The Right Side of the Road

Under Construction

2006-07-01T20:56:00.000-05:00

As you may have noticed, The Right Side of the Road all but collapsed recently. A series of technical errors beyond my expertise pulled the site down at first and then, almost inexplicably, this page reverted back to its shape of August 2005. With my standard dateline and political purview changing, this actually was as opportune a moment as there ever might be for the site to collapse (not that I ever would have wished this). So, with a little help from my friends, I hope to not only have The Right Side of the Road back up and running within the next week or so but, more importantly, unveil a new site with a complete facelift and more driven point of perspective. So please be patient for a little while. I, as always, appreciate your readership and look forward to offering my unsolicited opinions well into the future. Cheers, Mac VerStandig

Why Ozzie Guillen shouldn't be blamed

2006-06-23T14:46:00.000-05:00

PICKERINGTON, Ohio - Driving through rural America while listening to ESPN radio yesterday, I almost ran off the road. Colin Cowherd was hosting his talk show and the topic was Chicago White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen and the comments Mr. Guillen made about an area columnist – namely calling the writer by a derogatory term normally aimed at the homosexual community. (It rhymes with “hag” in case your imagination is escaping you here...) But it wasn't Mr. Guillen's unsavory tongue that stunned me – such is certainly par for the course in professional locker rooms. No, it was a comment made in passing by one of Mr. Cowherd's guests; a remark that seemed to stun the ESPN host as much as me: apparently Mr. Guillen's use of the epithet was off the record. And as Chicago's NBC affiliate reports:

Guillen admitted that he used the wrong word to describe Mariotti, but added that he thought he was off the record. That, Guillen admitted, was no excuse.

This, however, is where I do think Mr. Guillen is wrong. If he made the comment off the record – and most indications now are that he did – it is an excuse. A very valid one, indeed. No, it doesn't excuse the idea that he might have any level of bigotry. Though I personally think he addressed that concern rather promptly with his hilarious defense, as reported by Chicago Pride:

Guillen continued to defend his actions telling Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Greg Couch that he has gay friends, attends WNBA games, went to a Madonna concert and plans to go to the Gay Games in Chicago.

(I love the fact that the WNBA is making little to no noise over this.) But the off the record reality should excuse Mr. Guillen from culpability for his comments. To hold a public figure accountable to comments made off the record to a reporter is tantamount to holding a criminal accountable for information shared under the protections of attorney/client privilege. The entire idea of off the record conversations is to aid the media in having a better contextual understanding of the events they cover and personal understanding of the people who make news. This leads to a better, more efficient press that can perform its guard dog functions when and where necessary. Sure, there is no legal protection for such chatter, but to violate this journalistic rule ought to be amongst the highest of offenses a writer or reporter can commit. Just because such isn't legislated doesn't mean it ought not be protected. The real villain here is whatever reporter decided to break his or her journalistic word and report on that which was entrusted in him or her under private pretenses. It is of the highest journalistic ego to report on the media in the first place (though such is oftentimes necessary nonetheless; this situation withstanding); it is merely the further trampling of press credibility when this occurs because of comments made off the record. Should the Chicago White Sox elect to revoke the press credentials of whatever reporter broke this story (and I am not sure who that was), the organization would not only be justified in such action but, indeed, would be doing a great deal to aid the cause of American journalism.

Bad day for the print media

2006-06-08T12:53:00.000-05:00

With news of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi coming after deadlines for publications across the country, there are some particular peculiarities with today’s print news. Perhaps most unfortunately, Atlantic Monthly unveiled its July/August edition today. And the cover story, by Mary Anne Weaver, is about the hunt for Mr. al-Zarqawi. In the piece, Ms. Weaver writes:

Now one of the most wanted men in the world, for whose arrest the United States has offered a $25 million reward, al-Zarqawi is a notoriously enigmatic figure—a man who is everywhere yet nowhere.

Meanwhile, the New York Times editorial page dedicated its lead tirade today to a commentary on how badly Iraq struggles with the absence of an interior minister and defense minister:

Almost six months after Iraqis voted for their first full-term government, two of the most essential jobs in that government remain unfilled: the interior minister, who oversees the police, and the defense minister, who oversees the army. That would be a serious political crisis in any country. It is little short of calamitous for Iraq.

While Atlantic Monthly’s profile of Mr. al-Zarqawi has at least some value now that he is the center of the international news cycle, the New York Times’ editorial is not worth the ink used to print it. As Reuters reported early this morning – while most of the Times’ newspapers were still sitting on doorsteps and newsstands:

The Iraqi parliament approved on Thursday Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's candidates for interior and defense ministers, ending wrangling that had threatened to plunge his three-week-old unity government into crisis.

History will show that Mr. al-Zarqawi was killed in early June of 2006, yet Atlantic Monthly’s July/August edition was largely dedicated to the manhunt for the terrorist leader. History will further show that in the early hours of June 8, 2006, Iraq’s cabinet was completed, yet on the same day America’s newspaper of record was railing about the horrific absence of a complete Iraqi cabinet. For the print media, these ought to be both counted as signs of the apocalypse.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi dead

2006-06-08T06:55:00.000-05:00

This morning marks the largest military victory for the United States since December 13, 2003, when Saddam Hussein was captured and brought into custody. Indeed, today Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in Iraq by US military forces. There are plentiful political ramifications of this victory, including an almost-certain bump in the polls for a previously-sagging President George Bush. But the more important fallout will come in Iraq. If this event can help the Iraqi people embrace their government or the US presence in their country even just a little bit more, that will be the true victory of today. To be sure, a mass-murderer is dead. This is a man who planned bombings, hired homicide bombers, masterminded kidnappings and executions, oversaw almost all terrorist activity in Iraq and, unforgettably, saw to the beheading of Nick Berg. Indeed, Mr. al-Zarqawi is dead and the world is a better place for it.

Truth and fiction: Close relatives

2006-06-05T16:05:00.000-05:00

Here is one story’s lede:

BATON ROUGE, LA—In a breakthrough study that contradicts decades of understanding about the nature of alligator–drunkard relations, Louisiana State University researchers have concluded that people's drunkenness does not impair the ancient reptiles' ability to inflict enormous physical harm.

Here is another story’s lede:

KIEV - A man shouting that [the Lord] would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday. "The man shouted '[the Lord] will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

Alright, the first is from The Onion and the second is a Reuters dispatch. But, seriously, could you tell the difference?

...and the tanks marched

2006-06-04T21:35:00.000-05:00

For my final two years of college, I kept a handful of pictures above the desk in my apartment. Each was meaningful in its own right and each was meant to serve as a regular reminder of one of the values I hold most dear. One of those images was a print of Jeff Widener’s famed Associated Press photo, showing an unknown protestor standing before a procession of tanks during the Tiananmen Square incident. It is a harsh yet poignant reminder of the value of free speech and protest – things taken for granted in the United States yet clearly not present throughout the world. Today marks the 17th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Nearly two decades later, details of the famed government-led slaughter remain sketchy, with casualty counts ranging from modest double-digit estimates to the thousands. Regardless of the extent, it was a massacre of epic proportions and something for which the Chinese government has long owed – and never given – the international community a proper explanation and apology. The New York Times reported today with a Hong Kong dateline:

The highest official of the Roman Catholic Church in China marked the 17th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square killings on Sunday by strongly criticizing the government and calling on it to hold a full and open review of the killings.

The Church is right. The world has come too far and mankind has evolved to too profound a point for modern history to include an incident such as the Tiananmen Massacre accompanied by neither an apology nor full explanation.

'In my younger and more vulnerable years...'

2006-06-01T19:36:00.000-05:00

This will be my final blog posting from Madison, Wisconsin – at least for the foreseeable future. Having packed or sold almost all of my furniture, I actually am writing this while sitting on my carpet, laptop leaning against my knees, boxes scattered about the room. Starting Saturday, the default dateline for this site will become Washington, DC. Later this summer, I’ll move off to law school and change locales again. Once I know for sure where that will be, I’ll make appropriate reference on this blog. In leaving, I have no truly profound parting thoughts – my various scribblings from the past several years seem to aptly encapsulate all that which I would consider offering on my way out. Rather, I want to take a moment and thank everyone who has helped me along through my years in Madison. For me, the past four years have not merely been about my writings in local news outlets, editing at The Badger Herald or publishing this blog; it has been an experience highlighted by tremendous professors, delightful classes, a fabulous fraternity, a tremendous social group and the constant care and support of my family. So to all those who have helped me through this stage of my life: my most heartfelt thanks. As for this site, it will live on. And while my base location may change, I will do my best to keep the content pertinent and interesting. If you’ll be kind enough to keep reading, I’ll try to make it worth the while. In the words of the fictitious Nick Carraway, “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Celebrating a year of The Daily Nightly

2006-05-31T11:07:00.000-05:00

While tomorrow will mark the beginning of Katie Couric’s shameful presence in the anchor chair of the CBS Evening News, there is some positive fodder in the world of network news this week. Today is the first anniversary of Brian Williams’ blog, The Daily Nightly. A companion of sorts to the NBC Evening News, Mr. Williams’ blog has distinguished itself over the past year as perhaps the finest attempt by any news outfit to mold the traditional and modern into one accessible front. Mr. Williams' regular entries are always a delight to read and those posts by others on the NBC News staff are a genuine pleasure as well. Indeed, it is one of the finest blogs on the web and to see it going strong after a full year is truly comforting. In an anniversary post, Mr. Williams writes:

For the record, it was NBC executive and veteran producer Jeff Gralnick who convinced me to blog. From that day on, it has changed my daily life and schedule. It has brought me closer to our most dedicated viewers and has proven to be a (sometimes controversial) window into our lives.

Katie Couric goes to the back of the class

2006-05-31T10:58:00.000-05:00

Katie Couric took her final bow on The Today Show this morning, exiting the NBC program after 15 years so she can move over to CBS and become the new anchor of the evening news. Almost the entirety of this morning’s Today Show was dedicated to Ms. Couric’s departure, with a heavy eye toward mawkishness and sap-latent montages. If there was one thing, though, that became ever-apparent as the forced tour down memory lane progressed, it was just how horrifically unprepared Ms. Couric is to take helm of a serious news outfit. The portions of her career on morning television that seemed ripe for highlight reel placement were almost universally of a gimmicky nature. There was Ms. Couric carrying an Olympic torch, racing her colleague in a snowmobile, dancing in the studio, performing an Elvis Presley impression, playing with animals and wearing odd outfits. They were all stunts ideal for a morning show audience composed of bleary-eyed homemakers sipping coffee and they were all further proof that what Ms. Couric has done in her career to date in no way prepared her for one of the most serious news gigs in all of media. As I wrote on this site after the announcement of Ms. Couric’s move was made:

An anchor is both a newsman and a television personality, but the former quality ought to always outweigh the latter. In Mr. Couric’s case, these standards are entirely backwards, as a valuable smile seems to now matter more in the halls of CBS than veteran reporting status or political intellect.

NBC has posted a series of video clips on The Today Show website, reflecting on Ms. Couric’s stint at the network and bidding her goodbye. These, coupled with what was shown on air this morning (and there is a tremendous overlap), are a gentle reminder that this is a television personality trained and skilled in the art of smiling wide, playing games and perpetuating an Oprah Winfrey-style charisma. Indeed, Ms. Couric lacks the candor of Brian Williams, insight of Peter Jennings, composure of Walter Cronkite, simplistic brilliance of Tim Russert and fiery drive of Edward R. Murrow. But, alas, CBS News has shown a willingness to turn cheap tricks with its evening news outfit and Ms. Couric is one eager john. In the end, of course, it is NBC that wins. The Today Show may be sans one of its modern icons, but Mr. Williams’ extraordinary evening news program is now assured to be sans at least one serious competitor for the time being.

Bravo drops the ball with comedy list

2006-05-29T00:10:00.000-05:00

Bravo unveiled its list of the 100 funniest movies in a four-part series over the weekend. It was certainly not the first attempt at compiling such a list – the American Film Institute did an excellent job of piecing one together back in 2000. But Bravo’s certainly was one of the most poorly-assembled such lists to be constructed of late. The television special did get a few things right. Naming “Animal House” the top comedy was a perfectly reasonable move, and kudos are deserved for thinking to include “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” and “Team America” on the list – both are deeply political cult-style flicks that, frankly, almost never get the credit for the profound statements they make. But that is about all of what Bravo got right. Consider some of the horrific flaws: The Wedding Singer (#8), Meet the Fockers (#25) and The Incredibles (#46) all ranked well above Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (#53). Yep, a forgettable Adam Sandler vehicle, failed remake and piece of animated puffery all managed to place in front of the legendary Stanley Kubrick laugh-fest. And, within the context of the list, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Bravo applied a terrible modern bias, favoring studio work from the past ten years with a wanton bias. The “Frat Pack” ruled the list, with Anchorman coming in at #100, Dodgeball taking #37, Wedding Crashers placing at #19 and Old School claiming #16. Stoner flicks were also heavy on the tally, with Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle at #95 and Half Baked at #81. So what worthy films did these modern attempts take the places of? Missing from the list were The Graduate, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Duck Soup and Arsenic and Old Lace, among other legendary titles. Even when attempting to be inclusive, the Bravo tally failed. The Coen brothers’ were represented with Raising Arizona (#45) and The Big Lebowski (#31) – both worthy picks. But they apparently came at the expense of Fargo, the Coens’ one truly monumental cinematic contribution. Other misplaced judgments: -Ranking Meet the Fockers (#25) so far above Meet the Parents (#52) -Placing Fast Times at Ridgemont High (#15), American Pie (#49) and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (#54) – movies that all helped define a generation of teenagers – behind trash like The Naked Gun Series (#13) and Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (#11). -Including the very un-funny School of Rock (#98)

'Speech and Debate' wrong citation

2006-05-27T18:03:00.000-05:00

When it comes to constitutional test cases, the “victims” protesting their alleged grievances are rarely sympathetic and oftentimes outright villainous. The defendants’ rights movement won its greatest victory in the case of Ernesto Miranda, a confessed rapist. Free speech was defined in its finest form thanks to the petition of a group of Nazis looking to parade in a Jewish village. And, even this year, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a question of federal jurisdiction within state legal matters using Anna Nicole Smith, a gold-digging former stripper, as the plaintiff. So goes the case of William Jefferson, the Democratic representative from Louisiana whose office in the United States Capitol complex was recently raided by the FBI as part of a bribery and corruption investigation. This guy is not a likeable character – the feds claim to have found $90,000 in his home freezer and apparently have a mountain of evidence against him. Indeed, Mr. Jefferson is quickly becoming the greatest modern embodiment of all those things Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith once fought against. But there is one problem: The feds raided his congressional office. And House leaders on both sides of the aisle are having conniptions over this. In a Friday editorial in the USA Today, Republican Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, writes:

In more than 219 years, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to use a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office. These issues have always been resolved without the necessity of a search warrant, and prosecutions have gone forward. Justice Department officials now insist that this specific case required them, for the first time, to conduct a search. I regret that when they reached this conclusion, they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution.

In fact, Mr. Hastert, along with his Republican colleagues and members of Mr. Jefferson’s party on the other side of the aisle, went so ballistic over this raid that President Bush has ordered all of its fruits placed under seal for 45 days while lawyers attempt to get to the bottom of the whole ordeal. In a statement, Mr. Bush commented:

The Department of Justice's search was part of an important investigation of alleged public corruption. At the same time, the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives believes this search violated the Constitutional principle of separation of powers and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. They note these principles must be adhered to, even in the pursuit of a legitimate criminal investigation.

The New York Times editorial board, taking a much more cynical and partisan route (and leave it to the New York Times editorial board to put a partisan spin on a bi-partisan controversy), wrote:

Our first question is where all these concerned constitutionalists have been for the last five years. … The F.B.I. is going to have to show some very good reasons for having precipitated this showdown. Federal investigators have managed to prosecute many other officials for corruption over the last 200-odd years without ever barging into Congressional offices in the process. The danger of abuse with this kind of activity is enormous, especially with a president and an attorney general whose grasp for power seems to have no limits.

The same newspaper is today reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have forced Mr. Bush’s hand in this controversy, threatening to resign – along with his top aides – if the White House took a stand against the FBI. The paper reports:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

So just what is this grave constitutional concern that House members point to? Aside from general notions of separation of powers (the FBI belonging to the executive branch of the government), it is the “Speech and Debate” clause of the constitution that has everyone up in arms. The Associated Press reports:

Congressional leaders accused the FBI of overstepping the bounds of what's permissible under the Constitution's separation-of-powers provisions. In particular, they asserted the FBI violated the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6.

This all-important passage of the Constitution reads simply:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Yep, that’s it. No comments on the sacredness of congressional offices or assertions of how members of the House of Representatives shall be able to keep their bribes confidential. It’s basically just a clause that says members of Congress need to do their jobs and, in doing so, are exempt from certain portions of the law. IE, if you need to break the speed limit to make a vote in time, no sweat. (This is what Rep. Kennedy was possibly alluding to when pulled over in the middle of the night some time ago; he allegedly claimed he was on his way to vote – magic words if seeking the blind eye of a Washington, DC police officer.) Frankly, this whole defense doesn’t pass the laugh test. The case will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court and, once there, interesting questions of the separation of powers will – and should – be addressed. Meanwhile, it would seem that with undercover video and a whole new breed of “cold, hard cash,” the FBI ought to have little trouble making the case against Mr. Jefferson. But for now, it would be nice if members of Congress would read their copies of the Constitution, realize that they, too, are citizens accountable to the law, and give up this whole “Speech and Debate” defense. They have plenty to work with on the separation of powers question – and having the Attorney General act like a juvenile cry-baby is sure to only help their case. Yet, perhaps most importantly, what everyone needs to realize for now is that while a notion of separation of powers is not merely part of the American tradition but, indeed, a long-held legal notion, it is not clearly found in the “Speech and Debate” clause of the constitution.

Religious cartoon sparks outrage - again!

2006-05-25T23:32:00.000-05:00

A cartoon depicting a religious figure in an unsavory manner has sparked controversy on a college campus. Sound familiar? It’s déjà vu all over again – this time the University of Oregon is playing host to the drama. The Associated Press reports:

Anti-Christian cartoons in a University of Oregon student newspaper, The Insurgent, has riled students, local Catholic organizations and now involves national cable TV commentator Bill O'Reilly. Many say the cartoons in the March issue overstep the First Amendment and want U of O President Dave Frohnmayer to step in. The conservative O'Reilly says Frohnmayer is a coward who should be fired and that the issue is one of hate, not free speech.

