats are mostly witholding judgment, although I can't imagine them not opposing something that Bush is trying to do out of principle alone. The issue came to the forefront in yesterday's issue of the DA, where College Republicans president Jason Gray and Young Democrats president LJ Ulrich both weighed in with opinion columns on the subject.

(Two quick notes before I go any further. First of all, kudos to the DA for attempting to finally balance the editorial page out. It's now much more representative of the campus as a whole, and except for The Musket, it remains the main venue for political thought at WVU. The other note is for Ulrich, who I don't think has any idea what a neoconservative really is. He used the term throughout his column to describe what he perceives as radical conservatives, but that's not exactly what a neocon is. Loosely speaking, neoconservatives are often converted liberals with a hawkish stance on national security. Some, however, consider Jewish conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz to be the rightful owners of the title. It was originally coined as a slightly derogatory term, but the word has adopted multiple meanings. I can understand how Ulrich would use it to attack opponents, because it is often used as a negative descriptor by liberal commentators; however, people who call themselves neocons do not share the liberal usage of the term, so that use is disputed. For more on this, check this National Review article and this Wikipedia entry. Also stop by the Wikipedia article's talk page; you'll learn a lot about objectivity while finding out just how much people mess around with this word.)

When talking about Miers, Ulrich and Gray both seemed to be against her confirmation. Ulrich's opposition is about as surprising as the sunrise, but Gray got me thinking about the reasons why a large chunk of the conservative base is against her. I'm beginning to suspect that many conservatives have become so impassioned about their causes - especially religious conservatives - that they want judges who will act decisively to accomplish certain goals, namely the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Guess what? That's called "judicial activism," and it's the embodiment of everything that a true conservative stands against. We need to spend more time looking for constructionists who will uphold the US Constitution. If Roe v. Wade isn't constitutional, then it needs to die; if it is, it needs to survive. I know many on the Right are passionately pro-life, but passions for any issue should not hold sway upon the bench. That's one of the reasons why I like John Roberts so much; he decides with the law in mind first, which is how it should be. We are not electing Congressmen to represent our views. We are pushing for fair-minded judges, and we need to leave it at that.

That said, I think the White House could have done a much better job of promoting this choice. When Bush replied to skepticism with a simple "trust me", it was hard for me to believe it. I'm a pretty big fan of W, but you can only put so much blind faith in somebody. I have a feeling he knows what he's picking better than we do, but the least he could have done was given us some more details about her. The fact is, she's almost unproven. She appears to be very pro-life (and worries about her past donations to Dems have been tempered by her subsequent conversion to the Republican party), but that bears nothing on how she would handle the Constitution. Objections to her have nothing to do with what Laura Bush called "sexism"; that's a loaded word that usually gets used by upset liberals and should never have left her mouth. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one on the Right would have been upset to see Janice Rogers Brown, a lady who I have great respect for, nominated instead. I have a feeling that Miers was the best option left for Bush after others in the running (possibly including Brown) opted not to be considered because of how vitriolic the scrutiny was becoming. She could be a slightly more conservative answer to Ruth Bader Ginsburg; then again, she could be the Left's worst nightmare. With as little as we know right now, we'll just have to wait and see. Rebelling against Bush's choice too quickly will play directly into the Democrats' hands.

Some Things Don't Need An Announcement

2005-09-01T21:25:00.000-05:00

Here's the state news of the moment: According to William Stewart (a blogger and also the Executive Assistant to state Senate Minority Leader Vic Sprouse), Sen. Robert C. Byrd will run again in 2006. It was pretty obvious already; when attack ads were taken out against him in the Charleston/Huntington area, his people ran television ads of their own supporting him in response. You don't use the money that takes for defending your character, and especially not if you don't intend to run in the next election. Byrd will make it official at 11:00 a.m. on September 7th, at the beginning of the Special Session, where plenty of his allies will be supporting him.

Now the question becomes this: Will Rep. Shelley Moore Capito throw her hat into the ring? Other Republicans already want to contest Byrd's seat, but Capito is considered to be the absolute best bet. Byrd normally wins landslide victories at the polls; however, surveys are indicating a statistical dead heat in a theoretical Byrd/Capito race. If Capito decides to go for it, you'll hear about it here first. Or at least, as close to first as my sources allow.

After The Flood

2005-08-31T17:50:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration decided to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to help Gulf Coast oil refiners who are struggling with shipment losses. The timing couldn't be much better; the economy would be in much worse shape without some form of relief for the oil industry, and while I'd like to see gas prices fall a bit more, this is better than nothing. (It doesn't help that us West Virginians have to deal with an additional gas tax, but that's another issue altogether.) The tapping is a loan, meaning that the companies will be required to give an equal amount back to the government later

One thing that will probably get environmentalists in an uproar is that the EPA is going to temporarily lower diesel fuel sulfur restrictions and gasoline evaporation rules nationwide. Also, the agency will temporarily allow the sale of higher-polluting gasoline in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana because the hurricane states can't fulfill the Clean Air Act and still provide consumers fuel. Personally, I figure that this can't hurt too much in the short run and will likely help stabilize the gas situation. Considering that there isn't any electricity to get the refineries up and running in some locations right now, every little bit helps.

Also, it looks like one reason Bush hasn't tapped more oil is that the world is willing to do the work for him. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah pledged to boost output to 11 million barrels (from 9.5 million, insert pointless Michael Moore conspiracy theory here), and European nations are considering releasing their own stockpiles to help the markets.

But of course, the whole AP article underscores the gravity of the devastation in New Orleans. Towards the end of the story, a rather eerie quote from Bush to his advisors pops up in reference to the city:

It's totally wiped out.

I haven't had much time to watch live TV coverage of this, but what I have seen and heard is unreal. For more information on Hurricane Katrina, these are the best three places I've seen online for coverage: Drudge, Fox News, and the Washington Post. Fox and the Post both have links that will help you to help those in need.

The Singing Of The President

2005-08-30T12:13:00.000-05:00

`Monica` the musical ready to go

Yes, they're doing a musical about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And yes, former American Idol contestant Frenchie Davis will play White House secretary Betty Currie. It's going to be a satire, but I can't help wondering about the songs: how many words can rhyme with "perjury"?

Don't Go Back On The PROMISE

2005-08-30T12:00:00.000-05:00

According to recent reports and editorial discussions from around the state, West Virginia's government is considering ways to revamp the PROMISE scholarship. For those of you who don't know what that is, the PROMISE (the word itself is an acronym for a trite statement of its mission-Ed.) was designed to keep West Virginian students in-state for college in hopes that they would stay and become part of the state's workforce. It pays full tuition to any public college in the state (or partial to any private college) for 8 semesters. Currently, the state government is trying to decide what (if anything) to change about the scholarship. A report from the AP states that PROMISE Director Lisa DeFrank-Cole expects funding costs for the scholarship to reach $39 million this year, rising to $42 million by 2008. In the same article, PROMISE Scholarship Board member Frank Calabrese is quoted as saying, "The Legislature will not watch this go from $40 million to $60 million to $100 million. They won't do it."

Hold the phone and stop the presses, because I've got a reality check coming in: There is no need to "fix" the PROMISE. After all, nothing is broken.

Why do I say that? Well, the PROMISE has only been around for four years. In other words, this is the first year that it is paying out to seniors and freshmen alike. The only way that the costs will increase beyond this point is if the number of scholars increases drastically (which is not projected to happen) or if tuition increases. A word of advice to colleges across the state: If you're going to raise tuition, it would be best to make the raise more drastic for out-of-state students. PROMISE has had some real benefit for academics in this state. I personally believe that it has helped curb WVU's party school image and raise its academic standards; a lot of the better in-state students used to pass on WVU because it was so expensive in comparison to other schools, and the hardest-partying out-of-staters used to come here because of its infamous status. Thanks to PROMISE, I can go to WVU for the same money as (if not less than) Shepherd University, which doesn't offer journalism but used to be the only feasible option for Eastern Panhandle residents.

Some people reportedly believe that capping the scholarship's payout at $3,000 would be a good idea, but WVU's tuition is about $4,200, so that would be ineffective. Still others want to see lesser awards for students whose families make $100,000 a year or more, which basically turns the PROMISE into a need-based scholarship and totally defeats its original purpose. Why would you not want to see higher-income students - who most likely have been given more resources for future success - stay in West Virginia? Besides, scholarships aren't exactly free; you really don't want to know what I had to pay in taxes on them last year.

As for what Frank Calabrese said, it'll be a very long time (if ever) before this scholarship starts costing $100 million, especially when you think about the hard economics of the situation. I know his quote sounds all dramatic and serious, but I hope the state media stops quoting him, because it's a radical exaggeration of the truth. Even if it were that costly, we shouldn't have any trouble affording it. PROMISE is funded by the state video lottery, which was a billion-dollar industry this past year. The state's net profit from all lottery games was $563 million, a 10 percent increase over 2004-05. If the state can't find the funding to keep PROMISE running, then someone needs to look into where exactly that money is going.

The current percentage of West Virginians age 25 and older with a college degree is 16.3. That's a full 8 points lower than the national average of 24.7. If you value the future of this state and of its students, then you have a PROMISE to keep.

Off The List, On The List

2005-08-23T00:27:00.000-05:00

Despite burning couches, overturned cars, and general chaos in the streets after a basketball game last March, West Virginia University has successfully fallen out of the top 10 party schools. The Princeton Review now ranks my school at #14, which is definitely a good thing because it isn't a major black mark on a WVU degree the way Top 5 status was.

On a side note, the ranking for marijuana use ("Reefer Madness") shows us at #19, one place higher than last year. After feeling like I could taste the air during a smoke-filled Cypress Hill concert from a few hours ago, I know why. The beer use ranking has fallen to #16 (surprising), and hard liquor is down at #19. But the real surprise is how well our library (#19, Best College Library) and the DA (#10, Best College Newspaper) did.

This doesn't mean the DA has room to rest on its laurels; the ranking is based on how popular the paper is, not how good it is. The paper has improved thanks in part to a changing of the guard and sharper writing as of recently, however, so I must give credit where it's due. It's just that the Princeton Review apparently never asked any students what they thought of their school newspapers, which seems odd. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Anyway, congrats to the DA; the only "fix" I'll push for at this moment (emphasis on "this moment") is something on your front page acknowledging your new Top 10 ranking!

Guess Who's Back?

2005-08-21T10:59:00.000-05:00

After an unplanned month-long hiatus, yours truly is back on the blogging job and raring to go! My sabbatical can be attributed to two things. One of them is my aforementioned schedule, which got ridiculous right as I was preparing to do a full write-up on the Miller/Cooper story. I haven’t even had time to research it, and the piece was much too ambitious for me to blog with my home’s dial-up connection (the second excuse). The posts you saw in spurts during July took at least two hours apiece; one of the most link-intensive posts took most of my day to make! I have never had to take a break from working on a post before, but I did that time. It was ridiculous, and from now on, if I’m going to a dial-up situation, I will most likely take a short break from blogging. I just can’t do what needs to be done for this otherwise.

Anyhow, full-fledged posting starts anew late Monday. I have new news-gathering techniques that should speed things up a lot on my end, so even though WVU will keep me a little busier this year, I can make do. Keep checking back…I have a lot of site changes to make and even more to talk about.

By the way, the Clarksburg Exponent-Telegram should have had an article about West Virginia bloggers in it today. If anyone sees it, let me know; I was one of the bloggers that was interviewed for the story!

The Press Meets The Press

2005-07-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

I've been intending on blogging about the recent controversy involving two journalists held in contempt, Karl Rove, Robert Novak, and the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name for sometime now. Currently, I'm still compiling all the facts and details involved (and I'm also rather busy with personal stuff), but I still want everyone to know about something related to the whole debacle. Tomorrow morning, Tim Russert will interview Time reporter Matthew Cooper on NBC's Meet The Press. I've been a big fan of Russert's work for a long time, as he may be the most unbiased TV journalist I've ever seen. He never shies away from the tough questions no matter who he asks them of. Other guests include RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, and famed journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. A full rundown on tomorrow's show can be found here. The show can be seen from 9-10 a.m. EST in all markets except Washington D.C. and New York City, where it is broadcast from 10:30-11:30 a.m. EST.

And I know this sounds like a commercial, but nobody from NBC asked me to tell you all that.

Reality Check

2005-07-12T22:58:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about a longer post today, but John Hawkins of Right Wing News wrote an article on the misconceptions involving the Iraq war so thorough that little extra commentary is needed. Called "Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq," it takes apart everything from the idea that President Bush lied about WMD to the concept that the Downing Street Memo means anything particularly dire. Although the link is to a conservative site (which is probably going in the BlogRoll after reading this gem), take a look at this no matter your politics while keeping an open mind, as all of its arguments are well-supported. I honestly don't think I can make any of the points within the piece as well as Hawkins already did, so I suggest you check it out even if you're on dial-up.

Analysis Of A Media Blackout

2005-07-11T21:58:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I was curious to see whether Ed Klein's The Truth About Hillary was a.) the truth and b.) worth reading. I walked down to my local Waldenbooks, pulled a copy off the shelf, and skimmed through it. Noticing the myriad unnamed sources and loaded language, I immediately flipped to the bibliography only to find that many of his cited "sources" were other gossipy anti-Hillary books. So much for a good read. Several other bloggers like myself are staying far away from the book. As said by RedState.org writer Leon H, "I think it's telling that the right-leaning blogosphere is the most radical element of our party, and by an overwhelming majority, even we are shouting this book down."

Although the book is a loss, the MSM coverage of it is interesting. And by "interesting," I mean "nonexistent." The only thing more interesting is that Klein is getting shut out of the networks, yet his book is still in the top 5 on the Times bestseller list thanks to Drudge and several other Internet sources. This wouldn't be a big deal if Kitty Kelley (author of election-time anti-Bush hatchet job The Family) hadn't received so much coverage in comparison back in the fall. According to the Howard Kurtz-authored article linked above, Kelley was granted a three-part interview on NBC's morning news program Today, despite the fact that some of her own sources disputed the book's allegations. Kelley also got a favorable book review in the New York Times and front page coverage to boot, whereas the Times published a sidebar column in the book section on Sunday denouncing Klein's book as "easily this year's most vilified" by critics. Oddly enough, the Times have not yet published a review of their own (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it would be like).

This is one of the things I most dislike about bias: the double standard is applied with impunity and is obvious to almost everyone except those applying it. If Kitty Kelley gets an interview, then Ed Klein deserves one too. Also, if Kelley was ignored by a program, then Klein should also be ignored. Bill O'Reilly refused to have him on The O'Reilly Factor because he didn't invite Kelley on previously, and Joe Scarborough retracted his invitation for Klein to appear on Scarborough Country because he thought The Truth was trash. The two of them did the right thing in this case. Problem is, many others didn't do the right thing back in the fall. As Scarborough put it:

After learning the stories were inflammatory, the sources were weak, and the book's relevance was less than zero, I canceled the booking. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. But being the contrarian I am, I just wonder: If other networks aren't allowing Mr. Klein on, then why did they allow Kitty Kelley [who wrote a book on the Bush family] during the presidential election? Just curious.

The reason why they let Kelley on and not Klein is the double standard at its worst.

One other note: There has been some discussion about Hillary suing Klein for libel. I doubt that'll happen, and here's why. The ultimate defense against libel is, of course, truth. While I don't buy The Truth as being nothing but the truth, if a libel suit came up, the truths and the lies would get separated very quickly. Even if a small grain of fact exists among all of the hearsay within Klein's book, it would likely be exposed by any legal action. That exposure would hurt Hillary much worse than a book that is mostly being bought by people who already didn't like her in the first place. Unless the entire book is a load of crap (possible, but a million rumors often hold at least one truth), don't expect to see the Clinton camp do much about this in the courts.

The Meaning Of Selfish

2005-07-10T22:30:00.000-05:00

Conservative commentator Robert Novak wrote an article two days ago that is packed literally to the brim with political intrigue and touches on multiple subjects. The meat of the commentary centers around the 2008 presidential campaign (John McCain is "70% probable" to run) and the Supreme Court, where conservative Appellate Judge Edith Jones is considered a prime appointee in part because her gender would cripple the feminist lobby's influence on her confirmation. The most shocking information within the piece, however, involves Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and one really, really expensive birthday party.

According to Novak:

[Rangel] has written to lobbyists who represent corporate interests before the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, where he is the ranking Democrat, asking for contributions from $1,000 to $10,000 "to underwrite" his 75th birthday party. (Emphasis added - Ed.)

Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark will both speak at the event. If the amount requested is any indication, then U2 will be on hand to entertain the guests while Rangel chats up multiple Playboy Playmates and sips Cristal. Oh, wait...Charles Rangel isn't Hugh Hefner? I couldn't tell for a moment.