The cartoon in question can be found at this link. I’d put the image on this blog, but haven’t found a suitable jpg or gif. In February, I took a very public stand on a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist. At the time, I was editor in chief of The Badger Herald and led the paper as it became the first publication in Wisconsin to share the picture – a cartoon that had been sparking riots worldwide. In defending my editorial decision, I went on Bill O’Reilly’s show and found a rather receptive Fox News posture. So naturally I was stunned when I learned that he has come out in absolute condemnation of this cartoon. Hypocrisy seemed rather apparent. But I was wrong. The devil truly lies in the details here. And before everyone goes proclaiming that there is a double standard for when images insult the Muslim faith and when they insult the Christian faith, please consider the following. First, the newspaper in question here is funded by the university. There is a big difference between a self-reliant college newspaper – which The Badger Herald is – and a dependent publication. I’ve spoken about this subject at length before, and the reality is that free speech can – and oftentimes should – be treated differently in these mediums. Second, the Oregon paper is not publishing a newsworthy cartoon. They are not acting here as The Badger Herald and a few other publications did earlier this year; rather, they are acting as a Danish publication did last fall in sharing the image for the first time. There was no newsworthy context to this cartoon before the Oregon paper published it – the controversy here derives from original publication, not republication as part of a fact-reporting mission. As for the image itself, it is certainly offensive. But so was the cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist. And so is any number of images shared in American newspapers every day. The real problem is that people expect different behavior from university-funded publications than they do from independent publications. It is almost a critique of freedom of the press in reverse – the First Amendment helped ensure a marketplace where the government would never have to face the same criticisms as editors, nor would the government ever be on the hook for such criticism. This was part of the Founding Fathers’ brilliance. The problem with college-funded publications at public universities is that there is an inherent perversion of this notion. In short, if taxpayers – or even just students – are billed for printing expenses, there are a lot of individual hands feeding you. And it is much easier to bite those hands. It’s time that the editors at the University of Oregon paper in question – and all other dependent student newspapers – come to realize that while they are in charge of their publication, their operations are meant for purposes of a more education-driven than free speech-driven nature. And when they decide to take other people’s money and use it to make a political statement, they are in way over their heads.

Top Chef season comes to an end

2006-05-25T22:26:00.000-05:00

Early in the season, I made a habit of blogging on Top Chef. Eventually, I let the posts die down – between my own hectic, sleep-deprived schedule and a general realization that for me to say much of anything about each episode would necessitate including the sort of “spoilers” I just don’t think to be proper, I didn’t think it wise to continue. Still, I watched week in and week out – often times recording episodes during work hours and viewing them later or, when on the road, perusing iTunes for the latest $1.99 download. Now that the show is over with – season one, at least – I though I’d offer one last piece on what quickly became my favorite television program. (And that is saying a lot considering that, for almost the entirety of my college career, I made a habit of watching almost no entertainment television.) In terms of winners and losers, I was happy to see Harold Dieterle emerge victorious in the end. I didn’t harbor quite the same animosity toward Tiffany Faison, the other finalist, as many seemed to. Though I will admit to being quite perturbed with her after an early episode in which she basically bashed children to no end. But Ms. Faison proved an excellent chef and, in a sense, it was disappointing to watch the fan votes come on screen during the finale and realize she was trailing to Mr. Dieterle by a 93% to 7% vote. Mr. Dieterle was on The Today Show this morning and did a cooking segment with Al Roker. I found the piece enjoyable, but must admit that perhaps more than anything it was the irony of the whole segment that caught me: Top Chef proved one of the finest culinary shows on television and yet somehow it wasn’t on The Food Network. I was long wondering if an Iron Chef or Rachel Ray reference might slip onto Bravo’s airwaves, but none ever did. Then, the morning after the show finished its run, the winner was there cooking on network television with Mr. Roker, a Food Network host. For what it’s worth, I also did some research and wandered on to a few interesting factoids now that the show is over: First, Mr. Dieterle’s restaurant, set to open in the fall, will be called Perilla. Second, the two dinner courses in the finale were actually served in the morning. As Gail Simmons, one of the judges, notes on her Bravo blog:

[W]e had to film dinner in the AM to allow enough time for Judges Table that evening…

Third, and this is the one that floored me, it turns out that the reunion episode which aired before the two finales was actually filmed after the two finales! In other words, all that chatter at the end about who should win was completely moot and, in fact, many of the emotions on air may have been directly born out of the eventual results (which at least six of the contestants would have known going into the taping). Ms. Faison’s mid-show breakdown makes a lot more sense now. I’ve never been much a fan of the new wave of “reality television.” I watched part of an American Idol season when I was a freshman at the University of Wisconsin, saw some of the original episodes of Survivor and even tuned in to view The Real World on a few occasions. None of it was ever really for me. Iron Chef, sports coverage and the news are about as close to “reality television” as I have ever enjoyed wandering. But, for some reason, Top Chef really did prove a pleasure for me – and not necessarily a guilty one at that. I don’t know if it was my love of cooking (which matures every day), the period of my life (a rather stressful one until a couple of weeks ago) or the simple escapism. One way or another, I’ll miss it.

Brian Williams in Africa

2006-05-22T19:32:00.000-05:00

Standing in the middle of the Louisiana Superdome, anchoring NBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina, Brian Williams made it clear in the most humble way possible that he was, indeed, the next great television news anchor. He had taken his crew to the heart of a deadly and dangerous disaster to deliver the news and he somehow managed to balance a straight delivery of the facts with proper human emotion in one of the finest series of reports in television news history. Mr. Williams, the anchor of the NBC Evening News, is on the road again and the story he reported from Africa this evening was of the highest caliber. He is there with rock star Bono, touring some of the most depressed regions of the continent, as the U2 front man investigates philanthropic progress firsthand. On his the NBC News blog, The Daily Nightly, Mr. Williams writes with a Mali dateline:

Tomorrow we travel from Mali to Ghana... all of it part of a promised tour by Bono to check up on spending versus need. While he sees more to be optimistic about, it was hard to feel that way while looking into the eyes of children today. As you so often hear on trips like this one -- we all feel the same -- our only frustration is that we cannot scoop them all up in our arms and take them home to share in all that we're so lucky to have in America.

The television broadcast concluded with a heart-wrenching feature on a young girl. Mr. Williams reported:

She couldn’t have been more than seven years old. She had methodically built a fire and has filled a bowl with oil, which was boiling. She then mashed the dough – as she apparently does every day – putting the dough in the oil and cooking up a sizeable meal apparently for her family. But her eyes told the story of maturity beyond her years. And even though this area is ten hours away from New York by air, this scene illustrated our two different worlds. What was her American equivalent, a girl of seven years of age, doing at that same time this afternoon?

In an era when network news is quickly fading and the thirty-minute evening format teeters on extinction, Mr. Williams continues to offer one final reason why Americans should tune in to his broadcast.

Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore: Almost useless

2006-05-22T15:43:00.000-05:00

A new set of “power rankings” for members of congress has been released by Knowlegis and the Wisconsin delegation has produced some interesting results. Found on Congress.org, the rankings are simply explained:

We rated each current Member of Congress on 15 criteria that demonstrated power and the ability to be effective in Congress in 2005. This resulted in a Power Score that ranked members for overall power in each chamber of Congress.

So who faired the best and who faired the worst? Consider these milestones: In the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert (the Speaker) scored the highest ranking with a 97.25. Second highest was Tom Delay (R-TX) with a 63.50. The highest ranking Democrat was Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with a 41.89. On the Senate side, Bill Frist (the Majority Leader) scored the highest ranking with a 96.75, Arlen Specter (R-PA) was second with an 82.31 and Harry Reid (D-NV) was the highest placed Democrat with a 71.06. By far the top placing member of the Wisconsin delegation was James Sensenbrenner, who scored a 48.00 and ranked fifth overall in the House. Not too far behind was David Obey, the second most powerful Democrat in the house (trailing only Ms. Pelosi), with a 40.00 score and 9th place finish. The lowest ranking members of the state’s delegation, not surprisingly, were Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, who scored 4.50 and 3.87 tallies, taking 424th and 432nd place, respectively. (Keep in mind, there are only 435 members of the House, meaning Wisconsin has two of the 11 least powerful. Impressive, eh?) On the Senate side, Russ Feingold seems to be all talk and no walk, as despite being a liberal icon he placed 82nd overall with a 21.06 score. Herb Kohl, on the other hand, seems to be doing a lot more in Washington even though he doesn’t have the same affection for sound bytes as Mr. Feingold; the senior senator scored a 31.25 and placed 54th overall. (There are, of course, 100 senators.) So what are the highlights of all of this? Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Obey certainly seem to be delivering a powerful punch on behalf of their constituents. These are the sort of people you want fighting your fights in Washington – they can actually get things done. Conversely, Mesdames. Moore and Baldwin, are pretty much lost in the House of Representatives. Considering that Ms. Moore’s election is illegitimate-at-best and Ms. Baldwin has little to worry about with one of the most liberal districts in America, this comes as surprising, seeing as how you would expect one to fight for legitimacy and the other to offer a “nothing to lose”-style attitude. Oh, and before you go dismissing this all as partisan, consider this one little gem found in a press release from the Dave Magnum campaign:

Interestingly, Brad Fitch, Tammy Baldwin’s former chief of staff, headed up the Knowlegis team that conducted the study.

Minor detail

2006-05-21T23:02:00.000-05:00

On Friday, The Wisconsin State Journal ran an article on “We Gotta Get Out of This Place,” a book currently being penned by University of Wisconsin Professor Craig Werner and Doug Bradley. At one point, the piece notes:

"Music becomes most important in stressful times and the most stressful period of my life was when I was in Vietnam," said Bradley, who is now director of communications for the UW System. He served in Long Binh, Vietnam, in 1970 and 1971 as an information specialist.

It’s an interesting project and an interesting article – The Badger Herald ran a similar piece back in February. The problem, however, is that the State Journal is wrong. The Madison daily paper’s Friday edition marked the end of a week during the course of which Mr. Bradley had tendered his resignation as part of a major shake-up in the UW System offices. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported the story two days earlier and I even blogged on it here. I realize that most entertainment articles are scribed well in advance and considered “perennial” in newsrooms because they lack time value. And it is worth noting that this factoid has no bearing on Mr. Bradley's involvement with the book. But it still seems like the sort of thing the State Journal should have caught.

You know your roots are French when...

2006-05-20T23:15:00.000-05:00

Let’s review: Big hurricane is imminent. People are ordered to massive convention center and stadium – aka death traps. Busses sit in parking lots. Big hurricane hits. Busses still sit in parking lots. People remain in said death traps while leader’s friends cut in line to get out of town. Mayor gets re-elected. As a native of the Washington, DC area, I am at least comforted in knowing that my city’s re-electing the crack-smoking Marion “The bitch set me up” Barry is no longer a national low-point. No, the people of New Orleans have outdone our nation’s capitol. How Ray Nagin got enough votes to keep his office I will likely never understand. Because, frankly, I thought Poseidon could mount a strong enough write-in campaign to beat this idiot.

Inclusionary Zoning: Beyond repair

2006-05-18T23:59:00.000-05:00

According to Madison.com, the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin – an industry lobbying group – is abandoning talks with the City of Madison to reach a compromise on the horror that is the city’s inclusionary zoning law. The law, scribed by radical lefty Alder Brenda Konkel, is one of the most anti-business, intrusive pieces of legislation to make it through the Madison Common Council over the past several years, ranking right alongside a bubble-based minimum wage hike and oppressive ban on smoking in private establishments. Madison.com reports:

The process to date "raises serious concerns that the ordinance is unfixable and the only reasonable approach is to repeal the ordinance before it further harms the housing market," DMI president Susan Schmitz wrote [Madison Mayor Dave] Cieslewicz. Smart Growth Madison, which represents 15 developers and others in the real estate industry, had supported the law when it passed the council on a 12-8 vote in January 2004, no longer believes it can be fixed, but will continue to work with city leaders. "The current ordinance should be suspended, repealed until we come up a viable option," executive director Carole Schaeffer said.

Frankly, I am stunned the real estate industry has worked with the city on this ordinance for so long considering that all the legislation does is pick the pockets of private developers and property managers. So long as Ms. Konkel is espousing a “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”-style philosophy on the Common Council, it would seem impossible for any business group to succeed in Madison. But, alas, not everyone can flee the city and so the real estate industry ought to be applauded for at least giving common sense a try. Incidentally, another harshly oppressive anti-business ordinance, a paid sick leave mandate, went before the council early this week. It was a piece of legislation so radical that, had it passed, Madison would have broken new ground in terms of employment interference Fortunately, the ordinance failed by a 10-9 vote. But the fact that it even managed to garner nine supporters ought to be cause for a little queasiness. Pile this all together and the message is clear: if you are looking to open a new business, Middleton, Maple Bluff, Stoughton and Sun Praire are looking better than ever.

Schneeberg is up and running

2006-05-18T23:24:00.000-05:00

May the blogosphere be put on notice: Schneeberg has arrived. At the helm of Madison’s freshest major blog is Mike Robinson, former managing editor of The Badger Herald, seasoned sports journalist and all-around good guy. His knowledge of all things Madison, politics, and, most of all, sports, is sure to make for a major contribution to the blogosphere. Welcome Mike!

Shake-up in the UW System offices

2006-05-17T22:47:00.000-05:00

Megan Twohey over at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that three of the University of Wisconsin System’s top communications officials have tendered letters of resignation. In a May 17 article, she notes:

UW System President Kevin Reilly said in a memo to regents, chancellors and other university officials that Margaret Lewis, associate vice president for government relations; Doug Bradley, director of communications; and Laurie Dies, special assistant for state relations, were resigning. Their positions, Reilly said, will be used to create a new, three-person communications and external relations team that "will have an opportunity to redefine and revitalize how the University represents itself to the citizens of Wisconsin."

What’s interesting is that while Mesdames Lewis and Dies were both in positions that directly dealt with state and government relations – relations that many, including myself, see as being at a notable low point – Mr. Bradley was less a System diplomat and more of a classic media relations man in his job. So if this shake-up is to come in wake of State Street, which connects the state Capitol and the UW-Madison campus on which the System offices are based, becoming the “longest mile in Wisconsin,” it seems precarious that Mr. Bradley would be thrown into the mix. There is obviously a lot to this exodus, and while Ms. Twohey has broken the story, it will certainly be interesting to see what details emerge – or don’t emerge, for that matter – over the coming days. From a media point of view, it is worth noting that I knew Mr. Bradley in my previous capacity at the Badger Herald and came to speak with him on a few occasions throughout the past year. He was always a professional, cordial, informed, decent and kind man, which is saying a lot considering I was at the helm of the newspaper that was oftentimes giving the UW System the most heat. It is a shame to see him go.

UW opens its back door even wider

2006-05-17T10:15:00.000-05:00

Just under a month ago, University of Wisconsin Chancellor John Wiley agreed to a guaranteed transfer agreement into UW for select students coming out of Madison Area Technical College. As the Badger Herald reported back then:

Effective this fall, the “Transfer Contract” program is designed to eliminate the anxiety of transferring by guaranteeing transfer from MATC to UW for students who enroll as freshmen in the Liberal Arts Program and meet specified levels of academic achievement. … Though the admissions process will remain the same for all students, the contract specifically details every requirement for guaranteed transfer, which includes earning 54 breadth credits and maintaining a 3.0 GPA

Several days later, The Badger Herald Editorial Board - of which, at the time, I was still a member – condemned the agreement as cheapening the brand of UW:

While Chancellor John Wiley’s sentiments about helping more people achieve higher paying jobs are noble, they fail to account for something even more important — namely the academic reputation of this institution. … Regional technical schools are not appropriate for establishment as permanent feeder schools. Their purpose in the state’s educational flowchart is distinct from that of the 26 UW campuses around the state. A sizable influx of unqualified entrants under the unlimited nature of the transfer agreement has the potential to dilute the value of a UW-Madison degree, which is unfair to all those students who have overcome the hurdles of an increasingly selective admissions process.

In the days following the editorial’s publication, Mr. Wiley publicly shared his disdain for the student newspaper’s stance. An informal debate of sorts sprung across the Madison campus, and the Herald’s news section even published a follow-up piece of sorts. Well, today it seems Mr. Wiley is sticking to his guns. This afternoon, he will be announcing an identical transfer agreement with Nicolet College and, next month, yet another agreement can be expected, this time with Milwaukee Area Technical College. As a university release notes:

Like the pilot MATC agreement, the Nicolet contract allows a qualified student to begin his or her postsecondary education as a freshman in the University Transfer Program at Nicolet and two years later, be guaranteed admission as a transfer student at UW-Madison. The new agreement eliminates uncertainty for Nicolet students who complete 54 credits in specified areas, earn a 3.0 GPA and apply as transfer students to UW-Madison. An unlimited number of qualifying Nicolet students will be able to take part in the program every year, as UW-Madison has the capacity to serve additional transfer students at the upperclassman level.

At the heart of this can be found one of those rather unique moments where the interests of the UW administration – led by Mr. Wiley – and the interests of the UW student body gravitate toward polar ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, Mr. Wiley is charged with leading a public university built to benefit the state. This means graduating as many students as possible who will, in turn, go to work in the Wisconsin economy and help better the long-term interests of the Dairy State. On the other hand, the already-admitted members of the UW student body – as well as alumni – have a vested interest in seeing their college remain an elite academic institution known for rigorous admission standards. The more a UW degree can speak to the inherent aptitude of its holder, the better a position that degree holder will find himself or herself in. So is it really worth creating these guaranteed transfer agreements to merely ease the “anxiety” of community and technical college students who want into UW if the price that must be paid is the potential cheapening of a Madison degree? Few object to the notion of allowing transfer students in on a case by case basis – it is merely this ludicrous notion of a guarantee that irks the student body and alumni base. The old cliché is that there are only two genuine guarantees in life: death and taxes. Let’s chalk the UW transfer pact up to a tax on the value of a Madison degree.

Live from London, it's the world's most deranged job interview!

2006-05-16T17:19:00.000-05:00

The British Broadcasting Corporation made a notable mistake May 8 when, in a segment on the fallout of a music-related lawsuit, it put Guy Goma on air. The problem wasn’t that Mr. Goma wasn’t willing to discuss the lawsuit, didn’t have anything intelligent to say or made any on-air comments that hurt the BBC. No, the problem, as the Associated Press reports, is that Mr. Goma was the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time:

The network has apologized to its viewers for a studio mix up that resulted in a man mistakenly appearing on live television as Guy Kewney -- an expert on Internet music downloads. In fact the man was Guy Goma, a Congolese man applying for a technology-related job with the British Broadcasting Corp. Goma followed an employee to the studio after a mistake at a reception desk, the corporation said late Monday. The BBC said it apologized to viewers for any confusion.

Yep, the BBC put a job applicant on air as an expert – and, no, he wasn’t even applying for an on-air job. Think of the toughest job interview you’ve ever been in. Think of the nightmare scenarios involving job interviews that keep you up at night but never actually happen. Now add lights, a microphone and a live television feed. Seriously, if Mr. Goma doesn’t get the job, there is no justice in Great Britain.

Early reaction to President Bush's remarks

2006-05-15T20:00:00.000-05:00

In many ways, President Bush’s remarks from the Oval Office this evening didn’t quite match the expectations his staff has built for the address over the past several days. The lead-up, including headlines in most of today’s national newspapers, was one centered on border protection and the mobilization of the National Guard to the Mexican border. And while Mr. Bush did make this proposal at the top of his address, the vast majority of his rhetoric seemed to be dedicated to bridging a compromise on the pressing question of how best to deal with those already in the United States illegally. The bill passed by the U. S. House of Representatives, which makes it a felony to be in this country illegally, is the proper course of action. Mr. Bush didn’t endorse this measure tonight and, indeed, came well short, stopping just shy of backing the amnesty he claims to reject. There was a subtle hypocrisy to the president’s remarks, as he condemned a “catch and release” mechanism yet applauded a “temporary worker” program. Consider his comments on “catch and release:”

For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable – and we will end it.

Now consider the president’s “temporary worker” proposal:

I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

This begs the question: just what force is it that will make these “temporary workers” return home on schedule if there is no such mechanism to make captured aliens appear for their day in court? Mr. Bush should be applauded for trying to find a compromise on a contentious and difficult issue that divides not just the American public but, indeed, much of the Republican Party. Once the border is secured – something that must be an immediate national priority and that the president seems to be on board with – compromise is the way to go. The problem is that Mr. Bush’s compromise won’t get the job done. The idea of placing those already here illegally in “the back of the line” for citizenship is pure rubbish. The reality is that they are not placed in the back of the line; they are placed in the back of the line of those already in this country. Unless the United States mandates that these people return home pending their legal progression, the reality is that they continue to have a leg up on those who are legally trying to enter this country from abroad and that is fundamentally wrong. There are a lot of hard working immigrants in America who pay countless fees to work toward citizenship and remain here legally. Their contributions to this nation’s way of life are priceless. They, in short, represent much of the fabric upon which the United States was founded. By allowing those who take a jog through the Rio Grande to stay here with the same status as these legal immigrants is a blatant insult to the entire notion of lawfulness, no matter where in the line alien immigrants are placed. I’m glad the National Guard is being called to the border and I’m glad the White House is getting serious about immigration. But the House of Representatives still seems to be the only part of the federal government that understands one basic reality: to be in the United States illegally is to be in violation of the laws that hold this society together. And it is time we start treating criminals like criminals.

Full text of President Bush's speech

2006-05-15T19:32:00.000-05:00

Here is an official transcript of the full speech delivered by President Bush this evening, as prepared by the White House:

THE PRESIDENT DELIVERS AN ADDRESS TO THE NATION As Prepared for Delivery Good evening. I have asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance – the reform of America’s immigration system. The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions – and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue. We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border – and millions have stayed. Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals ... strains state and local budgets ... and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life – but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law. We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives. First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign Nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration – and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. I was the governor of a state that has a twelve-hundred mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became President, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances – and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally. Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency. At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world – and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border. Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I am announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition: One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems … analyzing intelligence … installing fences and vehicle barriers … building patrol roads … and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities – that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border. The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border ... to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime ... and to reduce illegal immigration. Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource – and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities. The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other countries, it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable – and we will end it. We are taking several important steps to meet this goal. We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in. Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across. Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay. A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers – and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here. Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place. Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration. Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant – and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently – and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law … to pay their taxes … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship – but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty – it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen. Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery … from cleaning offices to running offices … from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams ... they renew our spirit ... and they add to the unity of America. Tonight, I want to speak directly to Members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month – so we can work out the differences between the two bills, and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law. America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue – and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say. I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work and sacrifice. As President, I have had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them. On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two – a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him … and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side. We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they have always been – people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been – the great hope on the horizon … an open door to the future … a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they are from, because we trust in our country’s genius for making us all Americans – one Nation under God. Thank you, and good night.

Advance excerpts from President Bush's speech

2006-05-15T17:08:00.000-05:00

Some advance excerpts from President Bush’s address to the nation tonight have found their way into my possession. This is by no means the full speech, and it will be interesting to see what the rest of his comments include. The words “National Guard” are nowhere in here, and I would imagine that if they don’t make their way into another portion of the address, such will be cause for an interesting line of debate. Keep in mind, various news outlets have reported over the weekend that Mr. Bush will be calling the National Guard to the border tonight. The headings are the White House’s, not mine.

On the President’s vision for comprehensive immigration reform “We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair.” On Border Security “Since I became President, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. . . .we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally… Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border." On the Importance of a Temporary Worker Program to relieve pressure on the border “The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across." On enforcing our laws “. . . we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility . . . A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.” On the President’s opposition to amnesty “. . . we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration." On assimilation “. . . we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.” On the tone of the debate “We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.”

Academics as CEOs

2006-05-14T07:24:00.000-05:00

CINCINNATI – There is an interesting wire from the Associated Press buried on page A9 of today's Cincinnati Inquirer. Headlined in the paper, “A rough year for college presidents comes to a close,” the piece goes on to relate just how much turmoil has surrounded top university offices over the course of the past academic year. Found elsewhere online, the article reports:

"This has probably been as hard a year for presidents as we've had since the Vietnam era," said Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education. ... [M]any academics agree 2005-06 seemed exceptionally discordant. They also agree it's getting harder to be a successful president. Many leaders are overwhelmed by the unrelenting fundraising demands (22 colleges are in the midst of official campaigns to raise at least $1 billion), tripped up by big-time sports programs, or bowled over by parents and students who pay more than ever and no longer hesitate to complain about the slightest imperfections. ... Median compensation for presidents of research universities is about $470,000, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education's latest survey (compensation is about half that at smaller schools). [Outgoing George Washington University President Stephen] Trachtenberg's most recently released annual compensation figure was more than $700,000. That's less than CEOs of top corporations make, but pretty good for an academic.

And perhaps that is where the tension lies. To comment that university presidents make less than CEOs but “pretty good” wages for academics is to plainly ignore that university presidents and chancellors really are CEOs of major corporations. University of Wisconsin Chancellor John Wiley makes less than that $470,000 national median, yet his campus, with some 40,000+ students, massive faculty base, sizable staff and considerable acreage, is larger than many American communities, let alone small and mid-size corporations. The financial, personnel and community demands placed on an American college are comparable to those of a corporation. The product being sold is research and education, the clientèle is students and donors, and the factory is a combination of classrooms and research laboratories. Interestingly, the Cincinnati Inquirer also has an editorial in today's edition that tackles the question of how best to prepare secondary school principals. In passing, it notes:

The College of Mount St. Joseph will begin its principal certification program next year, incorporating two nationally-recognized approaches in its requirements. It will require candidates to undertake an internship - along with mentoring, a key to grooming young principals - and it will divide their time among public schools, private schools and a small business owner. It's a brilliant combination of academic training and practical management skills.

If secondary school principals are to be expected to have – or obtain – business management skills in today's world, then isn't is about time we acknowledge that university presidents and chancellors also need to possess those skills? The era of aloof academics at the top of the ivory tower is over. And the era of CEOs running major educational hubs is upon us. If America's colleges and universities are to remain the successful institutions they have long been, it would seem high time that we start paying these presidents and chancellors accordingly.

Bush's forthcoming address not really a first

2006-05-13T17:35:00.000-05:00

CINCINNATI – Much is being made of the fact that President Bush will be addressing the nation from the White House on Monday evening about immigration, a domestic policy issue. An article in today's New York Times even notes:

The White House said Mr. Bush would deliver a televised address on Monday evening — his first on domestic policy from the Oval Office — to build public pressure on Congress at a crucial moment.

And while The New York Times is technically correct, all of the political pundits chatting about how Mr. Bush has never taken network time for a non-emergency domestic matter are incorrect. Less than seven months after taking office, a much younger-looking Mr. Bush used the airwaves to tackle stem cell research, in his first – and only – major address before 9/11 changed the direction of his presidency – and the country – dramatically. As CNN reported back then:

In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. ... "I have made this decision with great care, and I pray that it is the right one," Bush said in a nationally televised address from his ranch [in Crawford, Texas], where he is on a monthlong working vacation.

So is it significant that Mr. Bush is using the Oval Office to give a televised address on domestic policy? Absolutely. Does this show how important immigration has become as a political issue? Certainly. But is this really the milestone first the media is making it out to be? Not quite. Also, if the Monday speech touches on protecting the Mexican border and whether or not people are deported back to the United States' southern neighbor, it does seem worth asking: is this really a matter of “domestic” policy? At last check, Mexico was not part of the United States.

Pomp and circumstance

2006-05-13T09:15:00.000-05:00

ASHLAND, Ohio – It is graduation weekend in Madison, and that means that roughly some 5,000 (former) students will be donning caps and gowns, walking across the Kohl Center stage and saying goodbye to their years at the University of Wisconsin. The school put out a press release not too long ago with some interesting information on a few graduates – it really speaks to the outstanding group of people who help comprise UW. And the Capital Times has a cute story on a mother and daughter duo who walked together last night:

When [Norma] Iribarren graduated from the UW in 1986,with a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction, she skipped the pomp and circumstance. She said although she, her two children and her husband had been in the United States for 12 years and had become citizens in 1985, she still felt like too much of a newcomer to comfortably take part. On Friday night, she sat on the floor of the Kohl Center next to her daughter Jacqueline, who was collecting a Ph.D. in educational leadership and policy analysis. The two walked across the stage together.

Finally, as many of you know, this weekend also marks my graduation. However, as you can piece together by my distant dateline, I have no plans of walking across the Kohl Center stage. So, yeah, I'm boycotting my own graduation. You know – just out of principle.

The trilingual National Anthem

2006-05-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

Congress has passed a resolution encouraging that the National Anthem be sung only in English. As Los Angeles’ ABC affiliate reports:

The action was apparently sparked by the recent illegal immigration reform battle and the controversy that was caused when supporters of illegal immigrant rights recorded a version of the anthem in Spanish. However, an unscientific survey of congressional leaders showed that many of them don't know the words to the National Anthem in any language. Most Americans agree, in a recent poll, nearly seventy percent said that the anthem should be sung only in English.

What is being missed in this entire debate, though, is that the Anthem hasn’t been sung in only English for some time. We just miss the obvious exception because it has become such an ingrained part of society. Consider this news story, also coming out of Washington, as reported by the Associated Press:

The newly chosen president of Gallaudet University, the nation's only liberal arts college for the deaf, received a no-confidence vote from faculty Monday in a dispute that she said comes down to whether she is "deaf enough" for the job. The vote, which passed 93-43, is nonbinding. The fate of Jane K. Fernandes rests with the board of trustees, which has said it will not alter its decision to hire her. Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is scheduled to take office next January, was born deaf but grew up speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Sign language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student Gallaudet.

Essentially, the student body at America’s premiere school for the deaf is insisting that sign language is something so pure as to not simply be considered an alternate form of any given language but, rather, its own language replete with culture and tradition. And so the question is begged: if sign language is, indeed, its own unique, tradition-rich language, then hasn’t the National Anthem been a bilingual song for some time now? Think about it – there is a translator signing at almost every major sporting event. Yet no one has raised a fuss over this because the deaf are viewed as being handicapped and, ergo, deserving of lingual assistance. This is all fine, good and proper. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If there is an entire class of people capable of learning to read lips just like most school children learn to speak English, then why are allowing a translation of the National Anthem for groups lacking one of these educations but not groups lacking the other? And, in viewing the Gallaudet student body, it is clear that at least this group of deaf persons engages in sign language over lip reading and speaking not because they are incapable of learning English but, rather, because they simply don’t want to. There are no easy answers here – just a lot of questions. But I thought someone should at least correct the record before another round of politicians insisting that the Star Spangled Banner has never been shared in a language other than English.

On leaving journalism

2006-05-06T18:25:00.000-05:00

Slightly before 2:00 AM Thursday, I signed off on the 137th press run of The Badger Herald for the 2005-2006 academic year. And with that, my tenure at the paper came to a close. My final column is, fittingly enough, on the death of the American newspaper. In it, I argue:

The past three centuries have revealed the rise, peak and decline of the newspaper. While there was a time as recently as the 1980s when news only came in two formats — 30 minutes long and six columns wide — the reality is that today the print media is a mechanism of nostalgia that borders on being outright anachronistic.

I also purchased a quarter page ad in the final edition of the newspaper, which is not available online. It is a simple list of those whom I wish to thank on my way out, and – for me – a sentimental reminder of all those who have helped me along the way. In what I considered to be a rather touching and kind move, The Daily Cardinal thought to include a cut-out of me in the “Where’s Waldo”-style cover that graced their final edition of the academic year. As I have indicated before, this will mark the end of my career in journalism – for now at least. After nine years on various beats, it seems like a proper junction for me to part ways from the only profession I have ever truly known. The reality is that journalists are one of the most underpaid and overworked groups of people in the professional world today. Much of this comes from a glorification of the job, largely emanating from the cult status achieved by newspaper writers in wake of Woodward and Bernstein becoming Hollywood material. And while I love muckraking, interviewing and writing as much as anyone, I also realize that the lifestyle such would provide me is not one I can justify at this juncture in time. As such, to fill in some of the personal details, I will be headed off to law school in the fall and plan on working toward a JD over the next three years. I know most of the lawyer jokes and realize our society isn’t exactly begging for another attorney, but it is a profession I have long deemed admirable. For what it’s worth, my early thoughts lean toward criminal law – the defense side, to be exact – but I also plan on keeping various doors open for the next few years. In terms of this blog, it was born in Washington, DC almost two years ago and has been truly active for about 10 months now. I will be keeping it and Madison politics are likely to remain the core focus for the near future. As life takes me to a new city and in new directions, I suspect the course of The Right Side of the Road shall, too, change. But for now, expect more of the same. In leaving the world of journalism, there are, however, a few thoughts I’d like to convey. While I certainly depart on a bittersweet note – feeling essentially forced out by the cheapness with which the industry is regarded – the experiences I take with me speak to the tremendous nature of the world that is reporting. Consider a few highlights, merely for the sake of anecdote. During the course of nine years, I have interviewed movie stars while balancing a beat with high school; chatted with presidential candidates; worked spin alley at a George Bush v. John Kerry debate in St. Louis; was in Des Moines, Iowa the night of the 2004 caucuses – sipping cola on press row at a John Edwards event when Howard Dean started screaming; traveled through the state of Wisconsin with Tommy Thompson as my car became the fifth vehicle in a Secret Service-led motorcade; sat in the third row of a press conference where Barry Alvarez announced his retirement; argued with the governor; dined with the mayor; drank with alders and supervisors; chatted with anonymous sources; woke up in hotel rooms not knowing which state I was in; debated Bill O’Reilly on national television; and, for two weeks in February, 2006, found myself at the heart of a national debate over the limitations of free speech and necessity of a transparent press. I share this not to boast or hype myself, but rather to demonstrate the power that is a press credential. If ever you want to see how the world truly works, there are few better ways to do it than with a notepad in one hand and a tape recorder in the other. The fourth estate may be ridiculed, but it is also part of the American fabric and an institution with perhaps more power than its own members often realize. And so if you ever have occasion to contemplate entering the world of journalism, consider this: I am 22 years old and after less than a decade behind a keyboard, I have enough memories and stories to get me through cocktail parties for the rest of my life.

New Orleans officials to world: We are idiots

2006-05-02T20:33:00.000-05:00

This one is simply too much to believe. The City of New Orleans unveiled its post-Katrina disaster relief plan today, apparently after months of thought and input. As CNN reports:

[The plan] depends more on evacuation by bus and train and won't use the Superdome and Convention Center as shelters. Mayor Ray Nagin and New Orleans Homeland Security Director Col. Terry Ebbert said the plan will prevent a repeat of the major disaster that happened when Katrina slammed the city last year. "We think that we have come a long way," Ebbert said.

What?!?!? Let me get this straight: After the better part of a year, the people charged with overseeing the safety of one of America's largest cities have come to the startling conclusion that moving residents away from the disaster may be an effective plan? And not returning people to the crime-infested death traps they suffered in last summer – the Superdome and Convention Center – counts as having “come a long way”? CNN may have said it best in the headline: “New Orleans disaster plan: Get out of town.” Umm, yeah.

Mifflin Street Block Party

2006-04-29T15:33:00.000-05:00

Some images from early in the afternoon:

Lewis Keith Cohen back in jail

2006-04-27T03:08:00.000-05:00

Lewis Keith Cohen, the University of Wisconsin professor who gained infamy last summer for showing up at a Subway restaurant off of I-94 to allegedly meet a child for a sexual rendezvous, is back behind bars. As the Badger Herald is exclusively reporting in its Thursday paper, Mr. Cohen is being charged with various violations of his probation, including usage of a UW computer to access the Internet (he was temporarily banned from cyber activity after the spat with the kid who turned out to be a cop). And just to make things more interesting, Mr. Cohen is also facing various drug allegations. As the Herald reports:

[Department of Corrections spokesperson John] Dipko said Cohen admitted to violating his probation after Cohen was confronted by his agent on allegations he had been partaking in “improper activities.” Cohen was immediately taken into custody April 7 when he came clean about his illegal actions.

Frankly, the more we learn about this guy, the creepier he gets. To think that Mr. Cohen was once chair of the school's comparative literature department is utterly horrifying; though, in fairness to the UW administration, it does appear that the former professor never offered warning signs of any of this behavior. I wonder if he ever taught Lolita...

Tony Snow as White House Press Secretary

2006-04-26T01:43:00.000-05:00

Several news outlets are now reporting that President Bush will name Tony Snow the new White House Press Secretary Wednesday morning. Though rumored in advance, the decision still strikes as an extremely unorthodox one and ought to be cause for some contemplation. For the record, I am familiar with Mr. Snow, which is only to say that when he was guest-hosting “The O'Reilly Factor” a couple of months ago, I appeared as a guest on the show. Intimate or personal it was not, though we did share a conversation on national television and I suppose there is something to be said for that. What strikes me as strange, though, is just that: the new White House Press Secretary is a Fox News host. It's never been a secret that the Bush administration – or much of the conservative movement, for that matter – has shown a preference toward the “fair and balanced” network; I just never realized how seriously it was taken. Sure, TheSmokingGun.com got its hands on one of Dick Cheney's advance travel sheets and we all learned that the Vice President likes having Rupert Murdoch's channel on his hotel television. And sure we all noticed the ease with which various Fox News personalities have gotten interviews with top government officials – including Mr. Bush. But, at the end of the day, I had always assumed that there was still an understood distinction between Fox News and outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and even NBC. Apparently not, because reporters from The Gray Lady, the local daily and network news will now have to work through an anchor best known for appearing alongside Mr. O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto. I don't mean to knock Fox News; I am actually a fan of the news operation and will admit to watching it more than any other channel (with the possible exception of the Food Network). It is insightful, informative and has some of the best punditry on television. But I suppose it is also truly the sign of a new era when the old guard newspapers and alphabet networks will have to direct their executive branch inquiries to one of Mr. Murdoch's old foot soldiers. To be sure, this is a great move for the White House. Mr. Snow is charismatic, superficially brings an attractive demeanor and poised voice to the podium, is a heroic cancer survivor and certainly knows his politics. But wouldn't I love to hear the true thoughts of Bill Keller, Len Downie, Brian Williams and even Ted Turner on this one.