To put it simply, this is nuts. Rangel represents Harlem in Congress; in fact, he's done so for 18 terms. He doesn't need any cash for his re-election campaign because he's running unopposed. Although he does give other Democratic candidates cash via his National Leadership PAC, I doubt this money is going to serve any purpose aside from making sure Rangel is the most happening grandpa in Congress on his birthday. With all due respect, Rep. Rangel, one of the main tenets of your job is to represent the people. Don't blow the fruits of corporate generosity strictly on yourself.

And while you're at it, give Mr. Hefner back his red silk pajamas.

Feeding My Inner Bookworm

2005-06-24T21:19:00.000-05:00

If you can't tell from how much fact-checking I do and how many blogs I read, I've always been an avid reader. Unfortunately, I have a little problem: I've finished nearly all of the books on my "list". I'm starved for fresh books of the political, journalistic, and fictional varieties, which is why I'm about to do something a bit unusual for me. I'm going to ask you, my readers, to recommend a book for me to read. It doesn't have to be anything on the current bestseller lists; as long as you enjoyed it, I'll check it out. (In the case of fiction, I've read many of the classics, so please don't pick those.) Post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of a worthy book.

Also, I've been trying to figure out whether Ed Klein's highly controversial The Truth About Hillary will be an overblown hit piece on Clinton or a well-written book worthy of my time. Klein is not a conservative by any definition of the word and has excellent journalistic credentials, but some of his research looks questionable, and he also told the National Review Online that he didn't vote for Bill back in the day. Is he capable of being objective towards this? For that matter, was he objective towards this? I'm interested in reading out of curiosity, but I'd rather not spend $25 of my hard-earned cash on garbage. If any of you have read the book, I'd love to hear what you thought of it. For that matter, if you can find hard evidence that the contents are based in truth or in fiction, tell me about that too. I've been following Hillary's actions pretty closely lately, and I'd like to know whether or not The Truth is a piece in the larger puzzle.

One More Sign Of The Apocalypse

2005-06-22T00:22:00.000-05:00

You guys are not going to believe this. I just checked the hit counter and learned something distressing. Apparently, someone found my post about Deep Throat's true identity by typing a certain query into a search engine. What were his/her search terms, you ask? Prepare yourself. This person typed the following words without quotes: "extreme rough deep throat movies". Wow. That's all I can say about that. Wow.

In other news, I have just lost some of my faith in humanity.

Open Season On Capitol Hill

2005-06-21T23:21:00.000-05:00

I've been on the verge of going nuts lately. Just as I find a nutty quote from some high-level politico to blog about, another one pops up and smacks me in the face. I was going to take apart some of the really ridiculous ones, but this article from the Washington Post proves any efforts on my part to do so pointless by summarizing the craziest quotes from recent weeks.

So what do I think? Personally, I can't help agreeing somewhat with Tom DeLay and, to a less extreme extent, Rep. John Hostettler, when they say that Democrats keep attacking Christians. While the Democratic Party doesn't seem to outright hate the faithful, some members seem to like whipping them as if knocking a Christian down will somehow elevate acceptance of other religions. I'm not cutting on people of any spirituality when I say that; the point is, it feels as though some Democrats, the ACLU, and their allies think suppressing some Christian privileges will grant more liberties to non-Christians. That's obviously counter-productive. How can you build tolerance without being tolerant yourself? But don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those Republicans who's against separation of church and state; it's part of the Constitution, and I know how I would feel if I were an atheist in the middle of a school prayer. However, too many activists confuse "separation of church and state" with "separation of church". There's something about that thought process that just isn't right.

The rest of the rhetoric in the article gets more and more absurd. This is open season on Capitol Hill, and the ideologues are in their tree stands waiting for a prime buck to target. Take a look at it for yourself to see the token Hitler comparisons and other such drivel. I would blog about this stuff every time it went public, but keeping pace with a Washington summer is nearly impossible. Unless, of course, you're Glenn Reynolds.

The Source Is Revealed

2005-06-07T10:50:00.000-05:00

After waiting with a nagging question in the back of our minds for the last 30-odd years (alright, maybe less time in my case), we finally know the identity of the famed Watergate source "Deep Throat". His name is W. Mark Felt, and he was second in command at the FBI when Watergate broke. That's right, Deep Throat was NOT Pat Buchanan or Diane Sawyer. Personally, I think it would have been much funnier if it had been one of them, but Felt's secret makes a lot of sense considering the politics between government agencies.

You may wonder why I haven't done more coverage and commentary on Deep Throat's outing. To put it bluntly, half the world beat me to it. That's alright with me in this case; you couldn't spit last week without hitting an article about Felt, and the people talking about it were doing much more adept commentary than I could have provided. If you're still hurting for info about and reactions to the unmasking of the man who Richard Nixon referred to as "The Source", then I offer one of the more comprehensive overviews I've seen as blogged by - who else? - Dr. H. (The Deep Throat stuff is mostly in his June 1 & 2 posts. I don't think his posts have individual permalinks, so you'll have to do some scrolling.)

But then again, it wouldn't be a post signed by me without some fresh perspectives. Make sure you take a look at this Power Line post about older commentary on Deep Throat. Pay especially close attention to the context of this devastating quote from David Maizenberg:

The best journalists understand most acutely that they are being played; most journalists, however, think that they are players.

Indeed. Also, not to overly reference one blog, but it happens that Power Line had some excellent commentary of their own.

One of the more provocative questions to come from all of this has been, is Deep Throat a hero? There are apparently some people who don't think so; I was scrounging the Internet looking for info about Felt when I found a non-scientific poll at FOXNews.com. It was for Greta Van Susteren's show "On the Record", and the question was roughly, "What is your opinion of Deep Throat?" When I looked at it, a clear majority (over 50%) answered choice B: "He is a disgrace to the FBI." Felt didn't have such a high opinion of his own actions either; he reportedly was guilt-ridden for years and told his son that leaking information was the worst thing you could ever do. I personally think there's no clear answer here. Mark Felt does not fit my mental description of a hero; after all, his information wasn't the only thing that discredited Nixon, even though it did have a large part. Some might say he betrayed his agency, but if you knew that this kind of corruption was going on, wouldn't you be compelled to let somebody know? He had previously met Bob Woodward and was somewhat friendly with him, so The Washington Post was the perfect publication to talk to. Would you rather be a disgrace to your employer or allow the disgraceful to be covered up? I really believe that Felt did the right thing, even if the hero shoe doesn't quite fit.

By the way, I can't believe anyone wondered if Felt would be charged with a crime. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked if he would be brought to trial; as you might imagine, he responded that the Bush Administration had more pressing matters to attend to than Deep Throat. Who would be crazy enough to prosecute him at this point, even if he wasn't an ailing 91-year-old man?

Also, Felt's family said just recently that money was part of the reason they came forward before his death. That much is obvious, but I'm sure he wanted to finally be rid of his secret burden after all these years. Something also tells me that a tiny part of him wanted to see how people would react. I think he desperately wanted the validation of others and to believe that he was right to leak the information. Some may not agree that he did the right thing, but if anyone close to Felt is reading this:

I think he did.

June's Dumb Quote

2005-06-01T15:52:00.000-05:00

Taken from a Moviehole.net interview:

I think that there's a lot of wonderful possibilities [for stem cell research] erupting. I mean, if they could eliminate diseases like Alzheimer's and polio that would be incredible. ~Scarlett Johansson

While I agree that stem cell research has the potential for enormous good, I don't think you can cure polio twice.

Somebody Had A Good Week

2005-05-27T15:49:00.000-05:00

Sen. Hillary Clinton has had a very good week indeed. The climb peaked yesterday when a new Gallup poll showed for the first time that a majority of Americans were likely to vote for her if she runs for president in 2008. She has as much strong support to run as the current Bush had in 1998 (more than Al Gore had at that point), but she has stronger opposition than Bush did back then. Surprisingly, 33% of conservatives would likely vote for Hillary according to the poll.

The curious thing about this survey is that more than 70% of Americans said they would likely vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. Part of that figure may be inaccurate; this is the kind of answer that would be considered "socially acceptable" to a participant, and if the question was asked before any involving Hillary specifically (which would seem logical), anyone answering "no" might see the lead-in and want to make a point. That said, is Hillary garnering support because of her credentials or because she's a woman? We no longer live in the American Dark Ages (pre-suffrage), and I think a lot of people want to see a woman in the Oval Office (possibly with a First Gentleman by her side). The upcoming television series "Commander-in-Chief", which features a female president, does not seem to have been made to force Hillary on people; instead, I expect the show was created knowing that the very idea is captivating for viewers. There is something symbolic about a woman as the leader of the free world in that it shows how far we've come. But what personal beliefs will we sacrifice to install that symbol? Are the 33% of conservatives supporting her doing so because they like her politics or because they like what she represents? To get a quote, I excerpt from the story:

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

It amazes me how some in politics gloss over the most obvious reasons for things. I really don't think this is about problem-solving and being a moderate, and to say that every woman out there fits this bill is ridiculous. The one woman that I believe best fits that profile would be Laura Bush, and I put the chances of her wanting to be president right alongside the chances of a Mack truck falling from the sky and landing in my backyard.

To top off Hillary's week, her former 2000 Senate campaign finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted of making false statements to the FEC. Although she was not charged, the fallout could have been disastrous for Hillary's political future. Many more turbulent storms are surely brewing for her as the opportunity to run for another Senate term draws near. Who shall weather them: a politician, or a symbol?

The Bubble Effect

2005-05-24T22:13:00.000-05:00

Write it down: in a confirmation of what many already knew, a national survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (best known for creating FactCheck.org) shows that journalists and the public hold radically different views on the media. Some of the most notable results show that the average non-journalist puts less trust in the accuracy of journalism than the journalists themselves. Surprise, surprise. 48% of the public said news organizations were "often inaccurate," but just 11% of journalists agreed with them. To make matters worse for the journalism establishment, the survey was concluded on May 2; in other words, this was how the public felt before Newsweek published the now infamous Qu'ran-defacing story. I would be morbidly fascinated to see what they think now.

One bizarre difference between the media and the people is that the people do not seem to have a strong belief in freedom of the press. When asked if the government "has the right to limit the right of the press to report a story," 44% of journalists said "never," 48% of them said "rarely," and 9% said "sometimes." In the public, however, 29% said "never," 17% said "rarely," 37% said "sometimes," and 14% said "always." Oddly, conservative citizens surveyed were even more strict, with 21% saying "never" and 15% saying "rarely." Conservative journalists were slightly less lenient than the journalist community at large; 32% said "never" and 52% said "rarely." More on those conservative journalists later...let's just say they're a rare breed.

For the record, "rarely" is the correct answer in the United States due to prior restraint, which allows the government to stop a report from being published. The Supreme Court has ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional except in extreme cases, specifically if a report would endanger national security. To date, prior restraint has not been successfully utilized against the press, in part because the Supreme Court disagrees with it so much that the justices would rather not enact it. (For more information on prior restraint, take a look at this website.)

If your head hasn't pitched forward and smashed your keyboard by now, my applause is due. If you slogged through the numbers and legalese to get to the really fun stuff, fear not, because I've got some incredible stats coming up. It's time for the political question: how do the American people stack up to the American journalists politically? Here's a breakdown.

Among the general public:

24% said they were liberal.
33% said they were moderate.
38% said they were conservative.

Among the journalists:

31% said they were liberal.
49% said they were moderate.
9% said they were conservative.

If you don't believe me, go check the numbers yourself. Do not adjust your monitor; you do not need glasses, your vision is fine. The survey really shows that only about 1 in 10 journalists claim to be conservative. Keep in mind that some of the "moderates" may be liberals experiencing a "bubble effect," which makes things look even more lopsided. (A rough translation of the bubble effect: it's heck on your politics when you work with like-minded people who reinforce your beliefs every single day.) This survey is child's play; when you get to Washington correspondents, most of the moderates get absorbed into the liberals. I've seen results of other surveys that claimed over 70% of the correspondents in D.C. were liberal.

I understand that journalists try to be impartial, but when the figures get this stilted, there needs to be a serious examination. Even this conservative knows that there is no singular bias in the media; just pick up a Washington Times or a Wall Street Journal if you want proof that conservative bias can and does exist. But the most dominant bias by far is of a liberal bent, and it is shared by far more publications than the WaTimes or WSJ could ever compensate for. This bias is completely unintentional (to be intentional violates journalistic ethics); the problem is, too many sharp journalists and their editors are hesitant to turn a critical eye on themselves. The growing creep of opinion into news has had a disturbing effect on the public too; 43% of the normal people surveyed thought it would be good "if some news organizations [had] a decidedly political point of view in their coverage of the news." Believe it or not, 16% of journalists agreed with them. That is truly alarming. The journalism I prefer is impartial, and while it may be impossible to attain a truly moderate outlook in the media, every move closer is an improvement. A great journalist must turn his attentions outwards on the job and inwards off of it. Only through self-criticism can we finally step out of the bubble.

(To see the full statistics and margins of error, consult the linked article.)

Star Wars: Was It Worth the Wait?

2005-05-23T16:55:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: I have attempted to keep this review short on spoilers. There are some minor ones, but you'll be warned when they appear.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months, you know that the sixth and final installment of the Star Wars movies is now in theaters. You also know that Episode III: Revenge of the Sith shattered multiple box-office records this weekend. But if you haven't seen it, it's probably because you're afraid it's going to be subpar like The Phantom Menace. Maybe you even fear it will be merely passable as Attack of the Clones was. That's understandable, which is why I've written this review. Before I opine, let me give you some background as to why I should even care to do so.

Since I was about 9, I've been a huge Star Wars fan. Did I read the books? Yes. Did I play the video games? Oh yeah. Did I have the toys? Absolutely. Heck, I even dressed up as Darth Vader for Halloween...two years in a row. My fandom became much less obvious as I grew older, partially out of necessity; as I recall, my interest in girls and my interest in the Force had an inverse relationship. But I never stopped loving the movies. I've seen the original trilogy upwards of 7 times and was so desperate to make The Phantom Menace a good movie that I've seen it at least 4 times. Short of going to see a Star Wars film dressed as a Stormtrooper, I'm as hardcore a fan as you'll find.

So now the part you've been wondering about...is the movie good? Quite simply, yes. A review in the New York Times called it the best of the four movies that George Lucas directed (which includes A New Hope). There are a few minor gripes - for example, I still don't know when C-3PO got the golden paint job that appears in this and in the original trilogy - but most of the actual storyline ties up loose ends and brings everything full-circle in an epic manner. The CGI effects are far more convincing here than in the last two movies, and Jar Jar Binks is mercifully relegated to a wordless close-up near the end. Sadly, the Gungan does not take a lightsaber to the head at any point. Anyway, I concur with the Times (that may never happen again - Ed.), but I emphasize a small caveat: Sith is still not superior to The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi.

One of the things that made the original movies so great was the chemistry between the cast members, which felt more forced during A New Hope. Chemistry is spotty at times in Sith, but when it's good, it's very good. Hayden Christensen is a better actor here than he was in the last movie, but he still isn't as believable as he should be with Natalie Portman. (Possible spoilers ahead!) Despite her many other acting flaws, Portman's freak-out over Anakin towards the end of the film is heartbreaking and adds emotional realism to the movie. Christensen, on the other hand, seems more at home with Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) than he is with any other character. It is during their scenes together that they do their best acting, particularly when Palpatine is attempting to bring a conflicted Anakin to the dark side. (Spoilers over) Frank Oz, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson turn in other noteworthy performances.

As for the editing, the pacing in this movie may be the best of the six. Just when things start to slow down a bit at various points, we get thrown into another battle sequence without it feeling forced. This is the one area where Sith overpowers Empire and Jedi. Every scene serves a purpose, so pay close attention or you'll miss key portions. The other two movies would slow down for a time in an effort to build toward the good stuff; Sith just keeps charging ahead even when it's drawing you farther into the storyline. I can honestly say this to be one of the only epics I've watched that never lets up. And if you think things are happening fast in the beginning, just wait until the last hour.

So what about the politics? Much ado has been made about how Revenge of the Sith draws some unusual parallels to the current world situation. In fact, some reviewers have been saying that the movie makes a sneaky comparison between the Sith and the Bush administration. Lucas fanned the political flames by waxing philosophically to reporters about perceived similarities at the Cannes Film Festival, which is where the premiere was held. (Viewers at Cannes supposedly drew a quick comparison between one of Anakin's lines - "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" - and a Bush quote used in last year's Fahrenheit 9/11.)

Now that I've seen the film, I can tell you with confidence: this is BS. You will only draw parallels between the movie and current politics if you come in wishing to do so. You know, if you really do think President Bush is the Dark Lord of the Sith, then it doesn't take Revenge of the Sith to convince you of that. This does not bode well for the media's movie critics, who seem all too willing to join Bush and evil together as one. There are three key points in the film that have been heavily politicized; if you don't wish to hear some minor spoilers from the movie, skip down to the next full (non-numbered) paragraph.

1.) During one of the more engaging action sequences, Obi-Wan loses his lightsaber and has to use a blaster rifle on his opponent. After blasting that character into oblivion, Obi-Wan looks at the rifle and says to himself, "So uncivilized." AP movie writer Christy Lemire (famous for panning James Bond flicks due to their perceived chauvinism) observed that as proof that this was Lucas' "anti-war movie". In reality, this shows her ignorance of the source material; Jedi consider the use of any weapon besides a lightsaber to be crude and unnecessary.

2.) When Palpatine creates the Galactic Empire, Padme remarks, "This is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Reviewers have been interpreting this as a dig on everything from the PATRIOT Act to the last election, but it seems more like a timeless political lesson. Remember: Hitler was absolutely loved and fanatically supported by the Germans for a long time, due in part to his speaking ability and incredible charisma. Also remember that Bush is no Hitler, although some on the far left want to convince you otherwise.

3.) Before Anakin and Obi-Wan have their climactic duel, Anakin makes the previously mentioned remark that flipped out Cannes attendees. Obi-Wan retorts, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." The strongest argument for a political undercurrent can be made here, but if you don't know about the perceived connection, you simply see Anakin's point of view at its clearest. By this point in the movie, he no longer trusts anyone except Darth Sidious. (And I do mean anyone; I don't wish to elaborate, but Anakin becomes murderously confused during this scene.)

You might be wondering why George Lucas would be willing to make the political parallels for reporters if the movie was not really political. There's an easy answer to that question: controversy is the best PR. Even if he does see a comparison, other comments to reporters indicate that he didn't originally design the movie to criticize Bush.

Verdict: The acting is mostly better than before, the politics are not anything like major media outlets have made them out to be, the kid stuff is at a minimum, and even this hardcore fan was pleased. I don't even need to tell you that John Williams' orchestral score is excellent, although it feels unusually inspired for this final Star Wars episode. Say what you will about George Lucas, but he sure does know how to make entertaining movies. My best advice is that you go in with low expectations. Do not expect a future Oscar winner. Do not expect the next Citizen Kane. Do not expect the dawn of a new era in film-making. Just expect to be entertained. You will be entertained. If you watch the same movie I watched, you'll have a blast.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)

Summertime News

2005-05-20T09:29:00.000-05:00

Summer is almost here, and I'm celebrating at home in Martinsburg. This does NOT mean that I won't be posting; I took a short break to deal with some personal matters and to do some serious maintenance on my house, but I am resuming my blogging.

You may notice a change in my blogging style over the next month. Because I won't always have time to do longer posts (and also because there's a lot of news that comes to my attention during summertime), expect to see posts that are not nearly as long in terms of length. There will still be some full-length writing, but I figure that you'd rather see a short post than no post at all!

I am also on a dial-up connection now, but that should only be a minor setback. If I need to, I'll start blogging in Word and transfer the text to Blogger. Dial-up has a way of disconnecting when you least expect it....

Breaking Through the Silence

2005-05-09T22:51:00.000-05:00

(This column was originally published in the May 2005 issue of the conservative student newspaper The Musket. This piece was designed knowing that many of its readers would not know about this blog, which is why it keeps a more general focus than a typical post.)

Our voices are rarely heard these days.

This is not because we are not speaking; the problem is that our speech is falling in line with the status quo. Those who follow the leaders remain unheard because you can’t pick out their voices; at the same time, those who really do have something to say are often silenced. The ideologues can speak for years and never once give us anything of value. When the opportunity for debate presents itself, these people just speak louder and force the rest into silence.

The next time you pick up a newspaper, ask yourself whether it is promoting free thought or promoting the thoughts of its staff. I like to say that some news “pops” (ends on a good note) and some news “thuds” (ends on a sour or snide note). Dan Rather made a career out of thud-filled reporting, and many current op-ed writers such as Frank Rich of the New York Times employ a similar style. I’m not saying that conservatives don’t do their fair share of this, but liberals seem to have the market cornered on pessimism lately. The flood of it may never stop coming; recent surveys of the press and its political affiliations suggest that as many as 80 percent of journalists consider themselves to be liberal. Journalists like to believe that they can check their bias at the door, but actually doing so is nearly impossible.

The only solution to this problem is encouraging the views of the common individual to be heard. Enter the new face of the media: the bloggers. Often independent citizen journalists, bloggers provide a whole new forum for political discussion and news reporting that is free from outside controls. The mainstream media is largely scared to death of bloggers, who take it upon themselves to do all the fact-checking and scrutinizing that the press rarely remembers to do. Remember last year’s upheaval over Memogate, in which CBS used fake National Guard documents to question President Bush’s service record? If not for the bloggers who examined the memos, nobody would have known the truth. I value two things more than almost anything, and they are free thinking and the truth. Both can be dangerous when possessed by a sharp mind.

At this point, you may be wondering who I am. That answer is all too simple for me to give: I am a voice with a purpose. I have my own political opinions, but I believe that having them challenged is the only way to think freely and learn. You cannot know more about me than what I write, and I think that this benefits us both. The blog I run deals with everything from politics to current events, with the occasional diversion towards something comical. Even though I am a moderate Republican, I always attempt to give my readers both sides of a story, which often leads to a change in my opinions after the fact. Whenever someone leaves a negative comment on my blog, I take a bizarre pleasure in it; after all, adding your own two cents to anything means that you’re thinking. I never tell anyone what to think, but I always tell you to keep thinking. Whether you come down on the left, the right, or somewhere else entirely, I encourage you to do so as an exercise of your free will. If you have convictions and the nerve to discuss them with others, there will come a day when the ideologues cannot overtake you. Only then will you truly be a leading voice, and at that moment, the world will stand waiting to listen.

Crunch Time

2005-04-28T14:08:00.000-05:00

Once again, I would like to apologize for how sporadic my blogging has been during this month. Regular posting will not resume until May 9, which is the Monday after the semester ends at WVU. I'm in the middle of crunch time leading into Finals Week, but I'll make it up to all of you by doing some serious posting over the summer. Bad news over, here comes the good stuff....

As many of you who have been to WVU know, there is another publication besides the DA that doesn't come out nearly as often. It's called The Musket, and a new issue of it releases this Monday. Monday is the last day that any papers will be published on campus this semester, so if you're nearby, make sure to pick one up. Why am I asking you to grab a Musket? Well, I wrote an opinion column for it! I can't tell you much about it right now, except that I'm credited as The Unknown Blogger. Grab The Musket on Monday if you can. I'll post the op-ed a few days after the fact so that my off-campus and foreign readers can read it.

UPDATE (5/3/05): The Musket is out today! Grab one now; they're wherever the DA normally would be.

Capito v. Byrd?

2005-04-17T23:30:00.000-05:00

Many apologies about the general lack of blogging around here. I've had a load of classwork recently, and the shortage of information on the Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) situation hasn't been very encouraging. There isn't much to tell, but here's the gist of the developing story. As you probably know if you live in West Virginia, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is rumored to be considering a run at Byrd's seat. Byrd is extremely influential and the oldest member of the Senate to boot, and many Republicans think his downfall could lead to an elephant renaissance in this Democrat-controlled state. Capito will likely have a very difficult fight ahead if she takes on Byrd, but because of his age, speculation holds that he may not have enough stamina to run a close race. As I hinted at two weeks ago (thanks to a lead), Capito finally spoke on the matter Friday...only to say that she was keeping her options open for a few months. Dig your heels in now, because we could be tracking this story for quite some time.

UPDATE: Take a look at this article from Sunday's Huntington (WV) Herald-Dispatch. Even though Byrd has not yet announced definitely that he will run, he's raising incredible amounts of cash. Also, a poll taken by the National Republican Senatorial Committee shows the following results in a hypothetical match-up between the two: Byrd 52%, Capito 42%, with 8% undecided. The good news for Byrd is that the NRSC poll is partisan (likely biased against him) and still giving him a majority; the bad news, however, is that his majority isn't larger (unusual for a Senator of his tenure). If Sen. Byrd runs again and Rep. Capito takes him on, this could become one of the biggest campaigns of 2006.

Sounds Like Hunting Season

2005-04-17T23:29:00.000-05:00

Ted Nugent to fellow NRAers: Get hardcore (USA Today)

I have a much better headline that (in the interest of impartiality) could not have been used by USA Today: "Nugent Sends Left Into Seizures." The Nuge was really full of them, but this is by far his most priceless quote.

Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em! To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em.

Somewhere, an anti-gun politician is twitching. I, on the other hand, am just laughing. Shooting carjackers might be pushing it, but what do you expect from the Motor City Madman?

Why Can't They Understand?

2005-04-11T21:51:00.000-05:00

This has been one heck of a news day. Drudge has an exclusive report about a Hillary Clinton biography that "a source close to [author Edward] Kline" claims "will sink her candidacy." The title is The Truth About Hillary, and the book is currently in the middle of a publisher war. Even though the piece has all the makings of a scandal, the strange part is that liberal and Kennedy enthusiast Klein is the author. Is this a cheap ploy to make a quick buck? Will Klein play the role of the objective journalist and report the (possibly shocking) truth to the best of his ability? Or does this somehow tie in to an effort to get another politico in the running for President? I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

If this is a case of backstabbing, even if it wasn't Klein's intention, it wouldn't surprise me. Right now, some of the Dems' internal and external rhetoric is getting unusually ugly, possibly due to a pressure to reverse 1994's GOP takeover and paint Congress blue in 2006. John Edwards told New York Magazine, “I think talking about a front-runner [Hillary] four years before an election is ridiculous,” and he is obviously gearing up to make another run of his own. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak wrote an editorial today that claims op-ed page staffer Tobin Hershaw of the New York Times was forcibly pushing efforts to find Republicans who would give negative opinions of Tom DeLay. And last (but certainly not least), new DNC chairman Howard Dean is looking for a solid platform, trying to shift to the middle, and finally unraveling his own efforts by tactlessly implying that Democrats are better Christians than Republicans.

Why doesn't the Left get it? You may recall that I identify best with the Republican Party because of their general optimism, but it's also because they aren't nearly as prone to vitriolic strife. When it looks like the Dems just want to insult the Right or shout them into oblivion, it's a major turn-off to me and to a lot of other voters. Moving farther to the center is only half the battle for them to succeed; if they really want to reclaim power, they need to talk more about the good they wish to do in this country. I respect you guys (although I rarely agree with you), and if you want to find new converts, it would help if you treat us with respect, as opposed to thinking we're all just like Jerry Falwell. You also need to anoint a main candidate ASAP, without inter-party bickering and whining. Build bridges inside your castle first and build the drawbridge second; you'll be much more pleased with the results.

More Stuff That's Kind Of Important

2005-04-05T22:10:00.000-05:00

First of all, I know that today was an unusual spurt of blogging for me. I've had an extremely busy college life since I came back from Spring Break, and given the choice between an "A" in a course and a post on my blog, I'll make the grade long before the post. Bear with me, as the period between now and May doesn't look much better.

Something kind of major: Although I won't delete the post from my site, I'm going to create a separate link section for CBA bloggers. I've started to realize how annoying it is to load a special post when I want to see your blogs, and I know it's probably worse for you, so I'll add them in manually on the link page and modify the post to reflect the change. Also, spiders aren't reading my outgoing links to CBA bloggers correctly, so my adding them to the main page might improve your Google Page Rank, among other things.

As for the long-awaited discussion of a challenge to Robert Byrd: I've heard rumors that a major announcement involving the 2006 West Virginia Senate campaign will come by the end of the week. Although I don't know how credible said rumors are, stay on the lookout. I will most likely talk at length about this tomorrow or Thursday.

A Pope At Peace

2005-04-05T21:56:00.001-05:00

As you probably know already, Pope John Paul II died this weekend at the age of 84. His funeral is scheduled for Friday. Both George Bushes and Bill Clinton are expected to attend, although the Vatican reportedly snubbed Jimmy Carter's request to come. No word yet on whether Hillary Clinton will join her husband. President Bush will become the first president to attend a pope's funeral while still in office.

Many Catholics and non-Catholics are grieving for the Pope, but personally, I rejoiced. Don't get me wrong, I did NOT want the Pope dead; however, from a religious standpoint, I feel that he is finally where he belongs. Even from a secular perspective, the Pope lived about as full a life as anyone could ever hope to live; not only was he a very active head of his church (so much so that he is already being called "the Pope of Popes"), but he was also notable for his humanitarian work and probably had a hand in the decline of Communism. This man lived a very long, very beautiful, and very devout life. May he rest in peace.

It Happens To The Best Of Us

2005-04-05T21:56:00.000-05:00

Drudge is reporting that ABC anchorman Peter Jennings has been diagnosed with lung cancer. In an internal e-mail sent to ABC News staff, Jennings told his colleagues, "I begin chemo-therapy next week. I will continue to do the broadcast. There will be good days and bad, which means that some days I may be cranky and some days really cranky!" Charles Gibson and Elizabeth Vargas are expected to be among the substitute anchors.

Out of all of the Big Three anchormen -- Brokaw (now Williams), Jennings, and Rather -- Peter Jennings was always the one I most enjoyed watching. Even before I knew of Dan Rather's failings, I thought he had a condescending tone when he spoke that made CBS broadcasts impossibly depressing. I've never cared much for Tom Brokaw, either, although it was amusing to watch him call states for Bush last election while looking like he just ate extremely sour prunes. For me, Jennings was the only one of the three who always seemed to treat his viewers and guests as equals without forcing his politics down anyone's throat. In fact, I've always found Peter Jennings to be easier to watch than almost any anchorman on television. That includes Bill O'Reilly, who is informative and enjoyable to a point but builds too much of his program around attacking guests that he doesn't agree with. Whether it's all an act or not, Jennings just seems friendly on the air, and it helps ABC News go down smoothly. I don't like to see bad fortune happen upon anyone, and I wish Peter Jennings a speedy recovery.

No Surprises Here

2005-03-30T00:10:00.000-05:00

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

I don't often run quick links anymore, but I couldn't resist this one. According to a new study, 72 percent of those teaching at US colleges and universities describe themselves as liberal, whereas only 15 percent call themselves conservative. The party divide is almost as profound, with 50 percent identifying themselves as Democrats and a mere 11 percent considering themselves Republicans. (I presume that the other 39 percent involved are either independents or something else.) What's also fascinating is that no educational field yielded more conservatives or Republicans than liberals or Democrats. Aside from those figures, there are three main things I find unusually curious about the report:

1.) The report was funded by the Randolph Foundation. Although the Howard Kurtz-authored WaPo article cites some of the organizations that the group donates to, Political Friendster shows that they donate to a religious conservative think tank called the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD's website claims that their president, Diane Knippers, was named one of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in the February 7 issue of TIME. Oddly, the IRD was not mentioned in Kurtz's article, although he did say that they have "given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform." The Randolph Foundation funded the poll and did not actually conduct it, however, so I believe they expected the results that we're seeing here. Not that the results were unexpected, because trust me, they weren't. I saw a highly similar study back in December that said practically the same thing, but it didn't get the press that this one is getting.

2.) One of the most left-leaning departments cited in the report is political science; at least 80 percent of their faculty consider themselves liberals as opposed to 5 percent or less conservatives. That honestly concerns me. English is one thing, and I guess it goes without saying that philosophy has similar numbers, but political science should be able to show the benefits and facts about both sides of the aisle. The study did not attempt to see if the professors were letting their views affect their course content, but I still find it highly disconcerting. (From my own perspective, the most I've really seen of liberal course content is the highly PC use of "B.C.E." and "C.E." in place of the year descriptors "B.C." and "A.D.". That has always bothered me, although I've only had a lone humanities professor use the politically-correct "Before the Common Era" instead of the traditional "Before Christ". For the record, he is one of my favorite professors on the campus; he is a strong liberal, although he does a good job of keeping politics out of the classes I've had with him.)

3.) The last major survey of college faculty was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984. In that study, only 39 percent called themselves liberals. I did a little math, and this means that between 1984 and 2005, the number of self-described liberals in higher education has jumped by 84.6 percent. Why the shift? That question is something I think you should ask for yourself, as I don't have the answer to it.

I talk often about the need for discourse so that we can get out of our political "bubbles". This is one of the reasons why I am such a hardliner about bias and balance in the media. George Mason University political science professor Robert Lichter, a co-author of the study, had some intriguing things to tell the Washington Post. Without editing, this is the last paragraph of Kurtz's report:

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

My Campus Is Burning And Everyone's Watching

2005-03-25T13:45:00.000-05:00

As my classmates at WVU probably know, our basketball team's win over Texas Tech last night resulted in the celebratory setting of about 50 fires in Morgantown, leading to four arrests and a vow to ramp up security for Saturday's Louisville game. What you may not have realized is the amount of press coverage (obviously not good coverage) that we're getting from this. Of course the Dominion Post is reporting the story, but get a load of this one: our students made the Drudge Report. No, I'm not kidding. His headline reads "MARCH MADNESS: West Virginia University Students Set More Than 50 Fires To Celebrate Victory." The link itself leads to a Florida news station.