Losing my privilege

2006-04-24T20:07:00.000-05:00

Sometime around 2:00 AM on the morning of May 4, a funny thing will happen to me: I will lose my journalistic privilege. For nearly nine years, I have been a recognized member of some branch of the media either through accreditation, commercial pay or simple affiliation. People often talk about the gray area between who is a member of the press and who isn't – since 1998, I haven't been in that foggy zone, I've been clearly in the media's realm. I've always used anonymous and background sources heavily, even back when I was on the entertainment beat. It's a practice I've rarely given a second thought to, especially since I would normally just use the information to advance my research, ultimately being able to attribute it to someone else in the final version of an article. But next week, when the final spring 2006 edition of The Badger Herald goes to press, I will, for the first time since my junior high years, be entering a world in which I am not credentialed as a recognizable member of the media. So what happens now? There are numerous people who I have worked with closely over the past four years and who have, from time to time, proved sources for articles and columns of mine. Are my conversations with them no longer protected? Is our chatter now subpoena-graspable gossip? Might this blog be enough cause for me to still carry some level of protection? My natural inclination is to dig toward the truth in all matters that interest me. For the better part of a decade, I've been able to do this digging with the legal protections of whatever state I have lived in. It's strange to think I am about to lose that protection.

Et tu, Kreibich?

2006-04-20T17:12:00.000-05:00

You know its a rare moment of glory for the University of Wisconsin when Rob Kreibich, a state representative known for his distaste of campus policy, goes out of his way to congratulate UW. But, alas, the deal struck between the system's flagship university and MATC seems to be cause for just such an occasion, as Mr. Kreibich glowed in a press release:

The Chair of the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee praised UW Madison's announcement that formalizes credit transfer agreements with three Wisconsin Technical Colleges that addresses one of the most frequently voiced concerns from students. Kreibich says there is no reason such an agreement only involves one four-year UW institution. "This is a giant step forward in creating a seamless and more efficient post secondary system in Wisconsin," Kreibich says. "Students will save both money and time knowing credits they take at a technical college will automatically count when they switch to a four-year university." Kreibich says this agreement should lead to the other 12 four-year UW campuses following the example of our flagship Big Ten school. Kreibich says the issue of credit transfers has received more scrutiny and led to recent agreements between leaders of the UW and Technical College System. Given tight budgets, and the need to increase the number of Wisconsin residents with four-year degrees, Kreibich says improved credit transfer agreements is one way to serve more students, and lessen the time and cost of a college education. Kreibich says UW System officials should seize on the UW-Madison announcement and encourage other four-year institutions to create articulation agreements with technical colleges in their respective regions of the state.

To good to be true? You bet. There is an interesting angle taken in the final paragraph of Mr. Kreibich's release:

The Eau Claire lawmaker says the UW-Madison agreement also signals that two- year UW campuses should be absorbed as satellites of four-year institutions. "We don't need two-year UW Colleges duplicating what many two-year technical colleges offer," Kreibich says. "We need to redefine the mission of the two-year UW campuses, and better utilize the 13 two-year colleges that collectively serve only 9,000 full-time students." Kreibich says making them branch campuses of four-year institutions would give students currently on two-year UW campuses everything they have now, plus the option of earning a four-year degree without having to transfer and possibly move to a four-year institution. "Technology and increased mobility of our citizens can allow us to reach out to students on two-year UW campuses and offer the chance to earn four-year degrees in more remote parts of the state.

Apparently the representative's message is simple: good for UW and MATC, and this proof that schools like MATC can only make progress at the peril of two years schools. Never mind that there is a fundamental distinction between a technical college and a two-year college.

Reflections on the Barrows saga

2006-04-18T00:35:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, the University of Wisconsin's Academic Staff Appeals Committee ruled in favor of Paul Barrows. After a two-day hearing earlier that week, this came as little surprise. But suffice it say, the whole vindication of the former UW Vice Chancellor has rocked many on campus – myself included – who once saw the matter as being rather clear cut in the other direction. As I noted in a Thursday column:

[O]ver the course of Monday and Tuesday while the hearing proceeded, a strange factoid seemed to slowly come to the surface as Louis Brandeis’ famed prescription of sunshine was properly applied: We had almost all been deceived.

In the end, the Barrows saga proved to have no true winners. The Chancellor was scorned in September for his part in providing paid sick leave, Susan Steingass' ethos have taken a hit with revelations that her report valued questionable characters over due process, LuoLuo Hong looks like a malicious manipulator with no regard for justice and Barrows himself remains scarred by the public disclosure of his questionable private behavior. Indeed, this is a sad time for UW. And many, including myself, must now admit to having been largely wrong. That is a weight I carry with no small amount of humility. In the end, there truly were no winner in this story.

ASM: Not quite ready for primetime

2006-04-12T01:28:00.000-05:00

Shortly before 11:00 AM Tuesday morning, I walked into Grainger Hall on campus, approached an ASM booth and, for the second time in as many weeks, voted. Of course, I am one of the lucky students on campus – for others, today may mark a fourth venture to the polls in two weeks. But since I think my referenda votes were counted the first time – and “think” really is the operative word, because there is no way of knowing if I was disfranchised before that election was completely tossed – and I never got around to voting in the second candidate cycle before the polls were abruptly closed, this ballot-casting venture was only my second. Still, that is once too many by my estimation. But to bemoan ASM's electoral incompetence – or, more precisely, the University of Wisconsin's Division of Information Technology's electoral incompetence – would be to beat a dead horse at this point. Rather, this evening, I am merely left wondering. Will this election succeed? Might the outcomes have been different had balloting remained online? How many people will actually vote in an ASM election when they must now do so in public (I have always thought it one of those more shameful things best done in one's own home, if only because of the inherent absurdity that is ASM)? And whose idea were those adorable little “I Voted” stickers? There is a great old Saturday Night Live sketch in which Jimmy Carter (played by a cast member) goes to a foreign nation to monitor an election. He watches to make sure that every ballot is properly deposited in a box with no intimidation or fraud. What he doesn't see is that the box, sitting on a fold-up table, has no bottom, and the ballots are slipping through a hole in the table. Below is a man, with a small fire, roasting something with the fuel of burning ballots. Hey: Live from Madison, it's election season!

A chat with Bill Lueders

2006-04-07T00:38:00.000-05:00

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of sitting down with Bill Lueders, news editor over at The Isthmus, and discussing “The Open Records Blues,” his new song which has been making its way around the Internet. My article on the song, Lueders and his remarkable career is in Friday's Badger Herald, and certainly a worthy read – not for any contributions of my own but, rather, because the quotes alone show what a truly remarkable individual the local journalist is. As for the song, I'd recommend giving it a listen. Casey Kasem material it is not, but an enjoyable experience it most certainly is. And for those not familiar with Lueders' legendary court battles with the Madison Police Department in the 1990s, the whole bit might actually have a pleasantly educational feel.

Weekly Top Chef thoughts

2006-04-06T13:47:00.000-05:00

I couldn’t get a simulblog of “Top Chef” up last night because, much as I may love the show and all things culinary, the Associated Students of Madison were once again teetering on the verge of collapse and my first responsibility is, of course, to The Badger Herald. That said, we live in the wonderful age of recordings, so a few thoughts: First, I am pretty sure that Stephen Asprinio followed in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia in making a certain gesture when his street food wasn’t going over so well. As the Associated Press reported March 27:

The Boston Herald reported Monday that the justice made "an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin…”

Mr. Asprinio seems to have used a similar gesture while hawking his food on last night’s “Top Chef,” but it was almost certainly made with a certain degree of humor. Entertainment-wise, it was my favorite episode thus far because it finally showed a lot of character with the contestants. Now that there are only eight (seven after last night), it seems easier to offer that third dimension – the bit with the faux junk food challenge in the house was absolutely delightful, hilarious and, in a strange sense, warming. As for the elimination (and watch the darn show to find out who it was), no real surprise. I will say that Tiffani Faison, after having ticked me off wildly with the children’s challenge, is starting to grow on me again. As for Mr. Asprinio, he still feels a touch too arrogant to be likeable, but watching a street vendor try to sell food dressed to such a formal level sure was enjoyable. It will be interesting to see where things go from here, but my early guess is that Ms. Faison, Lee Anne Wong or Harold Dieterle should walk away the winner – they simply have superior culinary talent. But I also wouldn’t count Mr. Asprinio out as a dark horse.

ASM can't DoIT

2006-04-06T03:00:00.000-05:00

Well, ASM is now officially a complete fiasco. For the second time in a week, the Student Elections Committee has pulled the plug on the spring Student Council ballot, citing DoIT's inability to run a proper contest. At an emergency meeting tonight – brilliantly simulblogged by Brad over at Letters in Bottles – a representative from DoIT actually advised ASM to proceed with paper ballots. Please take a second and digest that. A representative of DoIT has advised ASM to proceed with paper ballots. That is roughly tantamount to the editor of a community newspaper advising readers to get their news from a local network affiliate. Meanwhile, questions abound about voting irregularities, not just in the candidate election (which has now been canceled twice) but also with the two referenda which we thought to be settled Tuesday night. The SEC has not made any decision about re-holding those elections, but with millions of dollars at stake, I am sure the pressure is sizable. There are further complications, including various ASM by-laws that will now have to be violated if an election is to proceed, not to mention the panoply of issues that likely haven't even been realized yet. As the Badger Herald notes in its lead news article Thursday:

Next week’s Passover and Good Friday holidays could further complicate the issue. Under ASM bylaws, the organization cannot conduct official business on observed holidays. This, technically, would force the election commission to complete the ASM elections by Wednesday night at sunset — when Passover begins.

In four years at the Herald, this may well be the most stunning, ridiculously complicated story I have encountered. And the truly frightening thing is that it is far from being over.

The continued demise of CBS News

2006-04-05T12:30:00.000-05:00

Edward R. Murrow. Walter Cronkite. Dan Rather. Katie Couric. What is wrong with that list? Messrs. Murrow, Cronkite and Rather have all rubbed me wrong at some point in time for their blatantly political campaigns loosely disguised as newscasts. In the case of Mr. Rather, it rightfully cost him his job. But each of those individuals has also shown the ability to be a serious newsman, bringing into the homes of millions of Americans some of the hardest-hitting stories of their eras, and always doing it with dignity. Mr. Rather may have fallen during an election, but on 9/11, at the end of the Cold War and even standing at the eye of a powerful hurricane, he was always impressive, fair and decent to the people who tuned in to his newscast. Meanwhile, Messrs. Murrow and Cronkite are both legends unto themselves, the men who made CBS News the onetime powerhouse it was, and then men who Americans could trust the most in an era when news only came in two formats: six columns wide and thirty minutes long. I don’t for a second object to a female anchor – it is a move long past due. Rather, I object to Katie Couric. After 15 years of morning show garbage highlighted by softball interviews, mediocre product spots and B-list author chitchats, I just wonder how it is that she is qualified to be the new managing editor of CBS News. An anchor is both a newsman and a television personality, but the former quality ought to always outweigh the latter. In Mr. Couric’s case, these standards are entirely backwards, as a valuable smile seems to now matter more in the halls of CBS than veteran reporting status or political intellect. Don’t look now, but the Tiffany Network just settled for silver plating.

Election Day

2006-04-04T21:20:00.000-05:00

As both the Dane County and ASM referenda elections come to a close, some early figures: The “living wage” referendum has passed on the ASM ballot: 5312 votes for to 3204 votes against. The Wisconsin Union Facilities Improvement Plan has failed on the ASM ballot: 3959 votes for to 4654 votes against. Ashok Kumar will be the newest Dane County Supervisor, having defeated David Lapidus 466 to 196. I wish Mr. Kumar well in his new job, am glad to see WUFIP has failed in its attempt to siphon money away from an already-poor student body and look forward to seeing the University of Wisconsin administration strike down the “living wage” referendum, making the whole matter moot. Now it will be interesting to see how the various statewide “bring our troops home” referenda tally up.

A low point for the NCAA

2006-04-03T22:51:00.000-05:00

The University of Florida has just won the NCAA basketball championship. It was a great game and the team certainly earned the victory. As CBS conducted the beginning of its post-game show, one of the commentators directed a question to the winning players. Joakim Noah, arguably the Gators’ most recognizable star, answered first, declaring:

We’re going to shine all day, all night. Please don’t be mad at us if we don’t do a little homework in the next couple weeks; because we’re going to shine in Gainesville.

Another player chirped in shortly thereafter:

America want [sic] to see us live, not work.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is wrong with big time collegiate athletics today.

Worse than the 'worst form of government'

2006-04-01T23:08:00.000-06:00

As the fiasco surrounding the Associated Students of Madison’s botched election continues to make waves around campus and a new student government threatens a veritable coup, I am both awe struck by the horror of the situation and uncharacteristically reserved in my thoughts. This is no occasion for hyperbole and surely a time when we would all be best served to reserve our broad strokes of black and white in favor of the grayscale tones necessary to properly address a complex situation with serious ramifications. As per ASM’s failure to hold a successful election, I am reminded of a column I wrote in September 2003 for The Badger Herald after the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had temporarily enjoined California voters from proceeding with a recall election. Back then, I wrote:

At the heart of both California and America as a whole is the notion of democracy. We sound our voices by voting, and that is the greatest check we have on our elected officials. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has enjoined Californians from voting for at least five months. And that means that until March of 2004, the largest state in the union will be something other than a democracy.

The situation afflicting California in the autumn of 2003 was, of course, resolved in a fair and just manner – history has provided a more appropriate solution than the gloom I found myself facing as I scribed that column. But the principle I sought to convey then is one I think worthy of resurrection now: a genuine democracy may never tamper with an election except for under those most dire of circumstances. History has rarely realized those circumstances. In my life time, the only such postponement of a democratic process that I can remember as appreciating as being just was when, on September 11, 2001, New York City delayed its primary voting for gut-wrenchingly obvious reasons. What ASM realized on Wednesday did not nearly approach the proper criteria for the destruction of a democratic process. The bottom line is that properly-cast votes were discarded because a democratic process had not been adequately thought through. Much like California in 2003, we must realize that with such being the case, this means that ASM is now – and will continue to be until the conclusion of voting – something other than a democracy. And so the question shifts to one of blame and consequence. A group of campus leaders have formed a new organization – simply titled “Student Government” – to replace ASM on this campus. What they propose is nothing short of an absolute coup d'état. In many senses, this is a welcome move. Coincidentally, I actually wrote a column in Wednesday’s Badger Herald (published before the voting fiasco) calling for the abandonment of ASM. For me to editorialize otherwise at this juncture – with ASM’s incompetence having only become more apparent – would be outright hypocritical. However, I am also led to note that the grass is always greener on the other side. And while I reject ASM at every juncture possible as an entangled bureaucracy capable only of thinning students’ wallets and promoting a general culture of corruption, I am disinclined to throw my support to a government that has yet to even scribe its constitution. Just what should this constitution contain if it is to earn our support? I will look to extrapolate upon that question in the coming days. For now, I am simply reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous proclamation: “Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the others.” What truly horrifies me, is that at the moment, ASM is one of those “others.”

Does ASM need election monitors?

2006-03-30T02:23:00.000-06:00

In Thursday's Badger Herald, I wrote a column heavily criticizing the Associated Students of Madison, decrying the group's annual spring election as a no-choice referendum on the continuation of the status quo. But just when you think things cannot get any worse, they, of course, do. At 1:00 PM Thursday afternoon, ASM was forced to shut down its election prematurely, tossing out countless ballots and being forced to start much of it again at a later date due to “voting irregularities.” Apparently the ASM offices of today and Chicago of the early 1960s have more in common than I once thought. There will be extensive coverage of this fiasco in tomorrow's (Thursday's) Badger Herald. Meanwhile, Jenna, over at Right Off the Shore, says it well:

For the record, this shows how inept and irresponsible ASM is.

I agree with her for the most part, though I would argue a few points of nuance. Having just called for the abolition of ASM for entirely different reasons in today's paper, I do stand by the concept of the University of Wisconsin being a better place without this sad excuse for a student government. As for the election fiasco, I, too, look forward to assigning the proper blame and have little doubt that ASM's hands will soon be riddled with the blood of discarded ballots. But for now, against my better sense, I am holding out judgment on this latest disaster until a few more facts are in.

Top Chef to come later

2006-03-29T22:04:00.000-06:00

On accounts of various campus events throwing a complete monkey wrench into the day, I’m going to be a touch slow getting this week’s “Top Chef” commentary up on this site. So apologies in advance and please look out for some thoughts on Thursday or Friday. For now, I’ll have some thoughts on the student government meltdown of today up here later tonight (early hours of Thursday morning). And to give you something to look forward to, I did sneak a peak at “Top Chef” (though it is recorded for later), and must say that this evening may have produced the best line of the competition, “Stephen, your Spam is burning.”

A life remembered beneath the headlines

2006-03-28T22:56:00.000-06:00

Today has proved one of the more hectic news days for the national and international scene in some time. The morning commenced with Andrew Card tendering his resignation as White House Chief of Staff. Before long, riots erupted in Paris. And by day's end, the Israeli election was producing some rather potent results. Each of these stories is enough to hold down the lead column in any normal morning's New York Times and each is deserving of the ink it has now claimed as its own. But in all of this, the death of Caspar Weinberger has been somehow lost by relative standards, relegated to inferior consideration with promises of an obituary in tomorrow's newspapers placed too low on the new agenda only because of this storm of current events. History will show that Mr. Weinberger was one of the chief architects of the Reagan administration policy that led to an end of the Cold War. He is very much an American patriot and ought to be remembered as a man who served his country with honor and dignity. It is always sad when the passing of great individuals must be eclipsed by even more momentous events on the world stage. And while such is certainly the course this story must run by necessity, it is nonetheless an occasion to perhaps read deeper into the pages of tomorrow's newspapers and offer some appreciable remembrance of a great man.

Caspar Weinberger: 1917-2006

2006-03-28T12:32:00.000-06:00

A great American leader and civil servant has passed away. I’ll provide commentary on Caspar Weinberger this evening. But for now, some modicum of mourning does seem fitting.

Trump card?

2006-03-28T08:49:00.000-06:00

Recently, people like Fred Barnes started talking about how President Bush could have a proverbial “third term” if there was a major staff shakeup. The thinking went that a new crew might lead the media and others to give Mr. Bush a relatively fresh start. Now we get to see if the theory holds true. Andrew Card – the most powerful man in the executive branch to have not been elected by voters – is out and Josh Bolton, former Budget Director, is the new White House Chief of Staff. Frankly, for an administration so closely wed to the notion of loyalty, I am stunned that Mr. Bush would hatchet his chief of staff, who has been with him all five years. And I also have some trouble seeing someone like Mr. Card voluntarily resigning. This is a man who worked in the Reagan administration as well as the first Bush administration. But that is all in the past now. The question before us today is just how much of a fresh start the media is willing to grant Mr. Bush with Mr. Bolton now running the White House.