If you still don't think it's big news, Canadian sports website Slam! Sports has a portion of the original report. That's right, Canada is talking about it. We're also mentioned on Canada.com. Disturbing. Pittsburgh and Charleston have articles all through their papers as well, some of which try hard to downplay the gravity of the situation. Thankfully, no serious injuries have been reported.

I fully understand the cause for celebration, and I'm not trying to sound like a doting grandmother, but I'm asking my fellow students to try to keep the after-party reasonable if we win on Saturday. You may not think it's a big deal, but when the AP and other large news services are waiting with bated breath to see if Morgantown will burn to the ground after big games, it's a big deal. The national media already has some images of students in the streets (some of which can be found in these links), and I'm sure more will be released. Even if you don't care about your own reputations, you could be jeopardizing the reputations, careers, and even lives of your friends. The university officials may not like putting it that way, but I don't have any qualms about being blunt.

The Debate is Established

2005-03-23T22:38:00.000-05:00

I had thought that my post on how to fix the DA would draw some controversy but blow over relatively quickly. At the most, I figured that someone from the paper would read it and get the point without taking it too personally. Enter a comment posted by opinion editor Matt Roberson. I will add in my response between passages, but otherwise, his words are unedited.

The daily athenaeum opinion page publishes the work of a list of columnists who were interviewed, suffered a trial period and are now full-time columnists. They were hired based on technical and literary proficiency; no one was turned away based on political bent, hometown, sexual preference, body odor, clothing style, height, weight, intelligence or beliefs.

Good...that means you're an equal opportunity employer. I never questioned or doubted that in the least.

If readers find the page one-sided then they should apply to be writers.

No kidding. That's why Step 1 is so crucial. The more you advertise for new writers, the greater your variety of choices between them. More variety = more diversity.

At this point, Roberson starts getting a little more colorful.

I have to pick from what I get; I don't have the luxury of holding a position open on my staff on the improbable chance a libertarian pulls his head out of ayn rand's ass and applies, or a green party member stops lamenting the death of Nader's campaign and wants to write, or even a heavily conservative or liberal stops bitching about fox or cnn and wants to write. If the page is one-sided, it's because the current writers who decided to apply all have a moderate stance on issues (with the exceptions of Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Wade). I don't go out and screen young dems for jobs.

You may have to pick from what you can get, but as I already said, you should have more to choose from. Step 1 can help alleviate that problem. Also, think about what you just said. "If the page is one-sided, it's because the current writers who decided to apply all have a moderate stance on issues." Here's the definition of the noun "moderate" as found on Dictionary.com:

One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

A truly moderate position mixes both sides of an issue. The page cannot be one-sided if the current writers are moderates; it is logically impossible. By your theory, the exceptions to this rule are the Democratic columnist Steve Nicholas and the seemingly Republican columnist Charlie Wade. Wait...I think you forgot LJ Ulrich. Step 2 does not need to be utilized to the (D) and (R) tagging extreme to work; if Nicholas and Ulrich (and for that matter, any College Reps or Young Dems officers in the future) are designated with their political titles, then readers stand to gain from knowing for reasons that I have already stated in previous posts. And I know you didn't go looking for Young Dems, but that doesn't mean they didn't come looking for you. Why do you honestly think that they chose to write for the DA over the Dominion Post? I don't know and don't care about how much columnists are paid by the two papers; the fact is, conservatives are staying away from the DA and were even before Ulrich became a staff columnist. That is a problem, and you need to seriously consider why it exists.

As a side-note, I myself am an atheist, a free market advocate and find nothing redemptive in any major political party currently in existence. I don't have a single person on my staff who shares these particular views.

That's good (no sarcasm intended). Why don't you write editorials of your own more often? I know you're the editor of the Opinion page and probably a busy man, but I can't remember the last time I saw a column with your name attached. If you want to help provide new viewpoints, then you can start by showcasing your own. I'm honestly not attempting to be sarcastic when I say that; adding your thoughts would be good for the paper and the student body whether specific people (including myself) agree with you or not. Balance is necessary, if not always agreeable.

This is the final paragraph.

Your blog isn't too bad. (Thank you - Ed.) If you came out of your little shell and could bear the god-awful, heavy, unbearable, horrendous, foul pressure of having your work published with your face and name next to it, then maybe you could consider applying to be a columnist.

You know, that's not really a very nice way to go about trying to recruit me. I have already said that my anonymity is not due to some weird fear of being known; why else would I have an impulse to unmask myself every now and then? If I were known, this venue for intelligent debate and fresh viewpoints from myself, yourself, and everyone else would not be nearly as compelling or as open. Let me ask you this: if you knew who I was, would you have been so quick to respond to my words? The fact is that you could sit next to me in class every day without knowing that I blog. You already know that I am right-of-center, but you know little else about me. For all you know, you are debating with someone you have never met. I think it makes you and anyone else who reads this more able to challenge your mind and think freely. More than anything I can think of, free thought is powerful in and of itself.

There's also nothing saying that I would have to reveal myself if I joined the paper. I would not publish anything here about the DA if I was working for it, and as a matter of fact, this will probably be the last post I make about the paper for a good while. A discourse about the DA exists now, and discourse almost always brings positive change. My suggestions on what the paper can do better have been expressed: more advertising for new staffers, disclosure of titles, and as much original reporting as possible. The ball is now in your court, for I have said what I wanted to say.

Life, Death, and Politics

2005-03-22T18:47:00.000-05:00

The case of Terri Schiavo has been the source of massive media coverage over the last few days. For those of you not familiar with the controversy, Schiavo is a severely brain-damaged woman from Florida who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Her brain damage was reportedly the result of a bulimia-influenced potassium imbalance that caused a heart attack, which stopped her breathing for several minutes before she could be revived. She can breathe independently, but she cannot feed herself and relies on a feeding tube to survive. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, claims that she had told him that she would never want to be kept alive with life support tubes; however, her parents believe that she can still make a recovery and function normally again. Her feeding tube has been removed twice in the past and had to be ordered replaced via legal action. It was removed a third time on Friday, leading the Senate to pass a bill gauranteeing Terri Schiavo due process of law as per the 14th Amendment. A Florida judge subsequently refused to order the tube reinserted, and as Schiavo enters her fifth day without food or water, the decision is being appealed by her parents. Doctors say that patients can survive for one to two weeks after the feeding tube is removed, but judging from what I've been reading from the AP, that's a nice way of saying "7-10 days".

The case for letting Terri Schiavo die is an intriguing one. Michael Schiavo said she told her best friend, "No tubes for me," while watching a show of some sort involving a person on life support. He says he's just trying to carry out her wishes. Doctors have also claimed that Terri Schiavo has no hope of recovery from her persistent vegetative state because her brain is so badly damaged. Michael Schiavo's brother recently said that anyone who thinks she is capable of communicating at this point "needs a mental health examination," possibly alluding to what he thinks of her parents. In short, assisted suicide and right-to-die advocates believe that letting Schiavo die would be a merciful act, and Michael Schiavo seems to think she would want it that way.

On the other hand, the case for replacing Schiavo's tube is equally provocative, if not more so. Michael Schiavo apparently filed for divorce at some point (I believe it was after her near-death, but I may be wrong). Although those papers have not been signed, he has a potential motive for wanting her dead: he has children with another woman that he cannot wed with Terri Schiavo still in the picture. Also, Terri Schiavo has no living will (she was 25 when she had her heart attack) and has never written anything saying that she would not want life support. Her parents also claim that she is a devout Roman Catholic who would consider life support removal a sin. The Vatican has released a statement likening the removal of her feeding tube to capital punishment of an innocent, and right-to-life advocates are protesting her starvation vociferously.

So what do I think about this? To me, it's really excruciatingly simple: unless you can prove to me that she would want it this way (through writing, recording, or something similar), err on the side of life and reinsert the tube until the whole thing can be settled. I'm not necessarily against life support removal, but why would you do it if you can't know the patient's wishes? Critics have been saying that the federal government has overstepped its bounds by guaranteeing due process; however, the Supreme Court ruled in a similar case to keep the patient alive back in 1990 (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health) because incompetent persons were unable to exercise the right to refuse medical treatment. Are Schiavo's rights being violated because she cannot speak for herself? I don't know enough about the law to say that, but you should ask yourself whether you believe the right to die is greater than the right to live.

I don't necessarily think this should be such a political issue, but it has become one. Mark my words: if Schiavo dies before a verdict is reached, Christians from both parties will likely blame the Democrats for it and mobilize against the party over the 2006 and 2008 elections. Contrary to popular belief, not all evangelical Protestants were pro-Bush last election; this may push them over the edge. Catholics (who were slightly pro-Republican for the first time in decades) will go decisively right. There are no guarantees, but if Terri Schiavo becomes a political martyr, it could ruin the Dems. I'm NOT cheering for this to happen, but it would be a big mistake for the left to push the issue more. To do so would be political suicide.

Discourse and Goings-On

2005-03-18T23:20:00.000-05:00

I'm sure many of you have been wondering why I've posted twice in the last two weeks. Well, I can't excuse last week, but as for this week, it's Spring Break! And I'll tell you what, I certainly needed a break from everything. Full, regular posting begins anew on Monday.

As for the moment, I'll take a second to bring you up to date on a few key issues.

1.) Condoleeza Rice said Sunday that she would not run for President. Whether she sticks to that or not could be interesting, but somehow, I didn't expect her to giddily throw her hat in the ring right away. From where I'm standing, it looks as though she'll only run if she feels the country needs her, which is probably the most sensible way to look at a candidacy. It's a tough job, but as our Founding Fathers decided, somebody's got to do it. Whoever the Republican candidate will be remains to be seen.

2.) As you know, Dan Rather stepped down from the anchor's chair last week. I haven't been alive long enough to give a proper analysis of his career, yet I thought it was curious that he chose to revisit his infamous sign-off "courage" in his final words. Some people thought he was goofy for saying that back in the day, but I think he wanted the word to define him. I leave partisan sniping alone on this point. After all, it really would take courage to walk a mile in the shoes of Dan Rather. I understand he will go back to field reporting; honestly, it's probably what he's best at. I had issues with Memogate/Rathergate and the glaring bias involved in that scandal; nevertheless, my hat is off to him. Was he bizarre? Quite often. Was he biased? Certainly. Was he one heck of a journalist? Definitely.

3.) I said earlier that I would talk at length about a possible challenge to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) in 2006. Byrd is the oldest incumbent Senator and has not aged particularly well, but he still has enormous influence in Congress. An in-depth analysis of this issue is still coming. WVU Press is publishing his memoirs soon, which should be of great interest indeed.

A lengthy side note involving my post "How to Fix the DA": CBA blogger Dave Ryan provided his own take on the issue, and I have to admit, some of what he said surprised me. He stated that he almost never reads the DA, which is not a good sign for the paper because Ryan himself leans left and would agree with them more often than myself. In his words, not mine:

I just don't like it, it's not a paper. It's a byproduct of clutter and confusion, hastily written and poorly put together.

He also takes serious issue with their growing reliance on AP wire reports instead of original reporting, which is a not yet fatal flaw that I didn't touch on in my post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Dominion Post has to use the AP wires heavily because they're under-staffed for their size. The DA should be capable of more original reporting, but it seems like they take the path of least resistance more frequently than they should. My "exclusive" on Peter Arnett's speaking engagement back in February was an exclusive in the sense that I had it first; however, I ended up being the only source for it because the DA never wrote a line about him the next day. Would it have been so hard to have someone there to cover the story? I don't know the internal workings of the paper, but I don't see why his remarks were so badly under-reported.

Anyhow, back to my post...Ryan seemed to really like the idea of aggressive advertising for new columnists and staffers, so long as it wouldn't turn the paper into the print version of CNN's "Crossfire". I don't see how it could myself; I don't believe that DA columnists are supposed to openly attack each other, and one of the things that made "Crossfire" so annoying was the element of crosstalk (where both sides attempt to talk over each other simultaneously in order to be heard), which becomes an impossibility in written form.

He thought my second proposal, partisan tagging, was "a dumb idea" (his words, not mine). I do agree that the possibility of tuning out columnists from your opposing party exists, but signifying their party has potential to serve an educational purpose that is anything but dumb. Although not all Dems and Reps are partisan shills, students with an interest in political science could benefit from observing the interplay between the columnists from those parties, as well as the alternate viewpoints of Greens, Libertarians, and independents. Partial disclosure is a less radical option that would get the job done on a smaller scale, which is what tagging L.J. Ulrich and Steve Nicholas as President and Vice-President of WVU's Young Democrats would be. That proposal has legs because they have highly pertinent titles that should be publicized. I'm not attacking them, but I think that readers should have a clear understanding of their organizational positions.

Oddly, Ryan doesn't understand why "someone who revels in anonymity would be so for public disclosure amongst writers." Frankly, who ever said I was "reveling" in it? Let me make something clear for everyone. I would never hold back any politically-related title I hold. I tell people that I am a moderate Republican from WVU so that they may better understand my views. If I were to become President of WVU's College Republicans tomorrow, I would want readers to know about it. If that means revealing myself, so be it; fairness is more important to me. I am anonymous partially so that my blogging may remain separate from my "real" life and partially so that people who know me personally don't color my opinions with their memories of the man the opinions belong to. The "real" me has known many of my classmates for years. The "real" me has met Dave Ryan in passing (don't flip out Dave, I've barely said five words to you). The "real" me fights the daily temptation to spill the beans in similar public moments, even when others bring up something I blogged about with praise or contempt. Most of my own family and best friends are completely in the dark about this, and I like it that way. I am unknown so that all of you may better understand my thoughts on the issues. Whether you agree with me or not is entirely your choice.

How to Fix the DA

2005-03-16T21:27:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, the Daily Athenaeum ran an editorial by Charlie Wade. Although I'm not going to reprint it here (as you might expect, it's available at their website), it was striking for one singular reason: it was in praise of President Bush. Humorously, the column started in this manner:

Readers beware: this column will be in praise of the president.

Yes, I laughed.

And then something much more serious came into my head...if my memory serves me correctly, this has been the first DA op-ed to openly give props to Bush since super-con Ben Helsley published his final column in December 2004. I'm not saying there weren't columns that took a favorable stance on the war in Iraq and other issues, but unless I somehow missed a day's paper (trust me, I haven't), this is the first editorial since Winter Break that openly embraced Bush.

If you aren't seeing anything wrong with that from a journalistic perspective, you need to stop and seriously question yourself. This is a severe imbalance. This isn't about whether or not the DA is currently a left-leaning publication with a liberal opinion page; that status was never in doubt. The real problem is that, unlike most large newspapers, the counterpoint never appears in the discussion. Even the New York Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country, had conservative columnist William Safire writing opinion for them from the 1970s until his semi-retirement after the 2004 election. If the other side does not get a voice, regardless of slant, then the editorials start to run together as the like-minded fall into step.

In an effort to allow for a discourse, I have come up with two ways to "fix" the DA. If anyone from the paper is reading this, hear me out. I'm not trying to insult you; rather, I'm attempting to give you ideas for improvement that you may not have considered. The list is as follows:

1.) Advertise aggressively for new columnists and staffers.
The paper needs to reform its image. You may wish to tag me as a radical conservative, but when I say that I'm a moderate Republican, believe it. Many of my strongly conservative friends don't even read the DA anymore because they feel attacked and/or angry every time they do so. Instead, they read the Dominion Post, a more moderate paper (albeit with smaller student readership) that is generally free to WVU students who know where to look for it. An unwritten truth held among the students is that the conservative journalism majors feel out of place at the DA and defect to the Post. Obviously, this causes the people who would be playing counterpoint to remain largely unread by the student body. To alleviate this problem, advertise for new columnists and staffers throughout the campus, particularly with the help of the high-traffic bulletin boards in the Mountainlair and campus bookstore. Printing black-and-white flyers would be extremely cheap, and you will be surprised with the results. Advertising in the paper alone (as is normally done each semester) will not do the trick.

2.) Disclose all major political ties of your columnists.
Before you recoil in terror, try to understand my reasoning. Most casual readers of the DA don't realize that columnists Steve Nicholas and L.J. Ulrich are the Vice-President and President, respectively, of the WVU Young Democrats. While I don't believe that you should deny Nicholas and Ulrich jobs for that reason (doing so would probably go against equal opportunity laws), I think that their titles should be affixed next to their pictures in their columns. If you're willing to really take balance a step further, add all of your columnists' party affiliations next to their pictures. I don't see how doing so would be discrimination, and if you were to do so, it would make the Opinion section much more thought-provoking for those who do not know the columnists personally. And no, I'm not recommending you do this for your masthead; assuming that the opinions of your staffers stay on the Opinion page, affixing D's and R's to them elsewhere would be tacky. Consider this: journalists have been openly tagging politicians as Democrats, Republicans, independents, Greens, Libertarians, and so on for decades. Why shouldn't we disclose our own ties?

These two steps may sound a little radical at first, but any change usually does. Once again, I did not present these two steps as some kind of ironic jab at the DA. Heck, I'd love to see Step 2 implemented in every paper in the country, although it would take years to accomplish even if the individual editors were willing to do so. Even if that seems absurd, Step 1 would be a low-cost, high-efficiency maneuver on the part of the DA to get new blood at the other end of the pen. Sometimes, a change just makes sense.

It's OK, I'm Not Dead

2005-03-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

I know it's been a few days since I posted, but the life of this college student has been tough over the last few days. Expect updates on Dan Rather's farewell and a possible challenge to the oldest incumbent Senator in Congress before too long.

The Dan Rather Countdown

2005-03-04T12:21:00.000-05:00

I had to post this somewhere on my blog, and I didn't think the sidebar would be a good place for it. (Courtesy of RatherBiased.)

A Look at Intelligent Design

2005-03-03T15:49:00.000-05:00

This article on the decline of atheism in the world is absolutely captivating. I try not to bring religion into my blogging out of a desire to keep politics and religion reasonably separate. For the record, I am a Christian, which I tell you partially so you may understand me and partially so you may know my biases. Does that mean my opinions on the issues are influenced by my beliefs? Yes, it does; however, I feel that religion becomes what it should not be - materialistic - when mixed too heavily with politics. I don't consider myself fully part of the religious right, either, mainly because I am neutral on abortion (in most cases) and not a pure creationist. Instead of being strictly a creationist, I mix in a little science by subscribing to the intelligent design theory, which allows creation and evolution to co-exist. This is part of the reason why I'm linking the article, as it details how more scientists are coming to agree with the intelligent design theory and turning away from straight evolutionism. One of the biggest reasons for doing so is the dawning realization that some things simply cannot be explained by science as we know it. An excerpt from the article:

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.

Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist colleagues at – of all places – Baylor University, a highly respected Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex.

It's a great read. Equally curious is information appearing later in the article that suggests paganism is replacing atheism in European countries. Check it out; regardless of your creed, it's a very provocative article.

March's Ironic Link

2005-03-01T22:41:00.000-05:00

"Million Mom March" Chapter Head Arrested after Illegal Gun and Drugs Found in Home

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Her side of the story is kind of comical in its own right. I can't really say anything else about this...the link kind of tells the story by itself.

The True Progressives

2005-03-01T19:40:00.000-05:00

The Lawrence Journal-World (Kansas) has an account of a recent speaking engagement by DNC chairman Howard Dean. He spoke harmlessly enough at Lawrence's Liberty Hall, but he got a little more outrageous at a fundraiser held in the backyard of residents John and Nancy Hiebert. As he laid into conservatives with greater audacity than in his Liberty Hall speech, he concluded by saying, "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." The quote stops short of directly calling Republicans evil, but the implication is very explicit. When Kansas Republican Party executive director Derrick Sontag was told about Dean's remarks, he responded, "My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it's full of hatred. The Democratic Party has elected a leader that's full of hatred."

Personally, I would never call anyone "evil" just because they didn't agree with me. I know the value of positive discourse (why else would I be pushing the College Blog Alliance?), which is why this kind of political pessimism has always bothered me more than anything else. One of the biggest reasons that I am a Republican stems from my general optimism. I believe in a better tomorrow, and while I've always had a certain amount of admiration for the Democratic Party of the 1960s, it was mostly because of the vigor that John Kennedy and his Camelot legacy injected America with. The regression of the progressives can probably be attributed to Watergate, which led a large portion of the left to view all Republicans as criminals waiting to be caught in the act. Think about it; why else would Hillary Clinton have coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy", and why else would one of the most popular anti-Bush books from last year be titled Worse than Watergate? The Democratic Party of the present day has lost their optimism and replaced it with contempt. In contrast, today's Republican Party has mostly avoided internalizing Watergate and has reinvented itself as a party with a positive perspective.

This allows me to touch on something else: what is it that President Bush has that makes his supporters love him so much and his opponents despise him? It is really very simple; George W. Bush is an idealist, and the twinkle in his eyes when he talks about the issues confirms this. This visibly confounds reporters who interview him, as they are used to politicians who are more concerned with their jobs than their ideals. Most who do not realize this, especially the liberals that oppose him, are quick to brand him stupid and/or arrogant. Stupidity does not produce a twinkle in the eye; the eyes of the idiot are dull. Arrogance does not produce that spark either; conceit harshens the glimmer into an accusing fire, which is not visible in the eyes of our president. There is probably nothing PC about what I am about to say, but this is one of the reasons why Bush's religious convictions are so obvious; everyone I've ever met with that gleam in their eye was either very devout or a true optimist, usually both. With Bush at the helm of the GOP, the Republican transition into the party of dreams is especially vivid and pronounced.

So how does this relate back to Democrats? To put it mildly, if Dean is the wave of the future, then the Democratic Party will drown in their negativity. The Dems can only salvage the party by finding a true idealist who is comparable to Bush in demeanor and charisma. Hillary Clinton is obviously not that person. John Edwards has the charisma but little optimism. John Kerry seemed to have some of the idealism, but he was too busy worrying about what people thought about him to have any perceptible twinkle in his eyes. I know that liberals have been calling themselves "progressives" in recent years, but as of present, conservatives are the true progressives. Without a dream of a better condition, there can be no reform; without idealism, there is no dream to speak of. If the DNC cannot add a little sunshine to its politics and move closer to the center, then it will spend years attempting to rise from its grave.

Flash Update

2005-03-01T14:14:00.000-05:00

Welcome to those of you who are coming in from www.insidehighered.com. The link to the College Blog Alliance is on the right side of the page. Please submit any links you have so that the blogosphere may benefit. If you don't want to write out an e-mail, you may use the news tip box for link submission.

In other news: a full entry is coming later today, so for those who have been wondering where my blogging has been over the last week or so, you don't want to miss it!

Major Updates, Better Service

2005-02-28T13:06:00.000-05:00

I said recently that I would cross-link most of the bloggers that Dr. Hanson lists on his website. I'm still doing that, and pending final approval, two new blogs will join the College Blog Alliance today.

In even bigger news, the creator of the internet mind-game T.U.R.M. offered me a news tip submission script (much like the one Drudge uses on his site) in exchange for a link to his game. I've played it myself...it gets downright maddening after the first few levels. As for the tip box, it is now located in the sidebar. If you have tips about anything, submit them through the tip box, and I will follow up on them. I will check things out much faster if you leave your name, but you don't have to. In either case, all submissions will be kept confidential.

Hollywood Lowlights

2005-02-27T17:51:00.000-05:00

George Bush, Halle Berry Share Worst Film Honors (Reuters)

President Bush won multiple Razzies this weekend for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11." I don't think you can make a big deal out of that (what kind of objectivity should the Razzies have?), but I think it's ridiculous that his awards were for such categories as "Worst Actor" (acting? Oh yeah, he's supposedly a liar) and "Worst Screen Couple." Yes, it's Hollywood. Yes, half of the Worst Screen Couple was a book -- "My Pet Goat" -- that Bush was reading to schoolchildren when he found out the Twin Towers had been hit on 9/11.

The left has savaged Bush because he didn't get up and respond to the attack immediately, but if you ask me, finishing the book was the right thing to do. His staff was more than capable of acting in his absence, and leaving suddenly would have badly upset the kids. Besides, what did they expect him to do, grab a rocket launcher and shoot down the planes himself? The "My Pet Goat" thing is actually one of the things I always liked about Bush, because if he were really as stupid as most Dems believe, he would have done the impulsive thing and left immediately, even though he couldn't have done anything directly.

I can't comment directly on Halle Berry's performance in "Catwoman," but from what I've heard, she deserves the dishonor. I do find it interesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger won a Razzie because he had been nominated eight times and had never received one. Political statement or good-natured joke? It's hard to say for the Governator, but in Bush's case, it was a political statement from the most politicized city in America: Hollywood, California.

Debunking the Draft Scare

2005-02-24T18:19:00.000-05:00

I know I had announced a national focus this week, but today's entry finds me talking about the DA again, albeit in a national context. My blogging has been urged by columnist Andrew Stacy's editorial for the paper about draft reinstatement, and if you ask me, this urban legend has gone far enough. Before I go expounding upon my opinions, however, I'll take a semi-objective look at the piece from the perspective of a fact-checker. As you're about to see, I'm probably the only one who's done any fact-checking here.

Stacy's column starts by talking about the Universal National Service Act of 2003, which is a pair of bills introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) [bill S.89] and Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-NY) [bill H.R.163]. Stop and notice for a second that these are both Democrats; more on that later. According to Stacy, "The bills and their co-sponsors can be viewed at www.congress.gov." I assumed the role of an average student who would be clueless about these bills and attempted to find them on Congress's website. S.89 had no co-sponsors and has gone nowhere; the identical H.R.163 had 14 co-sponsors but was crushingly defeated by a 2-402 vote on October 5, 2004. The list of co-sponsors were as follows:

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands)
William Clay (D-MO)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Jesse L. Jackson (D-IL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
James Moran (D-VA)
Fortney Stark (D-CA)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)

If you can't see all of the Democrats in that list, adjust your monitor. Why would a total of 16 Dems support reinstatement of the draft? Here's the thing: they don't. Confused yet? It's okay, let me explain.

The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was not designed as an honest attempt to reinstate the draft; rather, it was created for the sole purpose of making a point by Dems who were unhappy with the Bush administration's policies towards the war in Iraq. Let me alleviate any fears of a draft held by Stacy (a Navy vet) and others by providing links to two websites -- TruthOrFiction and Snopes -- who are nonpartisan and have already debunked the draft rumor. Note that large chunks of Stacy's editorial appear to have been lifted out of the sample e-mail that Snopes shows...I assume he must have read the chain mail at some point. Also note that the source of said e-mail, congress.org, is not the official congress.gov.

For those of you who are still unconvinced, consider this. Any Congressperson (write it down, I'm being politically correct) who would cast a "Yea" vote for draft reinstatement, unless the country was in dire circumstances (think 9/11, but at least three times as bad), would lose most of their voter support. Obviously, their seat in Congress would follow, which would happen much more quickly to those in the House who only serve two-year terms. Also consider one of Stacy's primary sources, Connor Freff Cochran. Cochran wrote the story I just linked for AlterNet back in March 2004. Most of the points Stacy makes that can't be found at Snopes can be found there.

Andrew Stacy's main original point is that he has received requests to update his personal information from the Navy, whereas his former shipmates have not. Don't sweat it too much, my good man. Everyone listen up: there will not be a draft anytime soon, and it sure as heck won't be by June 2005. Please let this leftover election scare tactic die. If you have friends who are still worried, e-mail them this post so they can see the facts.

Feedback (And Change) is Good

2005-02-22T19:36:00.000-05:00

I've received some feedback involving the College Blog Alliance (hereafter referred to as the CBA), and I've decided to make some minor changes to my blog because of it. As of now, the only WVU links that will be listed in my Blogroll are the Daily Athenaeum and Dr. Hanson's blog. I have three reasons behind doing this. For one, to list some student bloggers in my Blogroll at the expense of others is unfair. Secondly, I'm keeping Dr. Hanson on because his blog is an important resource for anyone interested in the media, particularly for the WVU journalism students who give my blog the most traffic. As for keeping the DA where they've been since I first added links to my site, I think that they're a crucial source for anyone who comes here, especially if you don't attend my school and want a better understanding of the local issues that I cover. Bookmark the CBA post or the blogs you like now, because I will not deviate from this course.

While I'm on the subject, expect to see more national coverage this week. Between the interview and various other things going on around my neck of the woods (yes, I just paraphrased Al Roker...), I haven't been able to devote the time that I would like to issues and stories that affect everyone. I've got a lot to say, but I've not got much time right now to say it. I'm even thinking about doing straight commentary (no linking required), but it's still up in the air. Nation-focused blogging begins anew after today; however, I encourage you all to give feedback. My e-mail hasn't changed, and I'm willing to be as close to my readers as an unknown blogger can be.

A Toast to the Post

2005-02-20T20:03:00.000-05:00

After nearly two weeks and a false alarm, the Dominion Post has finally published the article that I was interviewed for. Although I honestly expected a little more (why didn't they print the blog URLs?), it was still a great article with two authors. One was Palma Benczenleitner (reporting from Germany), and the other was Morgantowner Krista Reott, who interviewed me and a few other bloggers. Although I would be typing for a very long time if I posted a full transcript, I'll give you the portion about myself. It's really not very lengthy at all. Note that some of the article was written with chat acronyms, which was a clever effect but a little confusing.

FYI: 'The unknown blogger' is a he
One unidentified student, "the unknown blogger" uses his blog as a political forum, often criticizing the campus newspaper for holding a liberal bias on the opinion page.
The only thing anyone really knows abt (sic) the anonymous poster is that he's a journalism student. Yes, it's a he. The unknown blogger has intrigued the blogging community. He keeps his identity a secret b/c (sic), he says, "When people know who you are, particularly if they know you personally, they judge your viewpoints before knowing them. If you can't place a name to my blog, I believe it makes you more open to what I have to say."

I have to say that, if you had to choose one quote from my interview, then that quote about why I retain anonymity is far and away the best choice. It was the one thing I told her that I can still remember perfectly. I also told her that I actually really like the DA, but I give criticism and praise to them when it's due. For the record, I don't consider pure opinion to be bias so long as there is some kind of visible attempt to get both sides to comment on the issue. Besides, bias is what creeps up in the other pages and parts of the media when one general group of views is shared among the staff; it's not a conscious effort by most reporters to put a political spin on the issues, but when you work with so many people who share your views, then what gets printed is simply what the staff holds to be the "correct" view. In fact, most journalists who are more liberal that work for large organizations consider themselves to be moderates with mainstream viewpoints. If you can fix an opinion page, you're halfway there to fixing the paper because a discourse now exists.

Alright, back to the story: I only have two real criticisms, but I think they're fairly minor. First of all, the web addresses (URLs) of the bloggers that were mentioned should have all been printed. Marketing major Justin Lawrence's web address was printed, but my address and the address of English major Rachael Brady were left out. The second thing is really, really minor; as far as the blogosphere is concerned, my name is "The Unknown Blogger," not the improper "the unknown blogger." Oh well, I'm still grateful for even being involved with this, and if this is all the criticism I have, then you did an excellent job with the article. If you have a chance to pick up a copy of the Dominion Post, you'd best do so quickly, as they were extremely hard to find around campus today. And for those of you out tonight in Morgantown - or wherever you may be - make a toast to the Post.

The College Blog Alliance

2005-02-20T13:24:00.000-05:00

This is where I'll be posting links to college bloggers, both students and faculty, who focus on news, the media, journalism, and politics. The concept of a "college blog alliance" is sort of a tongue-in-cheek one; it's not a special organization or anything like that, but it's a memorable way to list these links. After all, we bloggers are all in this together to a certain degree; hence, the title "College Blog Alliance." Go to the end of the list to see ground rules for submissions.

To submit, just send an e-mail to theunknownblogger@gmail.com. I encourage anyone who gets listed to add a link to their main page with the following address: http://unknownblogger.blogspot.com/

Rules for submissions:

1.) Unless you are a photoblogger, don't submit foreign-language blogs. In other words, if I can't read it and it doesn't have really nice pictures, it won't get linked.

2.) No diaries.

3.) You must be a student or faculty member when you submit your link; however, I will not remove you if you graduate or leave for any other reason. Instead, I will add a designation to your link that shows your current status.

4.) I will look at all submissions, but I would appreciate it if you tell me what school you are from. This saves me time and gets your blog linked faster.

5.) If you have not updated in four (4) months or longer, you will be removed from the list.

I will check everyone's links periodically. If your URL (web address) changes, let me know.

Send in those links!

NOTE FOR MEMBERS: As of April 6, 2005, the CBA bloggers are linked on the main page. Linking you on the main page helps spiders and others notice the link to your blog more easily. Please update your links!

The Wait is Over

2005-02-18T23:59:00.000-05:00

I have received confirmation that the weblogs article that I was interviewed for will run Sunday, Feb. 20, on the Campus Life page in the Dominion Post. Don't miss it. Once again, I'll attempt to post as much of the article as I can, but the Post website is a subscription-based service and attempting to link to the piece directly would be futile. Pick one up if you can; this is not a false alarm, as the editor let me know personally that it will be printed.

Peter Arnett Speaks

2005-02-17T22:19:00.000-05:00

--EXCLUSIVE--FIRST WITH THE STORY

As you probably could have guessed from reading my post from yesterday, I went to hear Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett speak. Previously, I was informed that Arnett is a native of New Zealand, which downplays his controversial interview with Iraqi TV in March 2003. I found out more tonight, so pay attention: Peter Arnett is an American citizen. As a matter of fact, he has homes in Virginia and New York. Refer back to my last post, then come back here, because I have some good things to say about him, as well as some bizarre statements of his to talk about.