Green v. Doyle

2006-03-25T20:43:00.000-06:00

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - Yesterday evening, Scott Walker bowed out of the Republican gubernatorial primary, making Mark Green the presumptive nominee of the party and Jim Doyle a more solidified target. I have often expressed my desire for Mr. Walker to remove himself from the raise and have been known to pontificate on the sagging nature of his fundraising numbers. Still, I will openly admit that his announcement has caught me firmly off guard, as I would imagine it has much of the state's political establishment. To his credit, Mr. Walker has been honest about why he is leaving this race (assuming finances to be the real cause):

Looking at the numbers this week, it became clear to me that our fundraising totals would only allow us to run a campaign in a fraction of the 72 counties in this state. In addition, our resources would be so limited that most of it would likely be spent on ads attacking our Republican opponent, an un-appealing option for me, which will only bolster Jim Doyle's reelection chances.

Even if these words are not a genuine reflection of Mr. Walker's rationale, they are refreshing insofar as they demonstrate a firm grasp on the reality of Wisconsin's political situation. Mr. Doyle must go and Mr. Walker never stood as good a chance at achieving this end as Mr. Green. Recently, of course, Mr. Walker did turn negative against his primary opponent and there can be no healing the wounds left in the minds of voters by those reckless words. But Wisconsin is a better place today for those words having now come to an end, well in advance of the November election, and for Mr. Green being the nominee of the party. The GOP ought to have little trouble defeating a governor obsessed with the veto pen, known to favor prisons over schools, surrounded by pay-for-play scandal and generally loathed by the populace. I take solace in knowing that this case just became even easier for the GOP to make.

Top Chef: Episode 3 simulblog

2006-03-22T21:07:00.000-06:00

The third episode of Top Chef is currently airing on Bravo. I’ll run a classic simulblog on this site (latest posts at the bottom) starting now, with my best efforts to insert some accurate time stamps as the show progresses. 9:04 – Octopus is the Quickfire ingredient. Not a pretty site – literally. I’m an adventurous chef, but I stay clear of shell fish, so I have no idea how to treat this one. Will be interesting to see which of the contestants can distract from the disturbing site of the ingredient the best. 9:10 – Tiffani Faison finally wins a challenge. She has been a finalist a few times now and is clearly one of the most talented chefs in the group, it is nice to see her finally get some recognition. As for her dish, it looked appetizing though her choice of a long pasta surprised me only because it bears a freaky resemblance to the squid, which is not a quality one would want to play up here. 9:12 – The chefs have to serve monk fish (a solid, cheap alternative to lobster) to a group of children! This should be interesting – gourmet food for the PB&J crowd… 9:16 – Trying to depart from simple summary here (watch the show, people!), I am curious to see what type of dichotomy this show can reveal. There is a definite “Emperor’s New Clothes” quality at play. Can a bunch of culinary school graduates come down to the lunchbox level? And, if not, what does that say of gourmet chefs? 9:20 – Good for Cynthia Sestito for leaving to tend to her dying father. Family ought to always come first; I was surprised she didn’t leave last week, to be honest. 9:23 – I went to bat for Stephen Asprinio a couple of weeks back. I, too, am a fan of wine. But he is making a fool of himself here – the man really doesn’t understand that kids are looking for something different on their plates. (His attitude is terrible, too.) 9:26 – You need to be watching, so I won’t give it away, but the show just pulled off a very cool surprise and, suffice it to say, our guest chef is a welcome addition to my screen. Seriously, I am grinning! 9:37 – I’m giving my best attitude award to Brian Hill. “The Boys and Girls Club, that’s where I started,” he says, showing wild enthusiasm. Kudos for not trying to pull the gourmet routine on a bunch of kids – he actually looks like he is having fun with this, and that is pretty darn cool. 9:41 – This episode is definitely interesting insofar as I have done a complete retake on most of the contestants. The people I really admired last week – Ms. Faison, Mr. Asprinio and a couple others – have come forward with truly lousy attitudes, and some of the more anonymous chefs are winning me over with their ability to relate to an adorable group of kids. This is the beauty of the show, trying to take a gourmet competition out of the fine kitchen and into sex shops and kids’ groups. I am extremely curious to see where this goes next, because I don’t suspect it will be a fine French restaurant at this pace and that is fine by me. 9:54 – It’s almost a pity that Ms. Faison has immunity because she took the octopus challenge. This is certainly the first time that I have thought the Quickfire winner may be deserving of elimination, after a completely abhorrent performance in front of the judges. This is almost embarrassing to watch, and I say that of someone I was really liking up until 54 minutes ago! 9:58 – Really sad ending. I did not want to see that contestant go; he was just starting to grow on me! (So who did get sent home? If you’re watching, you know. And if not, wait until the show is on iTunes and please download it – once again, this is the most download-worthy show on television.)

Supermarket Surf, Spud & Turf recipe

2006-03-22T19:43:00.000-06:00

In preparation for tonight’s episode of “Top Chef” (which, conditions permitting, will be simulblogged here), I am going to take the unusual step of offering forth one of my personal recipes. Roughly once a week, we publish something from my kitchen in The Badger Herald. But for tonight, so everyone can enjoy a fine meal while watching Bravo’s latest hot series, I am sharing my Supermarket Surf, Spud and Turf: Ingredients 4 cloves garlic 3 button mushrooms 1 filet salmon 1 onion 1 potato 1 handful of spinach ¾ tbs. oregano ¾ tbs. house spice ½ lbs. ground beef ¼ tbs. salt ¼ cup olive oil Dice potato, onion and 1 clove of garlic. Oil pan and bring to full heat, adding diced ingredients, salt, house spice and ground beef. Continue to cook on high, mixing periodically, until potatoes are well browned. Add house spice to taste. Mix 3 cloves of garlic, mushrooms, oregano, spinach and olive oil together. Place in food processor and puree until a smooth sauce is formed. Rub salmon with olive oil and house spice. Bake in oven or pan fry until cooked through. Plate salmon on top of potatoes and beef, finishing with pesto-style sauce.

Victory for cigar bars

2006-03-21T23:12:00.000-06:00

Madison's City Council scored a major victory for the common sense-loving, libertarian values-sharing, cigar-puffing portion of the population just moments ago and has amended a draconian smoking ban to exempt cigar bars. It never made much sense in the first place – banning cigar smoke in cigar bars and expecting them to survive. But anti-tobacco activists were gung-ho on making Madison's smoking ban as severe as possible, outlawing chewing tobacco, cigar bars and everything else decent. Tonight that has been overturned, though, thanks to the efforts of Alderman Mike Verveer and the various members of the Common Council who voted alongside him in returning some modicum of decency to a city that had been shamed by an absurd provision in an already-shaky ordinance. The Wisconsin State Journal's editorial board said it well this morning, speaking of Madison's lone surviving cigar bar:

A cigar bar exemption would not unfairly harm the health of employees at Maduro. Those who still have jobs there say they smoke and enjoy the vibe. Any new hires would understand the work environment and have many other options for similar employment.

Now victory is at hand. And that is something worth lighting up a cigar to celebrate.

Remembering shock and awe

2006-03-19T20:45:00.000-06:00

FREMONT, Ind. - There is an interesting duo of columns on the editorial page of today's Washington Post, both addressing the third anniversary of the commencement of the war in Iraq. On one hand, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scribes a piece entitled “What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq,” promoting the United States-led effort. Conversely, George Will weighs in with his column, “Bleakness in Baghdad.” The latter piece pessimistically observes:

Conditions in Iraq have worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq's elections in December. And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern. By many measures conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.

Meanwhile, Mr. Rumsfeld writes:

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

But if neither of these pieces strike your particular fancy, fear not – The New York Times has a commentary from its editorial board on the new season of “The Sopranos.” I'll reserve comment.

Top Chef: Week 2

2006-03-18T15:14:00.000-06:00

SOMEWHERE OFF THE NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE – Apologies for being two days off on the second week of “Top Chef;” as the various datelines on this site show, I've been winding around North America for the better part of a week now, and not all hotel rooms come equipped with Bravo. But the second episode of “Top Chef” is now up on iTunes and, as did last week's premiere, it makes for a marvelous hour's worth of entertainment, especially for the kitchen enthusiast. You have to feel bad for Cynthia Sestito. I ripped on her pretty badly last week, and still cannot vouch for her general sanity, but it turns out she is filming the show while her father is essentially dying. The program cuts away from competition and does a slightly more personal segment with her – it is quite touching and heart-wrenching. As for the first competition, this week's Quickfire is a fruit platter. Basically, the eleven surviving chefs have to transform a fruit basket into an aesthetically-pleasing platter. Nothing too impressive, really – Tiffani Faison has a nice classic presentation and Harold Dieterle shows off some impressive knife work, but none of the presentations really moved too far beyond classic buffet spreads and that was disappointing. Stephen Asprinio wins the challenge with a tiny-cup platter assortment that looks like something out of the Queen's tea hour. Interestingly, Ms. Faison, who seems to be one of the more competitive chefs, seems upset – but not because she didn't win the Quickfire. Oddly, she weighs in, “I think Harold should have won.” When the elimination contest rolls around and Ms. Faison is not among the top three, Mr. Dieterle reciprocates in kind, telling the camera, “I though Tiffani should have been [in the top three].” And it is nice to see that two of the contestants (two of the finer ones at that, I might add) have some level of respect for each other, 'cause this is getting absurdly petty otherwise. The elimination contest is plating and serving a desert course for a fetish store's party. It is absolutely hilarious to watch some of these chefs squeamishly try to add innuendo to otherwise prude dishes. But Ms. Faison goes the furthest, creating a bizarre cookie necklace of sorts – if eaten properly, one seems to end up with something approaching a hickey! Miguel Morales seems to go way over the line with his desert. Nothing too strange about the food itself, but when the chefs all change into their outfits for the night (they, too, are asked to dress for the occasion), he comes out with no shirt. It is not a pretty sight – the guest judge even jokes, “...There is nothing sexy about Miguel...” Apparently looks don't matter, though – outfit-wise at least. Ms. Faison is hands down the best dressed of the eleven contestants, with a sleek white top and black bottom, but her creative presentation is shot by some apparently less-than-tasty cookies and, alas, she misses the final three. Oh well – I am pulling for her more and more. Bottom line: Mr. Morales is somehow the winner. He is so far over the top it is hard to believe, but I suppose he embraces the “When in Rome” motto the best. And our loser? Andrea Beaman is headed home. Sort of a pity – she seemed very good at what it is she does (a health food-driven line of cooking), I am just not sure that her expertise and the competition were wholly compatible. Okay, apologies again for being late on this week's “Top Chef” commentary and for the lack of recent posts to this site. Things should be back to normal by the end of Monday.

Feingold: Silencing Clinton, Schumer and Kerry

2006-03-15T21:53:00.000-06:00

NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. – The old political motto is that when in a primary, a Democrat ought to run to the left and a Republican to the right. When in a general election, they meet somewhere near the center. It's a Beltway cliché because it has proved a reliable electoral strategy over time. But Russ Feingold has now taken the “run to the left” theory a little too far. And given the relatively radical nature of today's Democratic leadership (think Nancy Pelosi), that is saying a lot. As I mentioned Monday, Mr. Feingold is calling on Congress to censure President Bush for tapping phone conversations between suspected terrorists. What most Americans see as a necessary measure toward the defense of our homeland, Mr. Feingold apparently sees as grounds for censure. And Mr. Feingold, in making this transparent media ploy as he prepared to run for the presidency, has apparently sprinted so far to the left that he cannot find a single senator to join him in this wasteful endeavor. Dana Milbank has a very humorous piece in today's Washington Post, headlined “The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence,” highlighting how this latest piece of garbage has left even leading senate Democrats speechless:

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost. "I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.). ... "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.). ... Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately. CNN's [Ed] Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

Indeed, Senate Democrats are starting to sound like the Keystone Cops as they try to dodge questions about Mr. Feingold's absurd proposal. On one hand, they don't want to publicly condemn a man who may just follow in the footsteps of John Kerry and Al Gore; on the other hand, they all know that the American people will hold them to the coals if they back such a ludicrous proposal. Then again, this whole stunt seems to be working for Mr. Feingold. After all, a presidential candidate is going to want as much of the evening news to himself as possible, and by scaring all of his colleagues away from the microphone, the Wisconsin senator has found a sure-fire way to monopolize the sound byte market. (And, yeah, I'd be willing to pay money to see Ms. Clinton try to hide behind Ms. Mikulski.)

Madison media and the big chill

2006-03-14T20:32:00.000-06:00

TORONTO – Taking a step back, one of my biggest concerns about the whole Mohammad cartoon controversy was that those newspapers that elected to not step up to the plate and share newsworthy images with their readership might experience a certain chilling effect of sorts. To wit, I have to wonder what sort of slippery slope has been engaged here – will it be images offensive to another religious group that are censored next, or an article defaming to a political interest group, or photos that are too stark to go over lightly with a queasy readership? Yesterday morning, the Wisconsin State Journal published a front page photo of a dead Iraqi child. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have spent the past couple of days traveling through rural Ontario and, as such, did not see Monday's edition of the Madison paper. But thanks to an interesting forum post by Tim Kelley, the paper's managing editor and a man whom I admire greatly, I see where the publication's editors were coming from:

We're aware that closeups of dead bodies on our front page are taboo to some readers and a shock to many others. We use such pictures sparingly and with readers' reaction in mind. It shouldn't surprise anyone that graphic depictions of the civilian bloodshed in Iraq move across our wires everyday. Most of the time, we take a pass; the images aren't necessary to telling the story. But in this case, we decided the photo captured the truth of the situation in a way that accompanying story alone could not.

I applaud Mr. Kelley for engaging his readership in such a straightforward manner and, while I disagree with the underlying message, I applaud the State Journal for not hesitating to share what its editors perceived to be a necessarily powerful image. I am just struck that this newspaper in particular would do so now and not a month ago. Is this really so different than the infamous Danish cartoons? Or was this merely a “less risky” image to share, albeit a still controversial one at that? It is sad that questions like this come to mind, much less have to be asked. But in wake of so many American newspapers abandoning the principles of a free press and cowering at a certain faction's demands, inquiries into matters of hypocrisy will neither start nor end with front page photos of dead children. There has been a chilling effect, whether anyone cares to note it or not, and so long as newspapers feel obligated to explain what were once commonsense editorial decisions, the brutal wake of the Mohammad cartoons will continue to be felt throughout the American media.

Russ Feingold's cheap stunt

2006-03-13T22:00:00.000-06:00

SAULT STE MARIE, Ontario – Russ Feingold, the only member of the United States Senate to care so little about the safety of Americans that he voted against the Patriot Act the first time around, would now like to see our president censured for doing just that – caring about the safety of Americans. In wake of the revelation of a wiretapping program led by the White House, the Capital Times reports:

If the Wisconsin Democrat's move were to succeed, Bush would be the first president in 172 years to be so condemned by Congress.

To begin, the factoid – while technically correct – is just plain misleading. The United States Congress saw fit to impeach a president just eight years ago and, of course, came so close to removing a president from office in 1974 that the man was forced to resign. So let's brush aside the historical shaming and acknowledge that a censure – which has been floated more time in history than one would care to count – is not exactly the badge of shame that Mr. Feingold would have people believe, especially in wake of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. But, of course, such is merely academic. To censure Mr. Bush for upholding his constitutional duty to protect the American people would be to bring a level of shame unto Congress that not even Messrs. Clinton and Nixon brought upon the White House. People wonder why the Democratic Party is having so much trouble capitalizing on poor poll numbers for Mr. Bush and yet the answer is horrifically obvious: it is moves like this that reveal the Democratic agenda to be little more than a natural extenuation of the “Anybody But Bush” motto that failed so badly in the 2004 election. Mr. Feingold is crying hyperbole at a level of which, frankly, not even I suspected him to be capable. It is embarrassing to his office, it is embarrassing to the United States Senate and it is embarrassing to the people of Wisconsin.

And Knight Ridder is no more

2006-03-12T23:31:00.000-06:00

The New York Times is reporting that newspaper giant Knight Ridder has been purchased by the McClatchy Company for roughly $4.5 billion. As the story notes:

[M]cClatchy, which is based in Sacramento and publishes The Sacramento Bee and The Minneapolis Star Tribune, among others, was the only major newspaper company to submit a final bid for Knight Ridder, publisher of 32 daily newspapers, including such venerable papers as The Miami Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The San Jose Mercury News.

The Gray Lady article goes on to spin this as a negative sign for the newspaper industry, alluding to the major media companies that passed on Knight Ridder. At one point, the article asserts:

[The purchase] comes at a time of deep uncertainty for the print side of the newspaper industry, as readers and advertisers migrate to the Internet. That Knight Ridder was for sale at all was perceived as a sign of the industry's weakness.

And it is easy to see this side of the story – a major publication house is closing up shop, consolidation is creeping over the already-dense industry and papers aren't the sole alternative to AM radio and the evening news that they once were. But consider this: 32 newspapers for $4.5 billion comes out to over $140 million per paper. Now, other than owned office space – which can be substantial – a newspaper has few real assets; the product being sold is a mere combination of paper and ink. That this still can attract upwards of $100 million should be a friendly reminder that the press is not yet dead. As news comes that the Tribune Company is consolidating office space and resources in Washington, it will be interesting to see how McClatchy treats its newfound empire. Gannett is certainly the largest publisher in America, and yet it still manages to hold some truly community-based newspapers throughout the states. Whether McClatchy will follow this lead or not remains to be seen. Meanwhile, it sure is interesting that the New York Times – a newspaper owned by neither McClatchy or Knight Ridder – somehow managed to break this story.

Tourney Time

2006-03-12T18:54:00.000-06:00

I don't read palms, I don't own a crystal ball and I don't play with Tarot cards. But I am a red-blooded American and, thus, I do have a bracket:

DPW: Making Jensen look good by comparison

2006-03-11T22:21:00.000-06:00

Scott Jensen was found guilty of a trifecta of felonies and a misdemeanor today, bringing an end to the caucus scandal that has hovered over this state for too long. It was a sad end to a sad situation, and Governor Doyle – much as it pains me to say – may have summed things up best:

When our elected officials misuse the public's trust, they should be held accountable. I am pleased the jury has done so. Their verdicts affirm the commonsense notion that everyone must follow the law, especially those charged with making them.

I will avoid launching into the obvious critique of Governor Doyle and Adelman Travel because, frankly, the justice system ought to be independent of the political system. But such is a notion that apparently escapes Michael Murphy, the slimeball running the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. In a statement today, he screeched:

The records and testimony showing Mark Green and Scott Walker deep in the thick of the caucus scandal cannot be ignored. It is time for Green and Walker to come clean and explain what they knew about the caucus scandal and when they knew it. These serious questions need to be answered before Wisconsin can put the caucus scandal behind us and move forward.

Mr. Murphy apparently thinks it is 1972, he is working for The Washington Post and Richard Nixon is in the cross hairs – this might be the first non-cynical employment of the “what did you know and when did you know it” cliché outside of newspaper columns and the blogosphere since then. And, frankly, it is ludicrous. Leave it to DPW to turn a serious moment for the State of Wisconsin into a blatantly political excuse to run off and defame the character of Messrs. Green and Walker. It is pitiful and, frankly, it makes the entire party – including Mr. Doyle – look equally pitiful. Is nothing sacred? Or is DPW just that desperate?