Dr. George Esper introduced him by telling the crowd about his part in the "Boys of Vietnam" who held the US government accountable during that war. When Arnett and Esper reported from the fall of Saigon, Esper said, "He deserved a second Pulitzer Prize." In a touch of true class, Arnett deferred credit to Esper and helped him get nominated for his first Pulitzer (which Esper didn't win and still hasn't won). Arnett helped make CNN a household name during the first Gulf War, and even though he was fired for his comments about the war to Iraqi TV, he still writes magazine articles and has a book about Saddam Hussein and his sons that is due out soon. Curiously, when Esper talked about Arnett's fatal interview, he repeated his previous statement with unusual gusto: "He was more honest with the American public than its own government was." You had to be there; it was almost as though Esper wanted to shout that sentence.

Peter Arnett then took the podium over. He seemed to tear up at first as he said that he had been "struck by the generosity of the local community." He then segued into one of his most partisan statements of the evening, which by itself does not signify bias, but does give insight into the mind of a veteran journalist. He said this as he talked about the Bush adminstration's war on terrorism (or as he perceived it, globalization):

If we could export West Virginian hospitality to the Iraqs of the world...then maybe I'd get behind President Bush's grand design and vote Republican.

There was scattered laughter at this statement, but the obvious connotations of a "grand design" spoke volumes about his opinion of the administration. More on that later.

Peter Arnett has an article on some of the documents he has from the remnants of Saddam's regime due out in the April issue of Playboy. In reference to his job as a reporter, he said, "I'd do it all over again if I had the chance." When he talked about his time at CNN, he was light-hearted ("The smartest thing [Ted Turner] did was marry Jane Fonda") and serious ("The best thing that happened to the US was CNN [because the world could see America from the inside]"). And then, of course, it was time for him to discuss his infamous interview.

"I apologize for upsetting so many people," Arnett said. He was reporting for NBC and CNN at the time (NBC was not paying him, but he was in the area), and he was basically a convenient person for Iraqi TV to interview. He also said earlier, "The last thing I want to do is hurt the US government." Here's the killer, though: Arnett said that he "knew NBC was moving me out because of a concerted effort by conservative groups." While that may be true for all I know, I highly doubt they were the only reason. Just look at the transcript , and you'll understand the whole brouhaha over his remarks. He did have an interesting paranoia involving conservatives that crossed over into the Eason Jordan scandal (as he said, "I know [soldiers] aren't targeting journalists"), among other things to be discussed in a moment. He added that his remarks made him a hero everywhere else, as the London Daily Mirror moved to have him write for them. It's probably not a good thing to get that kind of praise, and I think he recognized that, as he promptly changed the subject.

Arnett spoke of life in Baghdad, saying, "There is a persistent belief...that life will get better because it can't get any worse." 3 out of 4 Iraqi vehicles are taxis, which are his primary form of transportation because they're nondescript. He also has body armor of his own, including a Kevlar helmet. He kept wondering to himself, "What had [Saddam] been doing all these years?!?" He found out much of what Saddam had been doing; although most of it will be revealed in the April Playboy, he divulged, "You won't believe it...he wrote a romantic historical novel in his last year in power!" I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that bit of information. The novel will be published in Jordan soon; I believe it will be within the year.

One anecdote even funnier than those was Arnett's story about being hoisted onto Iraqi shoulders when the regime was toppled. As they shouted, "Hooray for Bush!", CNN captured footage of him that they showed until someone realized an ex-employee was being broadcast, at which point they pulled the video. Now that must have been priceless.

Peter Arnett's most peculiar statements came in response to questions about liberal bias in the media. He segued into the discussion by mentioning the set-up question about body armor that was posed to Donald Rumsfeld last year, saying that he thought it was great and produced results, because now the troops have much more armor. As if that wasn't wild enough, what he said next about whether the media has a liberal bias completely surprised me:

Oh, it was! But it's being well-balanced now.

I wish you could have seen my face. As I attempted to pick my jaw up off the ground, he referred to all the different forms of media there are today and how much more diverse it had become. He then changed the subject to the blogosphere, which he actually has a very high opinion of. The only thing that seems to bother him about bloggers is when they come together and attack those that they don't like, particularly former co-worker Eason Jordan. Notice he didn't say a word about the whole Gannon thing that's been big on the left lately; I doubt he ever worked with the guy, so why defend him?

And then the big question was asked. The first person in the audience to be called upon said roughly, "Why do you think we went into Iraq?" Arnett attempted to choose his words carefully, saying that the bloggers were going to have a field day with his response. Great foresight, Mr. Arnett; you hit the jackpot! I quote the next portion as closely as possible. He said the following:

I think historians will look at the WMD scare as Bush's Gulf of Tonkin...I think he took [the assassination attempt on his dad by Saddam] personally, and the neo-conservatives around him all thought it would be easy [to go and get Saddam]. It was natural to go to war in response to the attacks...the world was behind us going into Afghanistan, but not for Iraq. It was the passion of the moment...but I think the jig is up. You lost some of your civil liberties this time...let's hope it doesn't happen again.

He also went on to reiterate his belief that the MSM is neutral, but I almost burst out laughing when he asked, "If you can discredit the New York Times, what the hell do you have?" Well, for one, you have balance. He said some other interesting things, but this is the majority of the meat. I'm glad he has respect for the blogosphere; he said he Googled himself this week and found about 30,000 more results than he did last week, mostly from bloggers. Ladies and gentlemen, let's light up Google some more. This was crazy in a good way, and while I think he can probably be a fair journalist (and my opinion of him improved somewhat), I think everyone should see this.

He's Not My Role Model

2005-02-16T22:24:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: There have been two important updates to this post. Please scroll to the bottom for more information.

As some of you may remember, I was going to blog about an appearance by Peter Arnett on my college campus late last semester. Arnett couldn't make it then, but his speaking engagement was rescheduled for tomorrow. For those of you who can't place the name, Peter Arnett was a famed journalist who was in Vietnam from the start of our "police action" there through the fall of Saigon. He was also the winner of an Emmy and a Pulitzer Prize, which places him in an elite category among journalists. Of course, those are his finer points.

The thing that makes Arnett so controversial is the interview he gave to Iraqi TV on March 30, 2003. At that point, Saddam Hussein was still in power and the ground war of Gulf War II had just begun. In the interview, Arnett stated (among other gems in his conversation) the following:

America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance now they are trying to write another war plan.

Don't take my word for it alone; I found CNN's transcript of the interview. The entire thing is mind-blowing. As you can imagine, CNN promptly fired him for his comments. Although we failed to find WMDs in Iraq, the actual battle plan was pretty succesful.

Oddly, Arnett is receiving a hero's welcome from WVU, particularly from fellow Vietnam correspondent Dr. George Esper (who, curiously enough, was the best man at Arnett's wedding). The DA spoke to Dr. Esper about his visit. I'm really hoping that Esper's comments were taken out of context, because if they weren't, then I have to disagree with him. I'd love to know Esper's direct quotes when he was paraphrased for this porton of the article:

"Indeed, he was more honest with the American public that its own government was," Esper said. Esper praised Arnett for taking his "government watchdog" role in the media seriously and for being an excellent role model for WVU students and others around the world.

Wait...did he really mean "role model", or was that how his actual words were paraphrased? If Dr. Esper did mean that, then with all due respect, he's wrong. Let me get one thing clear about my thoughts on this. I do not criticize Peter Arnett as a conservative or a liberal. Heck, I'm not even criticizing him as a journalist. I'm criticizing him as an American. To go to the enemy's press in wartime and condemn your country's war efforts borders on the criminal. (Note-see update at bottom-ed.) It's one thing to be "honest with the American public" and a "government watchdog;" it's quite another thing to play watchdog all over the enemy's TV screens, which is exactly what Arnett did in Iraq. I would take note of Peter Arnett's other, more upstanding accomplishments; however, he is not and will never be my role model. It's okay to have a negative opinion, but it's not okay to tell it to the enemy.

So where can you hear Peter Arnett speak? Well, if you attend WVU, he's already spoken to journalism students this evening. Don't feel bad if you missed it, because the time of that engagement was poorly publicized. However, he will speak in G-21 White Hall at 7:00 P.M. tomorrow. The title of his speech? "From Vietnam to Iraq: A Changing Media World." I have a feeling that telling the Viet Cong about how we had "failed" wouldn't have been well-received back then, either.

UPDATE: Dr. H himself informed me that Arnett is actually from New Zealand. That doesn't improve my opinion of him completely, but it does blow some huge holes in my second-to-last paragraph. I still don't agree with what he did in Iraq, but knowing he isn't from the country he so openly criticized makes me feel a little better. At least I don't consider him to be treasonous now. My most sincere apologies to everyone, as I have a pretty decent amount of egg on my face. This is the power of the blogosphere; had I sent this article to an editor, it may not have been fact-checked in time to be corrected. Out here, corrections may take place at a moment's notice.

SECOND UPDATE (2/17/05) : The DA is reporting that Arnett's speaking engagement is tomorrow. This information is inaccurate. As I reported previously, Arnett will be speaking tonight at 7:00 P.M. in G-21 White Hall. His presentation is open to the public. If anything else changes, I'll let you know.

The Doc Calls for Bloggers

2005-02-16T19:41:00.000-05:00

This isn't the major update for the day, but I thought everyone should know about this. WVU journalism professor Dr. Hanson has added a section to his blog's links especially for student journalist bloggers. Originally, my blog was the only student blog in his link list, but with the addition of the Braxtonian, he has begun calling for college bloggers to send him links. I will begin cross-linking student blogs that he adds, so if you have a weblog and want it linked, contact him or me. The key words here are "student journalists"; if you have a Livejournal (or something like that) that is more like a diary, then it probably won't apply. Send in those links!

Not Always Fun and Games

2005-02-15T22:02:00.000-05:00

Blogging has become a very important tool. As we all know, several people have taken up this new form of media recently (including myself). However, some people have been losing their jobs over blogging, as this CNN article shows. Note the weirdly threatening title: "Blogging is All Fun and Games, Until the Boss Finds Out." (A related note: I found this article earlier today, but the link was sent to me again through AIM. It could be perceived as intimidation by the sender, but since I don't work for anyone, I assume it's just a link submission. Many thanks to whoever sent this to me.)

The article really doesn't tell the whole story. Mark Jen, the ex-Google employee who serves as the focal point of the piece, was not fired because he ran a blog; in fact, he was fired because he used his blog to openly compare Google's employee benefits with Microsoft's. To say the least, Google came up short in the comparison. If my memory serves me correctly, Jen was fired even after the offending post was removed at his boss's request. As Jen himself said on his blog, "I'm not insubordinate. If I was told to shut down this blog, I would have."

Although employees don't have very much in the way of legal protection for this, non-employees do. The article quotes Eugene Volokh as saying that "there's just no way that Apple can win" a lawsuit against three websites that posted supposedly proprietary information about the iPod. First Amendment grounds apply here, and while there are certain limits on any form of press (namely libel), Apple had better have one heck of a defense team on this one.

Note: I'm almost done with my Blogroll! I still need to make minor changes, but the links are staying as they are. I've added more lefty bloggers, and I made sure to add Ry Rivard's blog as well. Rivard is one of the better writers for the DA, and one of his recent posts links to most major West Virginia bloggers, including Dr. Hanson and myself. Check him out; his writing can be a bit over my head at times, but he has great style with it.

Following Up on the Weekend

2005-02-14T18:21:00.000-05:00

Last night's Grammys ended with the Ray Charles album Genius Loves Company winning Album of the Year. No surprise there, I guess. I was attempting to hold several phone and e-mail conversations throughout the broadcast, which is why I cut the live-blogging short. All the good stuff happened while I was still blogging, so if you stopped watching when I called it a night, then you didn't miss much (aside from the questionable and safe choice of John Mayer's "Daughters" as Song of the Year). According to Drudge, the Grammys had their lowest ratings since 1995.

An update on the Dominion Post situation: I am still awaiting official word on the article's status, but the reporter I talked to expected it to run yesterday and apologizes for the confusion. Assuming the article hasn't been canned by the higher-ups, it will still run at an unspecified date. More info as it develops.

Live-Blogging the Grammys

2005-02-13T19:49:00.000-05:00

Although I have never live-blogged anything before, I thought that it might be good to do so tonight. Being the music fiend that I am (as longtime readers know all too well), I figured I'd share with you my opinion of the Grammys as the winners are announced. This will be fairly time-consuming for me, but I think you'll enjoy it. I'll be quick-updating this post throughout the broadcast, so reload the page periodically so you don't miss anything. Yeah, I don't really have much to do tonight, and I wanted to make up for the Incredible Missing Interview. So if you're near a TV, grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy.

7:58 --- I had forgotten that CBS also airs 60 Minutes on Sunday nights. Now there's something I don't watch anymore...

8:00 --- The Grammys just started. Black Eyed Peas vocalist Fergie leads into the show with the most painful (and longest) sustained note I've heard in ages.

8:02 --- Gwen Stefani, "Rich Girl" was fun the first two times I heard it. Too bad that it is now destroying any good memories I have of the classic musical Fiddler on the Roof.

8:05 --- Thank you, Los Lonely Boys. I needed a breath of fresh air. Ladies and gentlemen, guitarist Henry Garza is the real deal. Now this is music!

8:07 --- Maroon 5, who are coming to WVU in March, are on stage. Is it my imagination, or is vocalist Adam Levine a better guitarist than anyone else in the band?!?

8:10 --- The Black Eyed Peas/Maroon 5 mash-up just segued into Franz Ferdinand. If these guys mix in with Gwen Stefani, I'm leaving.

8:11 --- Jay-Z and Linkin Park might have set a precedent last year. Every band on the stage just committed the most gratuitous mash-up I've ever seen. I feel dirty.

8:16 --- Queen Latifah just hinted at the inevitable J-Lo/Marc Anthony duet. Spare me.

8:18 --- Blues pianist Pinetop Perkins just won a Lifetime Achievement Award. Who the heck is...but it's okay, he played with Muddy Waters!

8:19 --- First major Grammy goes to Los Lonely Boys. (Pop Duo or Group with Vocals)

8:26 --- Jazz legend Art Blakey just got a Lifetime Achievement Award. It's about time.

8:31 --- Jamie Foxx duets with Alicia Keys for an incredible Ray Charles homage. I love having TiVo at times like this.

8:34 --- Best Male R&B Vocal Performance goes to Prince. The comeback is complete, but presenter Nelly has to accept on his behalf. Want to bet that's the only Grammy Nelly gets to accept tonight?

8:41 --- Jerry Lee Lewis receives a Lifetime Achievement Award. The only song of his that I remember is "Great Balls of Fire." Sheesh...you can't just hand out Grammys like popcorn, people! No offense to Lewis, but there has to be a more influential choice for this one.

8:47 --- YES!!! After all this time, Led Zeppelin wins a Lifetime Achievement Award. There is justice in this world after all.

8:48 --- Best Rock Album goes to Green Day. If you've heard all about how American Idiot is one giant middle finger to the Bush administration, you've heard wrong. Only two songs - the title track and "Holiday" - are like that. The rest of it has a political undercurrent, but it's really a universal coming-of-age story about love and loss. If you haven't bought this album, go do so now, because you will probably love it. I'll be here when you get back.

9:03 --- This should quiet the people who always call for "Free Bird" during concerts.

9:21 --- Queen Latifah has an incredible voice.

9:23 --- Best New Artist goes to Maroon 5. Levine does the classy thing and thanks Kanye West first; both were equally deserving.

9:33 --- Green Day's pyrotechnics look like mini-nukes. Who knew visual effects could have a purpose in rock?

9:35 --- Best R&B Album goes to Alicia Keys. Good choice.

9:45 --- "Jesus Walks", the most important rap song of 2004, just came on. A visionary performance.

9:52 --- Kanye West comes back onstage to accept an award for Best Rap Album.

At this point, I can't devote my full attention to the Grammys, so I'll stop the post here. Check back tomorrow for the REALLY big awards.

At the Mercy of an Editor

2005-02-13T18:55:00.000-05:00

For those of you who bought a copy of the Dominion Post today expecting to find an interview with me, I regret to say that the article never ran. I don't know what's going on with the Post, but today's Campus Life section had nothing to do with weblogs and absolutely nothing to do with me. Hopefully the paper is simply holding off the piece, and the article hasn't been stopped by the editor. I have a sour taste in my mouth right now because I told all of you one thing, and something else happened that I can't control. To anyone who bought a paper today looking for something about me: thank you, it's the thought that counts.

I await word from sources at the Dominion Post. The interviewer knows how to get ahold of me, but if anyone else from the paper can explain what's going on, don't forget that I have e-mail (theunknownblogger@gmail.com) that gets checked every few hours. I find it ironic that this blogger is currently at an editor's mercy, but that's how it is right now. Whether I hear back immediately or not, we'll be in touch. (Don't expect a phone call - that's a good way to kill anonymity.)

The Pros and Cons of Rice '08

2005-02-12T22:44:00.000-05:00

Word on the political street is that Republicans are having a very difficult time choosing a suitable presidential candidate for the 2008 election. Some people, including myself, have been whispering that the GOP may not have a candidate that is strong enough. While the right has been gearing up to push John McCain, prod Rudy Giuliani, or amend the Constitution so Arnold Schwarzenegger can run (a move that I personally believe would betray our founding fathers and take this whole Governator thing a little too far), the left has made an obvious move to run Hillary Clinton that is crazy enough to work. So then comes the obvious question: why not draft Condoleeza Rice? She's already said she has no intentions to do so, but Dwight D. Eisenhower said the same thing, yet it didn't keep Republicans from convincing him to run in the 1950's. Even if they could convince Rice, could she be elected, and would she be effective?

To put it lightly, Rice has some distinct advantages. As an African-American woman, she would have a chance to cut deeply into the votes of blacks and women, two of the strongest bases of the Democratic Party. If Clinton loses her Senate seat in 2006, she will become a lame duck and stand little to no chance of being named a candidate; therefore, the Democrats would have a very difficult time pulling female voters away from Rice. Politically, she would be the most conservative choice for the presidency, which would definitely subscribe to the Karl Rove formula of motivating the base. She also has very deep religious convictions, which would drive the Christian right to the polls en masse. If she were to be elected, she would already have plenty of experience as a member of the Bush cabinet and would probably have solid diplomatic skill.

On the other hand, nominating Condoleeza Rice could be a double-edged sword. The same features that would convince the Democratic base to vote Republican may cause animosity among some extremist right-wingers. (Yes, Thomas Woods, I'm talking to you.) Sadly, there is a small group of voters, particularly in the deep South, that has yet to cast out racism from their ranks. Hopefully, the ranks of the fascists are dwindling, but while I don't think that their numbers are large enough to matter on Election Day, outraging them could lead to serious problems that may need dealing with during a Rice presidency. Also, a black, conservative woman is still a conservative. Hillary Clinton would have little-to-no problem getting more of the female vote than Rice. Even if Clinton isn't an option, the Democrats can still choose a competitive candidate. I honestly believe that, if the Democrats nominate Sen. Barack Obama, then the party will draw an overwhelming majority of black voters to the polls for him. Besides, anyone who has problems with openly religious presidents won't like much of anything about Rice.

It is also important to remember that the greatest presidents were the ones who could be moderate on the job. Rice is so conservative that she may not be capable of doing this; several key Democrats have already sided against her, and unless she becomes a master of diplomacy as Secretary of State, she may not be able to get anything done while in office. However, she is obviously strong-willed, so as long as she can prevent liberals from spinning her determination as arrogance or stubborness, she stands to be a very successful president if elected. As we know from polls taken after the last election, more Americans consider themselves Republicans than Democrats. If the GOP can rally the base and drain votes from the Dems, Rice '08 is entirely probable. It puts the left in a curious position; a Clinton presidency is so repulsive to most conservatives that any attempt to put her in office could backfire, yet few others could contend with Rice. Mark my words: if the right makes a clear move to push for Condoleeza Rice, the left will counter with either Clinton or the inexperienced Obama. Either way, the 2008 election is shaping up to be a real trip. I don't even want to think about possible VP candidates yet...

Easongate is Closed

2005-02-12T01:14:00.000-05:00

CNN executive Eason Jordan resigns (AP)

To Eason Jordan: My hat is off to you. I hadn't covered anything about your scandal myself, so let me take a second to tell my readers about it. I don't remember the exact quote, but during a panel discussion at last month's World Economic Forum, Jordan remarked that many journalists who were fired upon in Iraq by coalition forces had been targeted. He obviously attempted to backtrack on those remarks later, but according to a timeline on Easongate.com, he had made several remarks of a similar nature in the past. Right-leaning bloggers did much to make this a story, but if the timeline is any indication, Sen. George Allen (R-Va) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) helped fan the flames by calling for tapes of the remarks to be released. There were multiple witnesses, but as of this writing, no transcript has been released.

So why is my hat off to Eason Jordan? Well, Mr. Jordan, that's very simple; instead of doing what Dan Rather did and allowing your organization to become a laughingstock, you did the classy thing, shouldered the blame, and resigned. Although some might have issued a public apology, that might not have been enough to stop the bloggers in this case. The blogosphere is really a cruel beast when it smells fresh meat. At any rate, I respect class and personal dignity above many other things, so you have impressed me where many others have failed.

A side note: I have had an incredibly long day, so the political post I promised for earlier today will be posted around tomorrow evening. It feels strange to do serious blogging on the weekends, but that's exactly what I'm doing. Keep your eyes peeled for it.

UPDATE: I don't really get the big deal about this issue, but the Jeff Gannon scandal has been the lefty-blogging equivalent to Easongate. Gannon was a reporter who was notorious for constantly throwing softball questions at President Bush during press conferences. He was exposed by bloggers as a man working under an assumed name that had ties to gay porn sites. I would comment further, but it's late, so I'll direct you instead to Dr. Hanson's blog, which pools all of the information together to give you straight facts. Not only do I think it to be his best post ever, but it's also one of the only places anywhere that will give you a decent account of exactly what happened.

Blog Improvement Update

2005-02-11T13:28:00.000-05:00

As you may have noticed, my Blogroll is starting to look a little dated. Over the next few days, I'll be adding some links to it, as well as deleting a few others that are beginning to resemble personal diaries more than informative blogs. One of the more notable changes I'll be making is the removal of Rathergate.com; not only is that whole mess practically over, but writers Mike Krempasky and Kevin Craver are starting to come off as obnoxious on a regular basis. The much more well-made RatherBiased.com will stay on for the time being.

Also don't forget about my interview with the Dominion Post, which will be published on Sunday. For those of you who don't live in Morgantown, I'll attempt to post a transcript of the article. I'm looking forward to what some of the other students had to say...

Cold War Lite

2005-02-10T21:43:00.000-05:00

There I was, surfing the internet and minding my own business (yeah, I know...kind of rare for me), when something deeply disturbing came to my attention. North Korea finally confessed to having nukes, and the government is refusing to talk about curbing their nuclear program. Obviously, the countries involved in talks with them (including the US) want to resume diplomacy. Needless to say, this is dangerous. I would comment further on this, but the link explains everything that can be explained for now. I'll watch this one closely, and if I find some more pertinent information, I'll post it.

Quick note: A large post is coming tomorrow. I've been fighting with my Internet connection all day and need to study for an exam, but I think you'll find tomorrow's blogging to be very interesting on the national front. It won't be nearly as gloomy as this post.

UPDATE: I just caught wind of the Friday edition of the DA. It features an editorial by Charlie Wade about the North Korea situation in which he urges the United States to work closely with China, as they may have the best chance of any one country to succeed in talks with Kim Jong-Il's government. His best point is that we must attempt to let the people of North Korea know that we do not wish to invade their country. Required reading.

CRITICAL UPDATE: I should have known that North Korea had something in mind when they announced their nuke ownership. Now they say they'll only talk one-on-one with the US. Seeing as the whole thing is not our problem alone, the US is refusing to talk without the involvement of our other allies. What is Kim Jong-Il playing at? InstaPundit is gathering some thoughts on the subject from various sources, so you might want to visit there. Like I said, I'm keeping tabs on this one.

So, What Are You Doing This Weekend?

2005-02-09T21:58:00.000-05:00

This may be the funniest book store promotion I've ever seen. The Trover Shop book store in Washington, D.C., is offering a Howard Dean bobblehead to anyone who comes in between tomorrow and Sunday and performs the infamous (but hilarious) Dean Scream. The only caveat is that the screamers are asked to make a $5 donation to the Kristen Ann Carr Fund for sarcoma cancer research. The creator of the bobblehead, John Edgell, also says that he will make a $500 donation out of pocket -- that is, if Howard Dean himself screams at the book store. I have to hand it to Edgell: this is absolutely awesome, and if I weren't currently 5 hours away from Capitol Hill, I would go there to scream my heart out for cancer. That didn't sound right...but you get the point!

Unknown and Loving It

2005-02-09T08:28:00.000-05:00

I don't know whether or not I'll have time to make a large post today (I have two exams at the end of this week), but even if I do, I want everyone to hear about this. Last night, I was interviewed by the Dominion Post for a story about the popularity of weblogs. The article will run in the Sunday edition, so if you're in Morgantown, make sure to look for it in the Campus Life section. I never expected to be interviewed about what I'm doing, and I have to thank them for taking the time to do so. Unfortunately, I won't be able to link to the interview (the Post website is almost entirely paid subscription-based), but I'll try to post some of it after I read it myself. They don't know my name, so I am still unknown, and yet much more well-known than I realized. Surreal.

The Deconstruction of LJ Ulrich

2005-02-08T23:35:00.000-05:00

Last week, I had a side note on one of my blog posts about how impressed I was with DA columnist LJ Ulrich's ability to be balanced in his commentary. I was impressed with his writing, and even though it came from a liberal perspective, it didn't sound ideological at all. In fact, it sounded incredibly fair. Knowing full well that he is the president of WVU's Young Democrats, I openly praised his ability to do sensible commentary that didn't attempt to alienate anyone.

All apologies to Ulrich, but I have to take that back.

In today's issue of the DA, Ulrich had an editorial entitled "Can We Trust the President on Social Security?" I dove into the column eagerly, fully expecting to find the slightly left, yet persuasive writer that I had applauded before. Instead, I found a partisan hack job of an article that was farther left than anything ever written by Steve Nicholas, and (believe it or not) more ideological than former columnist and ultra-conservative Ben Helsley's writings. I won't attack Ulrich's opinion, as everyone is entitled to one. I also won't try to force my own opinion on Social Security. Instead, I'm going to do what I always do and give some constructive criticism to how Ulrich wrote the piece. In other words, I'm going to point out why this belongs less in the DA and more in a Dean rally. And yes, I'm going line by line. (If you want to read his editorial next to my blog, just go to the DA's website and look in the Feb 08 2005 issue under Opinions.)

Ulrich starts by asking why we would believe that Social Security is going to collapse. I refuse to give my opinion on this portion; instead, go to FactCheck.org and see what they have to say about it. Now that you're back here, you know that Social Security really does need work to be paying out the way it is now. No, there's no immediate danger, but something has to change, like it or not. At this point, Ulrich is still thinking. Within a few words, however, he starts spewing. "Spewing" is when anyone who is into politics shuts out any theories contrary to their own (which, therefore, stops thought) and launches into a tirade of their party's talking points. We all have done it at least once in our lives, but to do it in print is beyond reproach.

For anyone who doesn't have time to look at the editorial, I'll quote the next portion:

This is the president, after all, who failed to mention the words "Osama bin Laden" and "WMDs" in his State of the Union (talk about being accountable); who no longer preaches about a war on terror, but on spreading liberty and freedom across the globe (is that sturdy leadership?); and who dropped his crusade for a gay marriage amendment when it was politically convenient (how does it feel to be used like a cheap whore?).

Like I said, I'm going line by line.

The minute the Osama line hit, I felt sick. It's hilarious to me that the left is suddenly criticizing Bush for NOT mentioning Osama and WMDs, because just a few months ago, the same people were shouting "Liar!" when WMDs were mentioned, and a few on the extreme left were wondering if Osama Bin Laden was a construct that was already either a.) dead or b.) in jail. Something tells me the president was sick of being called a liar, which is why the WMD reference didn't happen. The OBL reference would have been redundant, considering that the price on his head recently doubled to $50,000,000. But now that the conspiracy theory didn't stick, the Democrats have decided that Bush is a failure for not catching Osama. You know how the left always asks the right if they would go fight in Iraq, seeing how they support the war? I can't help wondering what would happen if the right asked the left to go into the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border and catch bin Laden themselves. Enough already.

When the war on terror line came into view, I was irked. Is it sturdy leadership to spread liberty and freedom across the globe, rather than fight a war on terror? Yes, because if terror is extinguished, then liberty and freedom can spread. Oh, wait...you must think that Bush is an imperialist who wants to take over Iran and North Korea (even though you supported Kerry, who wanted to do so and said we should during the debates), and once they're done with, the world! Spare me.

When the gay marriage line danced across my eyes, I wasn't really upset anymore. In fact, I started laughing. Yes, the Boston Globe ran an article today about how conservatives are worried that Bush's push for Social Security reform will weaken his stance on a gay marriage amendment. Simply put, you can't just "push through" an amendment to the US Constitution, because it takes a lot more than a majority vote to ratify one. I think Bush is being realistic about what he can get passed at the moment; to put it bluntly, he doesn't have nearly enough support from socially liberal Republicans and Democrats to get a ban on gay marriage, so that needs to be on the back-burner right now. He's hardly "dropp[ing] his crusade" out of convenience. But when Ulrich asked pro-Bush people how it felt "to be used like a cheap whore," I was laughing to the point of tears. He was no longer spewing for the sake of spewing; as a matter of fact, he was spewing in an effort to convince, which is futile. I could keep going line by line, but I think that even a reasonable Democrat could find this hysterical. Read the rest while I comment on a few key portions.

Later on, Ulrich mentions a leaked internal memo to the president's staff. The memo urges the staff to emphasize that "we are on an unsustainable course." This is good, because, frankly, we are, and people need to get the facts. For some reason, Ulrich sees this memo as a form of brainwashing, prompting him to ask, "Who feels like sheep?" Well, nobody, unless you count the dyed-in-the-wool liberals that already support your position.

The coup de grace is when Ulrich brings out the sheep motif again, saying, "Don't forget even the Christian right, who [Bush] baited and lulled and used like sheep to win re-election last fall." Maybe Ulrich doesn't understand why a Christian conservative would vote for Bush. It's really very simple: he's a man of great faith, and that's exactly the kind of man that the Christian right wants in office. I mean, he must be a Christian, because the left is always complaining about his inability to separate church and state. Am I right? Oh yeah...that's not what you want me or any of his other supporters to believe. You want to question his faith and tell everyone how he used God to gain re-election. Just quit while you're ahead; that didn't work when Kerry was running, and it definitely won't work now. If Bush had a (D) next to his name, you'd be bowing to him. Open your eyes and find a middle ground.

My Super Bowl Pick

2005-02-05T21:21:00.000-05:00

I know I don't talk much about sports, but as I said earlier this week, I've got to make a Super Bowl prediction. Football is by far my favorite sport, and I have great instincts for it. I have never --and that's no joke-- picked the losing side in a Super Bowl. I was also one of the only people who correctly predicted a blowout in Super Bowl XXXV (Ravens v. Giants). In that game, I predicted an offensive shutout by Baltimore and a final score of 31-0. The real final score was 34-7, but the Giants touchdown was on special teams, so I was almost exact. I don't always pick well during regular-season games, but I almost never make bad predictions in the playoffs. For the record, if this whole news-ed thing doesn't work out, then I would love to be a sportswriter.

But enough about me, because it's time to break down the game. The Patriots and Eagles are extremely well-matched at first glance. They both have an excellent defense, an impressive offense, a great quarterback, and a master head coach. Once you start matching them up, however, the differences become pronounced.

Here's the breakdown.

1. Defense

It's hard to go wrong with either defense. The Eagles have an excellent array of blitzes coupled with Brian Dawkins at safety. You can't forget about Jevon Kearse, either; he's been an absolute terror at defensive end this season. On the other hand, the Patriots have workhorse linebacker Tedy Bruschi and Richard Seymour. The Patriots secondary has taken its lumps, but the defense has a way of wearing down offenses in head-to-head struggles.

Advantage: Tie

2. Offense

Both teams have great offensive units. Corey Dillon adds the extra running punch that the Patriots had lacked until this year. Although he had been a sleeper until now, Brian Westbrook gives the Eagles a great all-purpose running back, even though he isn't as good of a pure runner as Dillon. Each team has a decent group of receivers, but Terrell Owens may be somewhat limited tomorrow, and Eagles TE Chad Lewis will not play.