Slobodan Milosevic dead

2006-03-11T11:11:00.000-06:00

Slobodan Milosevic, a brutal dictator whom history will record alongside the likes of Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko and Yasser Arafat, has finally died. Various news outlets are reporting that Mr. Milosevic was found dead this morning at his cell in The Hague, where he has been standing trial before the United Nations. As CNN notes:

The former Serbian president had been on trial on 66 charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes during the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Mr. Milosevic had been on trial since 2002 – for nearly four years – in what had become an absolute mockery of justice. It was his case that had become proof of just how incompetent the UN is and why the international body either needs a firm restructuring or dissolution. Now he is dead – innocent until proved guilty and unlikely to ever be convicted in a posthumous state. The Grimm Reaper apparently acts faster than the UN's brand of justice. But at least the man is now dead and the world rid of one of its most brutal, disgusting tyrants. Perhaps the people he once oppressed so monstrously – the survivors – may finally begin to move on.

Deep dish, deep odds

2006-03-11T00:35:00.000-06:00

Papa John's is running a promotion with The Sporting News whereby if anyone can correctly predict the outcome of all 63 NCAA Tournament basketball games, everyone who fills out a bracket on the site will get to evenly split 1,000,000 pizzas. As a press release notes:

As the official sponsor of SportingNews.com’s bracket page, Papa John’s is offering 1,000,000 large Papa’s Perfect Pan pepperoni pizzas for a “perfect bracket,” a prize that will be divvied up evenly among all eligible fans who enter their bracket picks at the SportingNews.com.

Cool, eh? Well this got me to thinking: just how hard can it be to fill out the perfect bracket? We all give it our best shot every year – with a few dollars attached in a good number of American offices. And, oftentimes, it's the person who seems to know the least about college ball that wins. So, just what are the odds? There are 63 games that one would have to select properly to complete the “perfect” bracket. Mathematically, the odds of this – if one were to randomly select each game with no prior knowledge of the sport – are a mere 1:9,223,372,040,000,000,000. Okay, that seems like quite the longshot. So let's suppose that there aren't any real upsets and the top four teams in each bracket advance to the Sweet 16. If each game is randomized from there, the odds of picking a perfect bracket are trimmed down to a meager 1:32,768. Knock things down to the Elite Eight – at which point, there needs to have either been an upset of sorts or the person doing the picking will be forced to select between some very evenly matched #1 and #2 squads. From here, the odds are 1:128. So enjoy March Madness and have fun with your brackets. But don't count on Papa John's offering you any free dough – there is a much better chance of seeing a #16 team win it all.

Bravo's Top Chef

2006-03-10T00:31:00.000-06:00

When not being a political junkie, the kitchen is one of my primary obsessions. I am so addicted to the Food Network that once, while on the road, I called a friend to see if she remembered a certain episode of one of the channel's travel shows, because I was having trouble recollecting the name of a restaurant and wanted to eat there while passing through town. I have a crush on Rachel Ray, aspire to one day be able to handle Bobby Flay's sauces on my own and consider Iron Chef America to be the finest program on television. I abuse my tiny apartment kitchen to the nth degree and, roughly once a week, you can read my recipes on the Digest page of The Badger Herald. So naturally I tuned in to last night's premiere of “Top Chef” on Bravo. I am now completely hooked and, in the tradition of Ann Althouse's periodic pop culture tangents, will bring you my weekly commentary on the show. First, if you didn't see the program, please do not pass go, do not collect $200, open up your iTunes and download it. As of the time of this posting, it is still free, though I suspect Apple will soon be asking the very reasonable price of $1.99 for each episode. Okay, the cast of chefs is definitely eclectic. These people range from a Las Vegas sommelier to a caterer who seems to be badly in need of a good shrink. Some are lovable, a few are repugnant, most of them I need another week or two to pass any sort of judgment on. The Quickfire competition is certainly a good opener. They have to survive 30 minutes on the line at Hubert Keller's Fleur de Lys, arguably the finest restaurant in San Francisco. Mr. Keller is a curt, demanding guy and with him calling the shots, only three of the 12 competitors even make it through. Cynthia Sestitot, a woman who swears like a sailor with a certain bizarre brand of utter kookiness, gets the boot before she can even start because Mr. Keller doesn't approve of her footwear. Ken Lee, the hostile Irish guy with some serious attitude, gets booted for sticking his finger in the sauce to taste it (memo to self: If he ever gets a restaurant, do not eat there). Dave Martin, Tiffani Faison and Le Anne Wong are the three survivors. They all seem extremely impressive. Mr. Keller taps Ms. Wong the event's winner, though I was definitely pulling for Ms. Faison. She seems to have a very smooth character and complete competence in the kitchen. Oh well. As for Mr. Martin, no doubt he knows what he is doing, but not enough personality revealed in this week's show – we'll have to wait until next week. The second competition, which is the elimination battle, requires each chef to cook their signature dish. Mr. Lee mocks, “I don't have a signature dish 'cause I don't have a restaurant.” Ms. Faison is the only one to make it to the final three for both competitions; her pumpkin dish which, despite being vegetarian, looks amazing, is a huge hit. But Harold Dieterle is the winner. He's a lot like Mr. Martin – seems to be excellent in the kitchen, but there just isn't enough personality in the television hour to let him really enter our living rooms. And Mr. Lee, who earned the collective wrath of the entire group when he talked back to Mr. Keller at the end of the Quickfire challenge, is going home. Sort of a pity – the show may have benefited from some hostile personality to keep people chatting. And his dish didn't look all that bad – it was a fish piece, and at least appeared to be better assembled than a health-conscious plate thrown together by one of the other contenders. Oh well. So who am I rooting for? At the moment, definitely Ms. Faison. In commenting on one of her competitors' dishes, she remarks, “I want to sit and watch Monday Night Football with a beer and eat [Dave's] enchiladas. I thought they were great.” And it is a great line – I'm worried that these are all going to be snobs stuck in the ivory tower of culinary school; that we have a chef who can plate a classic restaurant dish but who also understands the idea of fun food is a very welcome relief. However, some culinary snobbery also never hurts. Stephen Asprinio is winning me over in this category. The guy is the sommelier at one of the MGM Grand restaurants in Las Vegas and is the only chef to serve wine with his signature dish (there is a $30 marketing limit for each person, so this is no easy task). He understands that a meal is more than just food – he even dresses properly in a suit and tie. Very classy individual. Ms. Wong, who I was just beginning to like, comments, “Stephen is a sommelier, so he is a professional bullshiter.” And there goes my respect for her. (For the record, I am blogging with a Clos du Bois Cabernet Sauvignon from Sonoma County, vintage 2000 and it is excellent.) Okay, next week I'm going to kill the synopsis and stick with analysis because I know you all will be watching with me. For now, if you haven't already, download the darn show! This is great stuff.

Tree-hugging hypocrisy

2006-03-09T19:21:00.000-06:00

Did it not occur to anyone that a smoking ban, which forces people to trade ashtrays for curbs and snow banks, might just kick mother nature in the butt?

On Hollywood and the military

2006-03-07T01:10:00.000-06:00

As promised during my Academy Award simulblog Sunday evening, here is a commentary piece I scribed on the kudo-fest for The Badger Herald. Truthfully, I covered most of this material on this site, but for those of you not wide-eyed about the prospect of sifting through my 2500 word live analysis (I went back and did a word count – I always knew I was long-winded by blog standards, but this one is ridiculous), my thoughts are perhaps a touch more condensed here. Also, the Supreme Court ruled on the Solomon Amendment Monday, unanimously upholding the controversial law. Ann Althouse has some thoughts up on her site:

I want to express my deepest thanks to Chief Justice Roberts for gathering the Justices onto one clearly written opinion. There is no blather or hedging in the prose. He has obviously taken great pains to put every sentence in plain English.

The decision is actually being received rather warmly across the board from what I can see – I am still waiting for the various Madison fringe groups to emerge from the woodwork and start decrying the high court over this one. In Tuesday's Herald, I have a column comparing the court's decision to its recent rejection of certiorari in Hosty v. Carter:

The lesson to be learned from these laudable Supreme Court decisions is that while even the most nonsensical of speech may be welcomed into a First Amendment-guided marketplace of ideas, no government ought to be legally coerced into funding the fiery opposition of its naysayers.

Academy Awards simulblog

2006-03-05T18:58:00.000-06:00

Starting momentarily, I will run an Academy Awards simulblog on this site. Having covered the entertainment industry on and off for seven years now, I have viewed many an Oscar ceremony and will be offering a commentary piece in Tuesday's Badger Herald. Unlike previous Right Side of the Road simulblogs, this one will flow down – which is to say that updates will be informally time-stamped and added to the bottom of this post. ----- 7:07 – Very cute opening with Billy Crystal, Chris Rock, Steve Martin, Whoopi Goldberg, David Letterman, Mel Gibson and company. Wholly reminiscent of the last time Mr. Letterman got to parody his famously mediocre hosting job in a rather cute Oprah-driven montage. Jon Steward looks good – classic black tuxedo with a long tie. He appears awkward, but I think such is just the normal level of self-consciousness that drives his unique brand of humor. And kudos to him for the quick self-depreciation (“me, the fourth male lead from 'Death to Smoochy''). Great political line too – early jabs at Hollywood's obsession with the Democratic Party are going over well. Again, a little self-depreciation is always good for these things. ----- 7:11 - “Bjork couldn't be here tonight. She was trying on her Oscar dress and Dick Cheney shot her” - the jokes are working pretty well; that one got a great reaction on the heels of an also-successful Jewish joke. Still, I'm astounded that people remember Bjork's famous swan-style dress – that was a while back and she is not exactly a-list. ----- 7:16 – Not sure why Nicole Kidman is presenting Best Supporting Actor. Tradition is the previous year's Best Supporting Actress, which would be Cate Blanchett, who won for The Aviator in 2005. ----- 7:21 – George Clooney is now an Academy Award winner. Sad to see it happen for such a blatantly political piece (he takes it home for “Syriana”), but glad to see him win it. Great actor and director. Credit to Mr. Clooney for humility, too – “I don't know how you compare art” – I always enjoy those who take the time to at least acknowledge the other nominees. ----- 7:26 – I get the “green screen” joke with Ben Stiller's presentation – he is draped in a hideous green get-up. But, seriously, he looks like a fool. The immaturity of this bit of astounding – a little class at the Oscars wouldn't hurt. I mean, we're laughing at him – not with him. ----- 7:34 – The giant, colorful bowties on the Wallace & Gromit guys are adorable. And they showed such charisma and warmth in what really was just a typical acceptance speech. Very lovable! ----- 7:37 – Okay, Dolly Parton always looks like a Barbi doll, but this getup is particularly bad. Neck up is normal, but then the accentuation of cleavage paired with the absolute lack of a waist is really quite disturbing. And that outfit is hideous – it looks as though she has ruffles draped off her waist. Way too much glitz on the jewelry too – this year is supposed to be about a sensible return to the mid-20th century modesty; she is anything but. ----- 7:47 – I haven't seen any of the short films (which are the focus of the show at the moment), and am guessing most of you haven't. But they do look quite interesting and it is worth noting the live action ones are available for download from iTunes – might be a worthwhile investment. ----- 7:54 – The ode to biopics is pretty well assembled (though the selection of some of the flicks appears to be rather capricious). I'm just not sure what it was meant to do other than evoke some warm nostalgia. The movies included spanned several decades of filmmaking (and centuries of historical figures). Also, having Russell Crowe introduce the piece and then be featured for his role as John Nash seemed a touch ego-heavy. People always complain that the show is too long. Now I realize the montages are some of the most enjoyable portions, but it is bits like this that make me wonder if some time couldn't be shaved off of the ceremony. ----- 8:04 – Howard Berger and Tami Lane just won the makeup honors for their work on “The Chronicles of Narnia.” Mr. Berger gave a lengthy speech, naming seemingly everyone he had ever met. Ms. Lane looked anxious the whole time. Then she stepped up to the microphone for what looked to be a quick afterthought comment and was completely silenced by the show's producer – not merely drowned out by the orchestra, silenced. The mic may have been turned off for all I know. Having just ranted on show length, I am all for a shorter program. But don't cut people out of the show once they are on the stage. It just makes the broadcast look really bad. ----- 8:07 – Rachel Weisz wins Best Actress for “The Constant Gardner.” I'm not familiar with the performance, but as she beats out Michelle Williams on the heels of George Clooney taking the supporting actor award over Jake Gyllenhaal, it is worth noting that “Brokeback Mountain” is now zero for two in major categories. Might an upset be brewing? ----- 8:21 – The Best Actress lobbying commercials parody is quite amusing. For those familiar with “Variety” or any of the other trade papers, you know how obnoxious the genuine ads can get. To put them on par with the old Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spots makes for a welcome inside joke, and the whole bit was ludicrous enough to work across the board. Also, this is very much Jon Stewart's humor style. You can tell that this broadcast has some very “Daily Show”-esque elements to it, and such comes as a welcome surprise. I'm glad to see he isn't being constrained. (Don't get me wrong, though – the juvenile bits can stay out, ala Ben Stiller, there is still a fine balance between humor and class to be struck here.) ----- 8:42 – Alright, the montages may be heavy-handed and unnecessary. But the one on socially-powerful films sure is extraordinary. “Philadelphia,” “Inherit the Wind,” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Network” were the highlights, but each scene was astounding unto itself. Still, I have to wonder, what does this have to do with the year that was in cinema? I am all for nostalgia and love these things, but we are almost two hours into this now and only two major awards have been unveiled. Montages are lovable because they show great moments of brevity as part of a collage – I just wonder, is the Academy capable of any such brilliant brevity on its own? ----- 8:53 – “Brokeback Mountain” finally gets one. Gustavo Santaolalla wins for Best Original Score. It's worth noting, that as the show's second hour draws to a close, “Memoirs of a Geisha” has actually won more awards than “Brokeback Mountain.” Stunning. ----- 9:00 – “Wow, I can't wait 'till later when we see Oscar's salute to montages.” Thank you Jon Stewart! ----- 9:14 – I love Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep, but this mock-confusion bit in honor of Robert Altman isn't nearly as amusing as the two of them seem to think. When they introduced themselves as each other, it was cute. But the rest of the bit is bordering on painful to watch. Now the Altman montage is on, with him narrating it. For the first time all night, a montage is actually a welcome relief! And, I might add, major kudos to Mr. Altman. He is quite deserving of the honorary award – truly one of the finest directors of the modern era. Consider the diversity of his work – everything from “MASH” to “Gosford Park.” He is getting a very decent standing ovation now and it is actually quite warming – doesn't seem so phony for some reason. “I always that this type of award meant that it is over,” he jokes. Then seamlessly segues to the show he opened in London just last night, making mention of another film he has coming out. And he sums it well: “To me, I've just made one long film.” Truly an astounding guy! And a few nice punch lines, too – instead of thanking actors, producers and studios, he thanks his doctor! Great cut-away shot of Reese Witherspoon chuckling and nodding in the audience. Amazing juxtaposition of an older, classic director and one of Hollywood's finer new actors. He ends by thanking his family, with a special mention of his wife. Very touching. ----- 9:20 – “It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp,” one of the evening's nominated songs, is being performed. There is a set that looks like it is right out of a “Saturday Night Live” sketch and the performers are in street gear. It is one of the most class-less things I have ever seen in an Oscar ceremony. The Academy should be embarrassed. ----- 9:25 – And now “It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp” won! Dolly Parton, who, by default, is one of the losers, looks wildly amused. I am almost embarrassed to be watching. This is sickening. Their acceptance speech is in a terrible brand of English. I can't tell if they got bleeped or not. Jon Stewart is laughing. “I think it just got a little easier out here for a pimp,” he jokes. I, on the other hand, don't know if I should laugh or cry. ----- 9:36 – The one montage I'll never complain about is the annual commemorative reel of those who have passed away. This year's was particularly poignant – some truly stunning individuals have left us. I realize it is assembled well in advance, with a tight musical coordination, but I was still disappointed to see that Don Knotts didn't make it in to the reflective piece. He truly was one of the finest character actors of his era, and though “The Andy Griffith Show” isn't cinematic, Mr. Knotts did work his way into several films, including a particularly delightful role in “Pleasantville.” ----- 9:40 – Glad to see that “Paradise Now,” the Palestinian propaganda piece about suicide bombers, didn't win Best Foreign Language Film. As Will Smith was introducing the category, the posters for the five nominated films appeared on screen such that two would be next to each other at any given point in time. Coincidentally, the one to the left of “Paradise Now” had a giant swastika on it. ----- 9:49 – Philip Seymour Hoffman wins Best Actor for “Capote.” He deserved it eight years ago for “Happiness,” an independent flick in which he was absolutely amazing, but the subject matter was far too edgy for the Academy (heavy pedophilia) to even nominate. The career has he amassed since is stunning as well, with “Magnolia,” “State and Main” and now “Capote” all being standouts. He gives a very classy speech, albeit a touch scatterbrained. I always admire the winners who take time to acknowledge the other nominees – such an easy, decent thing to do. And Mr. Hoffman is right on cue. Also worth noting, once again, “Brokeback Mountain” has lost in a major category as Heath Ledger can only politely clap for Mr. Hoffman. ----- 10:01 – Reese Witherspoon wins Best Actress for “Walk the Line.” “I want to say that Johnny Cash and June Carter had a wonderful tradition of honoring other artists.” -- Very classy. Ms. Witherspoon probably deserved the award back in 1999 for “Election;” despite her youth, she is assembling quite the career and this does seem deserved. Also, for an actress who looks incredibly young (she played a high school student in “Election”), she is showing a great deal of maturity with a heavy and sentimental speech. “I'm just trying to matter,” she says in honor of June Carter. ----- 10:09 – I love Dustin Hoffman. He is my favorite actor of all time – period. He is presenting one of the screenplay awards with his usual nonchalant level of class and dignity. He cuts off script, looks down and comments, “I'm looking at everybody who didn't win – great work people. Great work.” Again, so dignified! Such a great Hollywood player. Mr. Hoffman was introduced as a being a two-time Oscar winner, which is true, he grabbed kudos for “Kramer vs. Kramer” and “Rain Man.” But he has also been nominated for Best Actor five other times, including nods for “The Graduate” and “Wag the Dog.” Think about that – he was nominated for Best Actor in 1968 and 1998. How many actors can perform that superbly over a 30 year time span? Truly amazing. ----- 10:20 – And now “Brokeback Mountain” is back. Ang Lee just grabbed Best Director, and the award is almost always coupled with Best Picture. It is, however, worth noting that one of the few times the two kudos have split was in 1999 when Steven Spielberg won Best Director for “Saving Private Ryan” and then “Shakespeare in Love” took home Best Picture. Mr. Spielberg is nominated again tonight, this time for Best Picture. And personally I'm rooting for the Academy to split again and give the award to him for “Munich.” ----- 10:25 – Whoa!!! The Academy has split the top two honors once again, but “Munich” is not Best Picture - “Crash” is. (Okay, let's be honest, "Munich" was a longshot all along, but hey, I was holding out hope.) This is a massive upset by almost all accounts. It was supposed to be “Brokeback Mountain” all the way. The movie also won editing and writing honors this evening, but this is still completely unexpected. And what kind words about the other nominees from one of the accepting producers – a truly sweet comment about the year in cinema. This will have people talking tomorrow. And now all of America is going to have to go out and see a movie that most hadn't even heard of until now. Stunning! ----- 10:33 – Alright, some concluding thoughts. The 78th Academy Awards will be remembered for the Best Picture upset – the largest since “Saving Private Ryan” lost in 1999. “Crash” just went from bordering on the sort of flick Blockbuster won't be stocking in six years to part of an immortal role call of cinema's finest. Jon Stewart did a good job hosting – decent improvised humor as the night went on, and a fabulous opening monologue and film short. Billy Crystal he is not, but the collegiate generation had a reason to tune in tonight and that cannot be overlooked. It will be interesting to see the ratings for the show. Otherwise, my commentary will be in Tuesday's Badger Herald, and I'll put a link up to it when it hits the web. For now, thank you for following on The Right Side of the Road.

You might be a redneck if...

2006-03-05T01:00:00.000-06:00

Shame on the Wisconsin Innocence Project

2006-03-03T22:07:00.000-06:00

The Wisconsin Innocence Project touts itself as an organization that will help a convicted felon, having already exhausted his or her appeals, hold out hope for proof of innocence. The project apparently holds itself to a higher standard than the mere good judgment of police officers, district attorneys, nine jurors and various judges. On its website, the group explains:

The Wisconsin Innocence Project represents prison inmates who claim to be actually innocent of the crimes for which they are incarcerated. ... The defendant must have been convicted and all direct appeals must be exhausted or the time for filing a direct appeal must have passed. If a prisoner still has time to file a direct appeal, he or she should exercise the right to appointed counsel through the courts of the public defender system.

But the Wisconsin Innocence Project, having freed the lowly scum formally known as Steven Avery, apparently now has a double standard of sorts. With Mr. Avery facing some rather gruesome murder charges and a mountain of evidence, the organization seems to have done a complete turnabout. Indeed, the Innocence Project seems content convicting Mr. Avery before a jury even does, this time around. According to the AP, the Wisconsin organization removed a photo of the alleged rapist and killer from its website today. And a spokesman had this to say:

"We had left references to Avery on the Web site because we thought it was a historic account and it was an honorable thing to not try to disguise what happened in that case," said Keith Findley, co-director of the project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison law school. "But because of these recent allegations and the emotional response, we have taken those photos down."

It is the Wisconsin Innocence Project that worked so hard to let this monster out of jail; it is the Wisconsin Innocence Project that now has blood on its hands and, as of today, it is the Wisconsin Innocence Project that has brought a whole new level of hypocrisy to the legal community.

Banning Republicans from adopting children

2006-03-02T21:10:00.000-06:00

Ohio State Senator Robert F. Hagan needs to be impeached. Or recalled. Or whatever it is they do to lunatics in Ohio. As the Gay People's Chronicle reports (and, no, I can't believe I am citing this publication as a source):

Democrat Robert Hagan of Youngstown sent out a co-sponsorship request for his “Republican Adoption Ban of 2006” on February 22. ... “Credible research exists that strongly suggests that adopted children raised in Republican households, though significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts, are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities,” Hagan continued.

Okay, I realize the bill is a gross parody of sickening proportions, but that is just the problem: a state senator is using his taxpayer-funded time and resources to push something that amounts to little more than one of the most partisan attacks in recent memory. As Steve over at Letters in Bottles notes:

So what have we learned from this? I don't know about you, but the only thing I get from it is that this guy Hagan is damn clown. I also see another reason that the Democrats are not winning elections.

Seriously, if state senators are going to behave like eight-year-olds, which may actually be quite the slight to the good third grade students of Ohio in Mr. Hagan's case, they ought to be treated as such. In this case, I would recommend a firm expulsion from school followed by a time out from his parents. And if the people of Youngstown, Ohio re-elect this hack of a politician, I would personally favor federal legislation diverting highway funds from that city's portion of the Ohio Turnpike. Or maybe just a bill banning the people of Youngstown from adopting children. Either would work just fine.

Student journalism at its worst in Eau Claire

2006-03-02T20:30:00.000-06:00

Kevin Reilly, the University of Wisconsin System President, handed down a landmark recommendation yesterday, adjusting policy for resident assistants in the dorms looking to engage in religious behavior. Specifically, the recommendation – which is likely to be rubber stamped by the Board of Regents at its next meeting – comes in wake of a UW-Eau Claire RA facing administrative heat for conducting a Bible study in his room. The whole situation has proved quite an ordeal, with national interest groups weighing on over the past several months, and is likely the biggest story to hit UW-Eau Claire in a number of years. And so it comes as surprising to learn that The Spectator, the school's student newspaper, which has followed developments of the story closely, completely dropped the ball in its coverage of Mr. Reilly's landmark recommendation toward allowing more open and honest free speech in the dorms. The paper's headline, atop a brief five paragraph story, reads “Bible study passes State Legislature,” a title that is problematic in and of itself considering that the State Legislature had absolutely nothing to do with yesterday's breaking news. And the headline alone was not the sole typo, as the story's lede proclaims “The ruling on the Resident Assistant Bible study controversy was passed yesterday by the Wisconsin State Legislature, Representative Rob Kreibich, R-Eau Claire, said.” The Badger Herald has followed this story closely since it first broke last fall, and included a lengthy article in today's newspaper. Fortunately, the Herald – like seemingly every other newspaper in the state – got the facts right, citing the plan to Mr. Reilly and making no false allusions to legislative passage. When Herald Deputy News Editor Mike Gendall sent me a copy of the Spectator story today, my jaw dropped. And, frankly, I am still looking for cause to pick it up.

Felon report has serious shortcomings

2006-03-02T15:26:00.000-06:00

Much has been made in the last few days over the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau's report on felons working within the University of Wisconsin System. The document has startled many – including certain figures in the state assembly – with its revelation of 40 convicted felons residing on the UW System payroll as of last fall, and no less than 27 of them working right here on the Madison campus. What concerns me, however, is not the numbers produced by this report but, rather, the absolute shoddiness of the report itself. These figures are almost impossible to believe and it is not because they are too high but, rather, because they are too low. Behind Madison, the campus with the most felons was UW-Milwaukee, claiming four on its payroll. The disparity is stunning – the state's flagship campus somehow has nearly seven times as many felons as any other school in the system? Perhaps not. To borrow from the old cliché, the devil may well be in the details. This report only lists those who have been convicted of felonies in Wisconsin and who are still under some level of state supervision (parole, probation, etc.). Take a second – think about that. This report does not, ergo, include those who have paid their debt to society in full and moved on. With the nature of plea deals, it is possible that there are people on the UW payroll who have committed felonies as recently as this decade and yet managed to coast through the judicial system, escaping the wrath of state monitoring by the time this audit was commissioned. More troubling, though, is the inherent limitation of only using Wisconsin records. UW-La Crosse, UW-Platteville and UW-Superior are three of the seven non-two year schools to have escaped the wrath of this report altogether, registering no felons on their payroll. What do they all in common? They are all within spitting distance of another state. Had Minnesota and Iowa criminal records been examined, it is tough to say whether these schools may have emerged with the same pristine claim. And such a theory doesn't stop there. UW-Madison's faculty is decidedly international, with people from all over North America and the world. So that figure of 27 felons is likely low as well. Senior administrators at any of the UW schools could have had some very gut-wrenching run-ins with the law in Florida, California or Italy and the LAB report would not have caught these newsworthy indiscretions. It is good to have a debate about whether felons should be on university payrolls and whether schools ought to be allowed to discriminate based upon one's past. Personally, I shy away from absolutism on this subject and prefer a case-by-case approach. But if the State Legislature is really looking to engage in a shouting match with Bascom Hall and the administrative wings of every other UW school, they ought to at least make a better effort at getting some accurate information.

Time travel

2006-02-26T22:49:00.000-06:00

Having just returned from South Bend, Indiana – one of those darling communities that refuses to wind its clocks back and forth like the rest of us do – I have found myself particularly frustrated with the outlay of American time zones. The good folks of northwestern Indiana refuse to join the world of Central Time and seem ill content jumping into that wild sphere known as Eastern Time. The result is weary travelers like myself who can't figure out why the hotel alarm clock seems to be off by 60 ticks. Consider this: The town of Whiting, Maine, which sits on the Atlantic Ocean, checks in at roughly -87 degrees longitude. Gary, Indiana, which is the last major stop before one has to wind the long arm backwards, is located at roughly -67 degrees longitude. So the Eastern Time Zone – when Indiana is of that state of mind – covers roughly 20 degrees longitude. By comparison, Chicago, Illinois – the boarder of Central Time – is found at Gary's -87 degrees longitude. The town of Lamar, Colorado, which is one of the first stops in the Mountain Time Zone, is found at -102 degrees longitude. Translation: the Eastern Time Zone is a full 33% larger than the Central Time Zone at the moment. If the Hoosier state would make the move into Central Time Zone, the good folks of Woodburn, Indiana would welcome themselves into one of the new time boarder cities, checking in at roughly -84 degrees longitude. The Eastern Time Zone would now encompass roughly 17 degrees longitude while the Central Time Zone would include roughly 18 degrees longitude, and, hey, what's a degree of longitude between friends, right? I realize this is a particularly mundane rant for a political blog, but frankly this whole issue is completely absurd. Either the good folks of Maine need to launch themselves into Atlantic Time (something that is fairly sensible based on the state's relation to various Canadian points in that sphere) or the people of Indiana need to join their Illinois neighbors in being an hour behind New York City. There are classic arguments against this notion, mostly based on farming. But after a weekend spent checking clocks based on what county I happened to wander through, it would seem to me that Indiana might just make up its darn mind, join the rest of the United States in the bi-annual ritual of clock winding and inform farmers that the sun's duration in the sky is not directly correlated to what the good folks at Timex have to say.

Is the Grey Lady subtly issuing a mea culpa?

2006-02-25T01:01:00.000-06:00

SOUTH BEND, Ind. - There is a fascinating editorial in Saturday's New York Times entitled “Silenced by Islamist Rage,” tackling the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons that have become one of the defining national stories of late. Interestingly, the Grey Lady – which has pathetically refused to share those images at the heart of this matter – has finally seen fit to draw a strange compromise of sorts, editorializing:

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. ... The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced. Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed. ... It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence.

Kudos to the Times for realizing the complexity of the situation and taking a proper stance for once. It is too little by my approximation – the cartoons should have been printed – but not too late, and the paper does deserve credit for such. The ed page piece comes on the heels of a Thursday column in The Washington Post by William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz (a very strange coupling of bedfellows) condemning the media for not showing the cartoons in question. Their column notes:

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. ... But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage. ... When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

When Messrs. Bennett and Dershowitz are tag-teaming an editorial for The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer is printing the controversial cartoons and college newspapers, establishments long known for their idealism, are starting to offer forth the material as well, you have to wonder if Bill Keller may be catching on to what a prude coward he truly has been. After all, the New York Times continues to exclude one major piece of news that is fit to print.

Yes, non-independent student newspapers can be censored

2006-02-23T19:50:00.000-06:00

When the founders scribed into the First Amendment a free press, I somehow doubt they meant to suggest that the press ought to operate for free. Yet, the students of Governors State University in Illinois seem to have trouble piecing that bit of information together. The school's former student newspaper, despite being reliant on school funding, got into a bit of a tiff with the administration. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported last summer:

The student newspaper at Governors State, The Innovator, printed articles that attacked the integrity of a dean. When the newspaper declined to retract statements the administration deemed false or print its responses, Patricia Carter, dean of Student Affairs and Services, told the printer not to produce any issues she had not approved in advance. The editorial staff refused to submit to prior review, and publication ceased.

To me, despite being the editor of a student newspaper, this issue is frightfully clear. With funding comes strings; students do not have an absolute right to take taxpayers' money and use it to go off to libel, mislead or even, in some cases, offend. It is one thing to advocate for free speech – which is something I have been doing a lot of lately – it is altogether another to advocate for free speech when the government is being billed. As the same Journal Sentinel article quoted me as saying:

Mac VerStandig, editor of The Badger Herald at UW-Madison, said organizations that accept funding from their university shouldn't complain. "Everyone has the right to speak, but not everyone has the right to be heard," VerStandig said. "It's hypocritical to say 'We're going to take your money but not deal with the consequences.'"

Thankfully, this case is finally over with. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the entitlement-greedy students over the summer and just this week the Supreme Court of the United States rejected certiorari, effectively ending the drama. But apparently the students down at Governors State University are having some difficulty understanding this weighty concept of not biting the hand that feeds you (especially if you are incapable of feeding yourself). And, thus, as the Student Press Law Center is reporting:

Two days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Hosty v. Carter, the Student Press Law Center has learned the university where the case began is facing a lawsuit from another set of student journalists. Two former student editors of the Phoenix, Governors State University’s current student newspaper, have sued administrators there claiming First Amendment and other violations. The students, former Phoenix Editor in Chief Stephanie Blahut and former Phoenix copy editor David Chambers, filed the lawsuit in federal court in August, claiming Governors State administrators were behind a move that put a faculty member in the editor in chief position at the student paper, according to the lawsuit. Blahut and Chambers also claim a photographer for the paper was barred by a campus police officer from taking pictures at a commencement ceremony, among other charges.

And people wonder why the court system is so weighted down.

Madison's WISC-TV publishes Mohammad cartoon

2006-02-22T17:22:00.000-06:00

Madison's CBS affiliate, Channel 3, should be commended for stepping up the plate after yesterday's forum and becoming the second local media outlet to share one of the controversial Danish cartoons with its audience. On February 15, the local network affiliate covered the issue and, when showing The Badger Herald, used a form of blur censorship on the screen. As I joked on a local radio station, the heavy-handed blurring was wholly reminiscent of how a pornographic image might be conveyed on a family-friendly broadcast. But last night WISC-TV covered the campus forum and in their report, the same page of The Badger Herald is shown, with the cartoon in tact. I've already expended plenty of ink explaining why this image should be shared, and I am glad to see that the Herald is no longer the only media outlet in Madison to have this sentiment. WISC-TV should be commended, especially because I am sure that it took no small amount of humility to change their original editorial policy.

John Wiley and Oliver Holmes

2006-02-22T01:12:00.000-06:00

Tuesday evening, the Dean of Students Office hosted a forum on the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist and The Badger Herald's decision to print one of the images. It was one of the most extraordinary events I have been privileged enough to attend while at the University of Wisconsin, and an evening I will not soon forget. The panel assembled, myself withstanding, was comprised of a group of intellectuals of the highest caliber. While I disagreed with most of my fellow panelists and ended up facing the majority of the evening's questions myself, I was astounded by the philosophical contributions offered by UW professors, journalists and representatives of the Muslim community. Brad from Letters in Bottles blogged the event and while I was certainly present, I had neither a notepad nor a computer, so I will rely on his accuracy (which seems proficient based on my memories). He quotes Chancellor John Wiley as beginning the evening by noting:

“I can promise you this – you’ll take away from this evening memories and experiences you can’t get in an ordinary classroom (this is what a university is all about – real issues that are on us in the moment.)”

Dr. Wiley was brief in his opening remarks and declined to take a side on the matter of contention. Yet I can assuredly say that rarely have I been so proud to go to this university as I was when the chancellor was setting the evening's tone. Indeed, Dr. Wiley was supremely impressive and established the highest of bars for the debate. Interim Dean of Students Lori Berquam was the moderator and she, too, managed matters in the most superb of fashions. Her questions for the panel were well-meditated and her neutrality never came into contention. The majority of the evening was dedicated to a question and answer session with the audience. And while many of those who approached the microphone opted instead for a verbal assault on the Badger Herald and/or myself, I still believe the experience to have been overwhelmingly positive insofar as it allowed a community to vent, freely exchange ideas and address an important topic. Early in the forum, I was hissed at rather notably for making an allusion to the “marketplace of ideas” (the audience did not seem much a fan of intellectual capitalism). I can only say that I find this ironic, for that famed Oliver W. Holmes reference may well be the finest description for the evening's discourse.

From Russia to Bascom Hall

2006-02-21T01:10:00.000-06:00

Tonight, at 7:00 PM, the Dean of Students Office at the University of Wisconsin will be sponsoring a forum in 272 Bascom Hall on The Badger Herald's recent decision to publish one of the 12 controversial Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist. I will be one of the panelists and sincerely hope that anyone in the Madison area who is interested in this topic will come. With this discussion forthcoming, this seems an appropriate time to visit some of the stories to have emerged around the cartoon controversy, not just on the UW campus but throughout the world. Most recently, two Russian newspapers have been closed for publishing images of the Prophet Mohammad. As the New York Times reports of the first paper:

[A]uthorities in a central Russian city on Friday ordered the closing of a newspaper that published a cartoon showing Muhammad, along with Jesus, Moses and Buddha. The cartoon, published Feb. 9 in the official city newspaper in Volgograd, prompted some criticism and a federal criminal investigation, but no public outrage. That may be, in large part, because it depicted the figures respectfully, renouncing violence, despite the fact that Islamic teachings forbid any depiction of Muhammad.

The second closure came on the heels of the first, but for different reasons. The New York Times has that story as well:

The owner of a small Russian weekly that printed a composite of the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad said Monday that he would close the newspaper. ... The owner, Mikhail M. Smirnov, said he decided on his own to close the newspaper on Friday, even as the prosecutor general's office announced it would bring criminal charges against the paper's editor, Anna V. Smirnova. Ms. Smirnova, who is also the owner's wife, faces charges of inciting religious animosity, a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of two to four years in prison.

Back in Wisconsin, Ann Althouse has an excellent post up on a column written by Donald Downs and Ken Mayer for Monday's Badger Herald about the campus controversy. She notes:

The belief in religion may be deep and sensitive, and it may be arrived at through a path that is not reason and is therefore not amenable to ordinary argument and debate, but it is nevertheless a matter of ideas. You cannot immunize ideas from criticism and still have free speech. In fact, it is most important to be able to criticize the ideas people take most seriously and cling to most intransigently.

Meanwhile, the man who got this all started wrote a brilliant op-ed for The Washington Post over the weekend. Flemming Rose, the culture editor Jyllands-Posten, scribed a stellar piece simply titled “Why I Published Those Cartoons.” In part, he notes:

I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

Elsewhere, a Saudi newspaper has now been shut down for printing the cartoons Mr. Rose is now defending. Reuters reports:

Shams (Sun) has been suspended as part of an investigation into its decision to publish the cartoons that have caused anger across the Muslim world. It printed them next to articles urging Saudis to take action against Denmark where the cartoons first appeared.