Advantage: Patriots

3. Quarterbacks

If I were into fantasy football and I couldn't pick Peyton Manning, I would probably choose Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb. Tom Brady is currently tied with Bart Starr for the longest winning streak in the postseason (9-0), and if he wins tomorrow, he'll own the record. Donovan McNabb has lost three straight NFC championship games, and his desire to win will be equal to, if not greater than, that of Brady. Brady is a better pure passer than McNabb, but McNabb scrambles better than anyone except Michael Vick and (possibly) Daunte Culpepper. It comes down to clutch play, and while they are both great under pressure, McNabb is not as ice-cool as Brady is. If Donovan McNabb wins the Super Bowl, he will be known as a great quarterback. If Tom Brady wins the Super Bowl, he will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Advantage: Patriots

4. Coaching

Bill Belichick and Andy Reid are great coaches. Reid is generally known as more of an offensive mind than the defensive-minded Belichick. The problem is, Andy Reid is one of the best coaches in the NFL. Why is that a problem? Well, Bill Belichick is the best coach in the NFL, and he may be known as the greatest of all time (yes, even greater than Vince Lombardi himself) if he wins this game. No one breaks down a team's weaknesses better or draws up a better game plan. The difference is palpable to anyone watching their teams during a game. The Eagles still move as eleven men; they have incredible teamwork, but they are still individuals. The Patriots move as a single being, as if though they are under the control of some kind of hive-mind. Andy Reid is a coach. Bill Belichick is a hivemaster.

Advantage: Patriots

Final Spread

The Eagles deserve more respect than they have been getting from the sports media. Unfortunately for Philadelphia, the Patriots have been deserving of every bit of the respect being paid to them. The real question becomes whether or not Terrell Owens plays the full game. Owens at 80 percent strength is better than any other Eagles receiver at 110 percent, and the score will be less lopsided the longer he plays. Nevertheless, I don't see anyone stopping New England tomorrow. Prediction: dynasty.

If T.O. plays the full game: Patriots by 6.

If T.O. plays less than that: Patriots by at least 10.

It Must Have Been the Whole Excommunication Thing

2005-02-03T22:34:00.000-05:00

A new Pew poll is out showing that, in the 2004 election, Catholics favored President Bush over John Kerry by 53% to 47%. Kerry's stance on abortion probably didn't help him, but what bothered me more - and what probably bothered Catholics and Protestants alike - was how he talked about his faith in a way that seemed completely forced during the debates. To the Democratic party: If you want to stop losing majorities over issues of faith, start by keeping what your candidates say about their beliefs from sounding politicized. Although I don't doubt Kerry's faith, the notion that he was openly using it with the knowledge of its power over voters was one of the major ways he lost me. It was as if he was trying so hard to not offend anyone with his convictions that he sounded hollow while giving voice to them. In my opinion, this is one of the big (and unexplored) reasons why Senator Kerry lost the election.

Jordan Snipes: Athlete or Alien?

2005-02-02T21:49:00.000-05:00

I don't have enough time tonight to do any serious blogging (heck, I don't even have time to watch the State of the Union Address), but I had to share this one with everybody. On Monday night, Guilford College (NC) basketball player and former high-school quarterback Jordan Snipes got the ball in overtime. The other team, Randolph-Macon, had taken a one-point lead off a foul shot by Adam Krovic. With 0.6 seconds left in the game, Krovic muffed the second foul shot, which went into the hands of Snipes. In the ultimate desperation play, Snipes throws the ball the entire 87-foot length of the court...and sinks it.

The link above has video of this absolutely insane shot; if you're on dial-up, I recommend viewing the game film at the end of the page, as it's only 28 seconds long. For broadband users, check out the additional footage of Snipes repeating his feat on live TV. (CNN needs to get a clue; they're only allowing subscribers to their own program or Real One's to view their copy.) You have to see this.

The Plastic Ones Don't Fight Back

2005-02-01T22:32:00.000-05:00

You know that the US is doing well in the war on terrorism when stuff like this happens. A group calling themselves the Mujahedeen Brigades claimed to have captured an American soldier. To prove this, they posted a photo on the web showing a "stiff and expressionless" male soldier "wearing desert fatigues and seated on a concrete floor with his hands tied behind his back." Fortunately, the Pentagon has reported that no soldier is missing. It gets better: in a bit of dark irony, the "hostage" was really an action figure. Pics of the toy itself, as well as the hostage photo (the gun pointed at his head looks like a toy as well), are on Drudge. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

UPDATE: Power Line is having a field day with this, Wizbang appears to have broken the story and is now tearing apart the Associated Press for not catching this (the Trackbacks for them are unreal), and I 've found a good link for photos. Everyone at the AP needs to remember to visit their optometrists regularly. Sheesh.

Info on This Week

2005-01-31T22:24:00.000-05:00

This should be a fun week here at The Unknown Blogger. A little serious commentary, a little at the local level, AND I'll be giving out my Super Bowl predictions! (Don't laugh quite yet, as I can't remember the last time I picked the losing side in the big one. That, and I'm usually really close to the final point spread.)

A quick note on the local front: The DA's Opinion page was easily the best I've seen in my time as a WVU student today. Resident lefty ideologue Steve Nicholas was well-balanced by Ry Rivard and Michael Withrow, who both had some optimism towards the Iraqi elections. But rather than jumping on the Withrow bandwagon as usual (for the record, I don't know him personally, I just consider him to be reasonable), I have to give my regards to LJ Ulrich, who wrote an excellent piece on the Michael Crichton novel State of Fear. Why am I giving him props? That's simple: his piece was extremely balanced and criticized both left and right, which is impressive because he's the president of WVU's Young Democrats. Cue my earnest applause.

Oh, and I thought it peculiar that the paper made a call today for the city and the college to do a better job of fighting alcohol abuse. I also found it odd that they published a single anti-marijuana letter in Tuesday's edition (which went to press as I was writing this), especially since the letter rebutted the Bible-based case for weed that ran exactly one week ago. Why is this so unusual? Well, it might be because someone on the DA staff found my blog over the weekend by doing a Yahoo! search for "the unknown blogger wvu". After finding me, he or she proceeded to go through several of my more recent posts, particularly the ones dealing with the legalization issue. It looks like they're catching on...

Extreme Left, Meet Extreme Right. Shake Hands.

2005-01-31T22:17:00.000-05:00

I figured I'd use today to point out a highly dangerous extreme in American politics that I haven't discussed. No, I'm not talking about the left (I know, it's a shock to me too). What I'm talking about is the highly extreme right, namely Dr. Thomas E. Woods, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. The book claims to be attempting to counteract the liberalism of high-school textbooks by frankly telling you what really happened in our over 200 years of existence. But what is the real message here?

First of all, Woods is not your typical Republican. Heck, he isn't even your typical "arch-conservative" Republican. Instead, he's a member of a sect populated by what InstaPundit calls "fringe libertarians" and what I call "white supremacists". Yes, Woods is a neocon, but in this case, that doesn't mean he's a neo-conservative so much as a neo-Confederate. If you don't believe me on this one, read what IsThatLegal? has to say about it. Eric Muller did some digging on Woods there, and he has unveiled him as a founding member of the secessionist League of the South in a character study that is nothing short of eye-opening.

Read Muller's dissection for a glimpse into the "white power" side of the League of the South (and Woods himself). I'd comment on that, but it left me appalled. What I will mention is what the good doctor Woods said on a secessionist bulletin board:

...I agree completely with what has been said here: the book is being pitched to precisely those who need it most, namely the neocon-influenced right-wing-radio-listening masses. Perhaps it might help draw them back to antistatism. We can hope.

Yes, it is being pitched to us. The pitch is coming from Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, Joe Scarborough, and pretty much anyone else who is giving Woods air/facetime. This is relevant because of all the talk of secession from the extreme left, which is strangely overlapped by the League of the South (albeit in a very different manner). When I first heard about this book, it was by watching Scarborough when he had Woods on to plug the book. I almost never watch Scarborough's show except that I saw an ad for that night's program. (As I recall, Pat Buchanan, of all people, took over anchoring duties the night that Woods was on.) I noticed that it was being pitched as the cure to the poison of liberal history books, which made me stop and think, "Wait a second...my history book really wasn't that bad!" The book that my AP History course used in my junior year of high school actually integrated straight facts with opinion-based summaries, and although it was a little old (no Monicagate coverage yet), it absolutely tore apart Bill Clinton's first term as setting a poor moral precedent. Yes, I clapped when I read that part of the book. No, I'm not kidding. Apparently, it's just the students in all the other history classes who have to sit through leftist retellings of America.

The book is also obviously attempting to cash in on conservative disagreement with Clinton, FDR, and LBJ. The Claremont Institute warns that the right should not buy into every book that does this, because, as in this case, there may be another agenda to push. In columnist John Kienker's opinion, conservatives "do [them]selves more than a disservice when [they] promote books, like PIG and others, that seek to discredit the principles of the American Founding....the 'single coherent philosophy within the conservative movement.'"

Well said.

Controversy? What Controversy? (Pt. 2)

2005-01-26T22:00:00.000-05:00

I thought I might take an opportunity to spend a little more time talking about the Daily Athenaeum, namely the aftermath of the pro-pot editorial page from Friday's issue. Although I liberally spread the Opinion section's e-mail address around (namely on Free Republic and my own site), a total of five e-mails saw print in the Monday and Tuesday editions. The four printed Monday were all "parrot" e-mails that echoed the sentiments of the columnists and expounded on them to a limited degree, whereas the letter printed Tuesday was from a graduate student and advocated hemp legalization. No negative feedback was printed. I found this to be a little odd, so I decided to apply some (vaguely) scientific reasoning as to why no counterpoint mail was published. Bear with me on this one, because it gets pretty interesting.

First, like any good scientist, I came up with some hypotheses as to why no negative e-mail was put to ink. Keep in mind that most of the numbers are hypothetical. Here are the possibilities that I came up with, followed by some reasoning as to how they could be valid:

1.) There was no bad mail to print.

Occam's Razor says yes to this theory. (For the unitiated, the Razor is a scientific principle stating that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.) Nevertheless, while entirely possible, the raw statistics make this unlikely. Over 25,000 students attend WVU. Not all of these students read the DA; if I were to guess, I'd say about a quarter of them (6,250) do so. Of those who read it, let's say that half (3,125) read the paper cover-to-cover. The chances of 3,125 readers not sending at least one negative e-mail are fairly slim.

Don't forget about Free Republic. My post about the controversy on FR was viewed roughly 1,000 times. Most FReepers are more active when it comes to the big issues and would be more likely to provide feedback. Surprisingly, there were more closet libertarians and pro-legalization Republicans than I expected on Free Republic, so we'll cut the number of potential bad feedbacks in half (500). (A side note: I thought about going to Democratic Underground for a moment when I noticed the trend...and then I laughed.) Two things work in our favor here: some WVU alumni read the post and made comments on it, and there were some people posting who were against legalization. We'll subtract about 200 for repeat views, which puts the potential FReepermail count at 300.

And of course, we can't leave out my own visitors. When I posted "What Is the DA Smoking?", my StatCounter (the green one that I programmed to ignore my IP address) showed about 800 hits. Currently, it shows 1186. That's a gain of over 300 visitors who probably would have seen the e-mail address. Visitors from other countries might not care as much about the issue at hand, so let's round the tally of potential e-mails from my site to 225.

If you're keeping score at home, these numbers add up to a total of 3,500 people who could have sent the Daily Athenaeum negative feedback. I tried to make conservative estimates, but the number could be much higher than that. The chance of these people not sending a single rebuttal is not impossible, but extremely improbable.

Oh, and you may be wondering: Why didn't I send them feedback? Well, that would have been too obvious!

2.) Any negative feedback was too extreme.

This is somewhat possible, but doubtful. The majority of people that would have sent mail would have made sure it was intelligent and printable (hopefully). Besides, the DA is a college paper; unless they received flame e-mail or mail containing slanderous/libelous statements, they would have done minor editing and printed the e-mail. Next...

3.) The negative feedback was uninteresting.

Very unlikely. If someone had bothered to write out an e-mail and send it to the Opinion section, chances are it would have made some kind of point. Even if the letter was short, it shouldn't have mattered; a decidedly original letter which argued that the Bible approves of weed only contained five short sentences and was printed in the Monday edition. I don't buy this hypothesis at all.

4.) The negative feedback was left out intentionally.

If the staff wants to push the issue, then this is possible. At the same time, it would take some serious nerve to be the student who publishes a well thought-out con editorial to balance the pros; therefore, the paper might not be pushing an agenda at all. The paper has shown strong evidence of bias in the past, however, so this theory would not defy precedent. We're playing scientist, so although we can't prove this false unlike 2 and 3, we can't prove it true. After all, science is only good for proving a hypothesis false, and even if science COULD prove this true, there isn't enough evidence. The paper's staff probably knows the answer to this question, but I don't, and if this is the answer, I'd rather not.

Conclusion:

Theories 2 and 3 aren't nearly as valid as 1 and 4. The question becomes this: How will we ever know which one is true? That's simple: If the feedback was purposefully omitted (4), then this pattern will repeat over the course of future "topical days" at the Daily Athenaeum. Hopefully, that won't happen, and Occam's Razor (1) will hold true. Here's hoping, anyway.

Controversy? What Controversy? (Pt. 1)

2005-01-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

Oscars shut out "Kinsey," "Fahrenheit 9/11;" "Passion of the Christ" gets three minor nominatons (AP)

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Michael Moore should have kept his movie out of Best Picture contention and in the Best Documentary category; by way of the shutout, the Academy prevents him from more anti-Bush grandstanding. Shouldn't he have known he didn't have a shot after November 3? If he shows up, he'll hopefully be the new Makeover Moore, rather than his normal slob-slacker persona.

When you read the nominations, it's easy to stop and smell the Oscar diplomacy. Many conservative Republicans (myself not included) would have had a small coronary if "Kinsey" had won anything important. The left side of Hollywood (read: 90% of Hollywood) might have had seizures in the aisles if "The Passion" had won Best Picture, but the Academy had to balance the right with the left, and it would have been criminal to not nominate "The Passion" for something. Mark my words: Mel Gibson's film WILL win at least one of the awards it was nominated for. Who knew that the Oscars could be so politicized?

(A side note: Pt. 2 of this is coming either today or tomorrow. It's not related to the Oscars, but the title is perfect for the coming post. Let's just say it ties back into my post from Friday.)

CORRECTION: I read a copy of the report again via the DA and noticed that "Kinsey" actress Laura Linney, who played Liam Neeson's wife in the movie, received a Best Supporting Actress nomination. Oddly, this fact was mentioned in a one-line blurb in the middle of some less consequential nominations. At least it wasn't a complete shutout after all...

On a more interesting note, the AP article linked above has been edited at least once. The version in the DA referred to Kinsey's wife as "carnally adventurous," but the version I linked to calls her "sexually adventurous." A bizarre edit, but an edit nonetheless.

More Fun with Blogthings

2005-01-23T20:30:00.000-05:00

Longtime readers may remember when I took a few quizzes through Blogthings just for a change of pace. I decided to take another one to see who my famous blogger twin is. Get a load of this...

Your Famous Blogger Twin is Andrew Sullivan

Opinionated with a lot to say
You blog because you truly love to write

Who's Your Famous Blogger Twin?

I'm not gay, but otherwise, that is awesome.

(I rarely post anything serious on the weekends. Serious posting begins anew tomorrow.)

What Is the DA Smoking?

2005-01-20T23:41:00.000-05:00

I've got advance word on tomorrow's copy of everyone's favorite campus newspaper, WVU's The Daily Athenaeum. For one day, the Opinion section has become a new arena for marijuana legalization. They were smart by not plugging freedom of chronic in the "Our Perspective" section, but they might as well have, because all of the editorials are pro-reefer. I should have known we were in trouble when new opinion editor Matt Roberson said the section would start having "topical days," days in which all of the editorials would center around one topic.

Amber Corrin, Sarah Asti, and Charlie Wade wrote the pieces promoting legalization. Corrin looks at the drug's history, Wade looks at the current statistics, Asti looks at the current legislation, and they're all completely off-base. What is my real problem here? Well, you know, whose bright idea was it to have the campus newspaper play Reefer Love-Fest while the university ranks as the 4th biggest party school in the country? Running with this in such a biased manner is damaging to the faculty, the students, and prospective students. Our school is trying to improve its image, and you aren't helping. You're the campus newspaper, DA. Remember: the college is first, the pet issues are second.

(This has nothing to do with my personal feelings about marijuana use. Personally, I don't care what people do in private, and I don't agree with playing "moral police." If you think I'm writing this out of self-righteous indignation, you're dead wrong.)

Curiously, we never hear Travis Doyle's feelings on the matter, as he's busy writing about how to mod PRT cars. (For the uninitiated, WVU has a Personal Rapid Transit system that works kind of like Disney's Monorail, except it looks like the short bus and breaks down if you look at it funny.) Michael Withrow, who is consistently one of the most balanced and reasonable columnists for the paper, doesn't write a single word about Mary Jane; instead, his column is all about how much he likes Simon Cowell from American Idol. So much for point-counterpoint.

Oh, and by the way, DA: I posted this on the conservative forum Free Republic. Assuming they pick up on this, you guys should get ready to be swamped with e-mail. In case they don't pick up on it, here's hoping my readers say something about this irresponsible bit of platform pushing: DAPerspectives@mail.wvu.edu.

UPDATE: The first comment on the Free Republic post was simple and hilarious: "Just remind them it's hard to spell 'Athenaeum' when you're stoned."