In analyzing this entire debacle, The Washington Post has another deft article entitled “Anatomy of a Cartoon Protest Movement.” In it, the paper reports:

The debate over the cartoons is replete with unintended consequences, some still taking shape this week. On one side is a defense of freedom of expression, on the other an unforgivable insult to a sacred figure. In between are potentially longer-lasting repercussions: a rethinking of relations between Europe and the Muslim world, and a rare moment of empowerment among Muslims who have felt besieged. Given the moral certainty pronounced by each party, some in the middle feel forced to take sides, blurring the diversity of religious thought that might offer grounds for compromise.

Also, a fascinating piece out of Canada's Globe and Mail:

Most Canadian journalists believe the media in this country should have carried controversial Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, a new poll suggested Monday. The Compass survey asked Canadian journalists for their views on the caricatures, which have triggered deadly riots around the world. The findings indicated that roughly seven in 10 felt at least some Canadian media outlets should have published the material in the wake of global violence. Only a handful of media outlets in this country have carried the cartoons, which were first published in Demark last fall.

Finally, the worldwide death toll is now nearing 50, and given the oppressive nature of many of these countries and the lack of a free press, those numbers could easily be low. And with that in mind, I look forward to tonight's forum. When people are dying, the readership deserves the whole story. I remain proud to have helped provide just that.

Twenty-nine years later, free speech back under fire

2006-02-19T10:27:00.000-06:00

SKOKIE, Ill. - This was the last great battleground. Twenty-nine years ago, the modern parameters of free speech were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and this tiny Chicago suburb was the center of the controversy. Predominately Jewish and, at the time, home to a number of Holocaust survivors, it was this quiet town where the National Socialist Party sought to stage a protest. The prospect was horrifying – an absolute affront to the sensibilities of Americans. Klansman would be turning their hate-mongering on high and doing so in the faces of those who had experienced an all-too-real brand of anti-Semitism firsthand courtesy of Adolf Hitler. Would the First Amendment protect this sordid brand of bigotry, or might the fighting words doctrine protect the people of Skokie from an experience that promised to be traumatizing to the nth degree? The American Civil Liberties Union went to bat for the Nazi plaintiffs, a decision so controversial even by ACLU standards that the organization's membership plummeted. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled for the National Socialist Party. And almost 30 years later, the great cause of free speech in America is all the more robust for it. But today those rights run the risk of atrophying. Though the United States government has long since learned to not interfere with religious speech, private enterprises are now cowering at the pressure of activists, refusing to print one of the most newsworthy images of the year because some perceive it as offensive. Of course, those same angry and vocal activists aren't up in arms over the anti-Semitic cartoons printed by state-run media in the Arab world, or even the anti-Christian images shown in so many American newspapers on a regular basis. There may be a few letters to the editor here and there, such pictures never raise the variety of storm we have come to see here. Thus the question that must be asked is why the American media is treating one ethnic group differently. When it was the Jews, and this Illinois village was the battleground, there certainly wasn't any special treatment. And I don't see why there should be today.

A great silent majority?

2006-02-17T07:48:00.000-06:00

I was a guest on Bill O'Reilly's show again last night and as part of the broadcast, Fox News reported that the so-called Muhammad cartoons have now been published in seven commercial American newspapers and four college papers in the United States (presumably including The Badger Herald in the latter tally). I can't vouch for the accuracy or lack thereof of either of those figures, though I will candidly say that the collegiate number strikes me as possibly being a touch low. Regardless, though, it would seem the single-digit assessments are at least in the right ballpark. And I continue to find this wildly disturbing. As the New York Times notes in an article today:

Most major American newspapers, including The New York Times, have not published the cartoons, which were first published in a Danish newspaper last September. But on college campuses, student journalists are still grappling with the decision, saying the choice of most of the nation's newspapers makes theirs even more crucial. Editors at some student publications at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University have published some of the cartoons. ... "Universally, we found the cartoon to be repugnant," said Mac VerStandig, the editor in chief of The Badger Herald. "But we believe that there was a certain endangerment of free speech here, especially given the general prudishness of the American press. We believe our readers are mature enough to look at these images."

And I think the quote I gave the Times does neatly sum up my disgust on this front. The notion that we live in a country where the First Amendment is sacred and newspapers are supposedly dedicated to informing their readership, yet a major news organization's attempt at quantifying how many publications have done just that yields single digit results, should be reason for pause. It is no secret at this point that the Herald has come under criticism for printing the image in our Monday paper. And there has been a conscious effort, in honor of the same free speech and open exchange of ideas, to publish as many letters to the editor this week as possible, given the stature of the controversy. But, as the editor who receives that flood of letters, one thing that has been a welcome relief to me is the number of people who have written in not to condemn the paper, ask for an apology or call for my resignation/termination, but rather to thank and/or congratulate us. This is a sizable and notable portion of the feedback, albeit probably still a minority (people are always more inclined to write in when they have a qualm). And thus I am left wondering if this is not a decently representative sample. Surely there is nothing scientific about it – these are notes to the editor of a Madison newspaper sent voluntarily without solicitation. Still, it would seem that in a country of thousands of newspapers, this view might be roughly mirrored by thousands of papers running the cartoons. Still, it has not. Again, I don't know if the Fox News numbers are accurate. But if they are even remotely close to true, the complete paranoia that dominates a press apparently content with appeasement may be far greater than even I had imagined.

Depicting the Prophet Muhammad

2006-02-15T20:12:00.000-06:00

A bit of an update on the cartoon controversy. The most interesting article to cross my desk today was actually a week old. Someone was kind enough to pass on to me a piece from the Wall Street Journal entitled “Bonfire of the Pieties.” The article, by Amir Taheri, is a discussion of recent claims that the Islamic faith prohibits depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. He notes:

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous: A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century)... ... Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan).

I am led to wonder why there aren't also protests of the depiction(s) of the Prophet Muhammad in Iran, but then I remember that the Middle Eastern nation lacks the freedom of speech too many American newspapers have decided to take for granted these days. Such, however, does not appear to be the case at the Daily Illini, the University of Illinois student newspaper. The paper's editor in chief was suspended today, apparently the first move toward his dismissal, and it would seem such is not so much the result of his journalistic decision as his managerial skills (or lack thereof). The Chicago Tribune reports:

Editor Acton Gorton and his opinions editor, Chuck Prochaska, were relieved of their duties at The Daily Illini on Tuesday while a task force investigates "the internal decision-making and communication" that led to the publishing of the cartoons, according to a statement by the newspaper's publisher and general manager, Mary Cory. ... [O]n Monday, the paper ran an editorial apologizing for Gorton's decision and called the move "a blatant abuse of power" by a "renegade editor who firmly believes that his will is also the will of the paper."

The Illini's decision to publish the cartoons in question was part of the Badger Herald's impetus for running the image in Monday's paper. Yet the reality behind how the Illini came to this decision in no way changes my belief that the Herald has acted properly and in the best interest of its readership. Finally, the University of Wisconsin today announced a panel discussion scheduled for next Tuesday, centering around the Herald's editorial decision. As UW notes in a release:

The panel is expected to include Mac VerStandig, editor-in-chief of the Badger Herald; Mir Babar Basir, president of the Muslim Students Association; Kemal Karpat, a history professor and Islam expert; representatives of the Daily Cardinal; a journalism professor and other panelists yet to be announced.

On publishing the cartoon

2006-02-14T23:18:00.000-06:00

As I discussed yesterday, The Badger Herald decided to run one of the controversial Danish cartoons in its Monday edition. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have made as editor in chief of the paper, and one I maintain to have been proper. Today, as the reaction to this decision seems to have worked through campus 24 hours later, Chancellor John Wiley issued a fair and decent statement on our editorial decision. In part, he notes:

Predictably, this action has brought home to Madison, Wisconsin, and to the university community, the same visceral, emotional response reported by the international media during the past several days. People that we all know, work with and study with are hurt, scarred by what they believe to be a senseless prolongation of an intentionally insensitive, racist and distorted commentary on the very foundation of one of the world's great religions. Understandably, those offended desire redress - apologies, retractions and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of communal condemnation. They see no justification for speech they perceive to have been hateful in character, injurious not only to their sense of place in the broader fabric of society, but to their spiritual selves. This is not the first time that the swords of speech and controversy have clashed on this campus, and, most assuredly, it will not be the last. Most often, the disputes have involved charges of racial, ethnic or religious insensitivity, even hostility - not unlike the situation today. But any review of these disputes demonstrates a common finding: that the public controversies which ensued represent, together, a perfect embodiment of unrestricted speech in a free society, in which all views on a given subject were given equal weight and attention, aired so that every individual could form his or her own opinions. Then, as now, it should never be routine to recall that this university has for more than 100 years championed the cause of free and open debate, the "fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found," and that an increasingly complex world requires this standard more than ever.

I have been interviewed by a number of news outlets this evening and will provide links to the appropriate stories as they become available. For now, though, one thing I want to re-emphasize is that this was a difficult decision on the part of both myself and the rest of the Badger Herald editorial board. It was not something we did lightly or without due meditation. However, it is a decision that I will continue to defend. I am now receiving a stream of letters (yes, letters to the editor do still go to the editor – I'm not sure how many papers that remains true of) and appreciate the sentiment behind each and every one of them. This is the sort of informed, intelligent debate I always hope to encourage and a rather shining example of the free speech we sought to promote by running this cartoon. Moreover, the Herald is dedicated to publishing as many reasonable responses as we can, within our spatial restrictions. A number of letters will be running in tomorrow's paper. Again, I'll provide links and, where necessary, analysis, as this continues to unfold.

Madison media and Danish cartoons

2006-02-13T12:49:00.000-06:00

In an unusual move, Scott Milfred, editorial page editor of the Wisconsin State Journal, ran a column over the weekend explaining why he will not be publishing the controversial Danish cartoons in his newspaper. It is a well-written piece by a man for whom I have great respect. I cannot help but to feel, however, as though he has made a mistake. While the argument he puts forward would be a logical basis for denying the cartoon should it have been brought to the State Journal, not a Danish publication, in its origin, the piece fails to address the current scenario. On page 6 of today's Badger Herald, one of the 12 cartoons has been reprinted, accompanied by an 800 word editorial explaining the paper's rationale for doing so. It is a decision the paper's editorial board made after lengthy and thorough debate and it is a decision of which I am immensely proud. Mr. Milfred, in his column, asserts:

Just last week we pulled a locally-drawn cartoon off this very page because it made some of us queasy -- for reasons the cartoonist never intended. The cartoon, a goofy twist on a mobster hit, poked fun at the National Rifle Association for its gun lust. An NRA boss ordered Republicans to "take out" the governor in the fall election, not with bullets but with a bag of campaign cash. On its surface, the cartoon was pointed and funny. Yet we didn't run it because it eerily caused a couple of staffers to recall the assassination of President Kennedy. We weighed the benefit of making a sharp political point against the specter of unintentionally referencing one of America's darkest hours, and the decision not to run it became obvious.

Again, this interesting analogy seems perhaps more pertinent to the dilemma initially faced by the Danish publication. Here, the question is one of reproduction as a means of both informing the readership and advocating free speech rights. As the Herald editorial board notes:

While the Danish cartoons in question are undoubtedly offensive, regrettable distortions of a predominately peaceful religion and illustrations that run against the teachings of Islam, they are also now the impetus of riots that have caused numerous deaths, reduced symbols of global peace to charred ruins and brought attention to a clearly unstable region of the globe. As a result, the cartoons in question are clearly newsworthy and it is our firm belief that the media ought not be a gatekeeper guided by prude censorship, but rather a vehicle of facilitation in the grand marketplace of ideas. While one may aptly question the newspapers that originally ran these cartoons, it would seem that the illustrations have now become more than depictions of an unsavory nature and commenced to stand also for the very necessity of free speech.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Milfred, both as a reader and writer (I have scribed for his page in the past). And I realize this to be one of those tremendous shades of gray in which reasonable people can disagree without either party being per se wrong. I am also glad that in not running these images, the Wisconsin State Journal has furnished an explanation, not merely ignoring the issue at hand. But I also continue to feel that these are images the media has both a duty and responsibility to share. And that is what The Badger Herald has done today.

Laugh a little

2006-02-13T00:12:00.000-06:00

I posted on Dick Cheney's hunting mishap yesterday with a sense of humor. The entire ordeal is more or less amusing since no one was seriously hurt and the news cycle, frankly, could use a decent distraction from the heavy-toned hearings atop Capitol Hill. Apparently, though, not everyone is taking this with a complete sense of humor. It would seem that James and Sarah Brady put out a statement on the incident today and while they each clearly sought to convey a certain tone of humor via hyperbole, it also appears the anti-gun advocates are trying to make political something that truthfully is best contained in the realms of late night television. Ms. Brady commented:

I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time... Now I know I was right to be nervous.

And Mr. Brady weighed in:

Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him... I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog - and I thought he was an idiot.

Whoa. Is Mr. Brady really accusing the Vice President of wanting to kill him? And what exactly does Ms. Brady mean by being “nervous.” A crooked hunting shot is reason to doubt the competency of the second highest office in America? Isn't this whole ordeal proof that guns can be safely handled? A couple weapons were legally used by their rightful holders, something went wrong and everyone is still relatively okay. This seems to be the pinnacle of responsibility – hunting in a safe environment where, even if the worst that can go wrong does, someone gets a little medical treatment and matters go on. Besides, if memory serves, John Kerry once tried to score political points by taking the press on a hunting excursion. Let's not call the Vice President an “idiot.” His predecessor claimed to have invented the Internet and the guy before that wasn't able to spell “potato.” I may joke, but it isn't as if we have another Aaron Burr on our hands.

Dick Cheney's tribute to Aaron Burr

2006-02-12T16:37:00.000-06:00

I'm having some trouble confirming this, but I am fairly sure that Dick Cheney has just become the first Vice President of the United States to shoot a man whilst in office since Aaron Burr. And that's saying a lot, considering Mr. Burr served his country so long ago that he was a member of the Senate during the 18th century. As the Associated Press notes:

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Of course, with Mr. Cheney the whole thing sounds like a rather innocuous hunting accident, rather unlikely to spur rumors of a secret hair trigger. But you also have to wonder if the Vice President's camp couldn't have spun this matter a touch better. According to the same article, Mr. Cheney's spokesman made the following comment:

Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been... The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came.

How this doesn't play into all of the late night jokes about Mr. Cheney being artificially kept alive on secretive machines, is simply beyond me. Then again, he shot a man.

Oklahoma, where Coburn comes sweepin' down the plain

2006-02-12T11:14:00.000-06:00

APPLETON, Wis. - George Will has an interesting column in today's Washington Post. Mr. Will, a genuine conservative by most standards, is profiling Tom Coburn, a GOP Senator from Oklahoma, in a piece entitled “The Senate's Dr. No,” he writes:

Coburn is the most dangerous creature that can come to the Senate, someone simply uninterested in being popular. ... Civilization depends on the ability to make even majorities blush, so it is momentous news that shame may be making a comeback, even on Capitol Hill, as a means of social control. Embarrassment is supposed to motivate improved education in kindergarten through 12th grade under the No Child Left Behind Act: That law provides for identifying failing schools, the presumption being that communities will blush, then reform. And embarrassment is Coburn's planned cure for Congress's earmark culture.

The real question, though is just why Mr. Will is off profiling a senate Republican in his syndicated column. A few months back, he scribed a similar fawning ode to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, leading me to speculate that he was looking to tap the GOP's next presidential candidate. And I am still not sure that such wasn't his purpose then – or now, for that matter. Then again, this is American politics - anyone with a shot at the Oval Office is going to need to care about being popular.

Michael Brown testifies

2006-02-10T09:52:00.000-06:00

Michael Brown, the disgraced former head of FEMA, is testifying before a senate sub-committee and he keeps going off at Norm Coleman about how the Minnesota governor is “taking things out of context.” It truthfully would be a rather amusing exchange if it weren't so utterly sad; Mr. Coleman will read an e-mail Mr. Brown sent using phrases like “anything I need to tweak?” in response to mortality tolls, Mr. Brown will fire back about “context.” Does this guy not realize how monumentally he messed up? And he sure seems disparate, “What more, Senator Coleman, do you want from me?” The senator fires back, “Strong leadership can overcome that and clearly that wasn't the case here.” Seriously, this is boiling over – it was looking there for a few minutes like Mr. Brown might pull a Zell Miller and try challenging Mr. Coleman to a duel.

Doyle's PR nightmare

2006-02-09T23:52:00.000-06:00

The latest edition of The Mendota Beacon hit the newsstands this week and a highlight is Jenny Pryor's column on Governor Doyle's public relations catastrophe better known as the month of January. She notes:

Doyle is facing significant unfavorability ratings. In the latest poll, 46% of Wisconsin residents disapprove of his efforts as Governor, while only 44% approve. One of his opponents, Mark Green, is polling one point behind Doyle, well within the margin of error. Scott Walker, the other gubernatorial hopeful, is not far behind. ... Keep in mind that all this is happening less than two weeks after Doyle’s State of the State speech, a time when he should be riding high on good press and new proposals. He was also given the chance to visit troops in Iraq, which should have been a great opportunity for positive media coverage. Instead, he had even Democratic politicos commenting that he’d probably rather stay in Iraq than head back to Wisconsin.

This sort of unmitigated PR nightmare is wholly reminiscent of the summer of 2004. John Kerry went into the Democratic National Convention in Boston – his home town – rightfully expecting a healthy bounce in the polls following a week of Democratic television domination and a primetime acceptance speech. But thanks to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and various Kerry campaign gaffes, the man never saw a spike in the polls that couldn't be explained away by the margin of error. His finest PR chance came and went, and just a few months later it would seem that those few points he couldn't muster in June may well have cost him the presidency. For Mr. Doyle, things seem to be going even worse. Just as the swift boat campaign would long haunt the long-faced man from Massachusetts, allegations of administrative payola look to haunt the incumbent governor through Election Day. At the very least, the recent indictment will keep him from being able to ever play the Jack Abramoff card against Mr. Green (something that would be a dirty trick in the first place) and, at the very most, he will actually stroll into Election Day looking more damning than any Wisconsin politician since a senator who foolheartedly proclaimed to have “a list” in the 1950s. Still, I admire Mr. Doyle's campaign workers. I mean, at this point, trying to spin for the governor is roughly tantamount to slapping on a blindfold and trying to complete a Rubik's Cube.

Prude journalism

2006-02-09T00:30:00.000-06:00

In one of my classes the other day, we debated the ethical connotations of publishing a re-print of the controversial Danish cartoons portraying the Islamic prophet as a terrorist. The question was not so much one of whether these cartoons should have run in the first place but, instead, whether or not they should be reproduced as accompanying images to news and opinion stories following up the controversy. Surprisingly, I was one of the few people to say I would publish them in this context. And today The Badger Herald did just that. Brad Vogel, a member of our editorial board and cornerstone of the opinion page, drew a cartoon highlighting the whole controversy. And in the cartoon was, of course, a reproduction (hand-drawn) of the offending image. Mr. Vogel's cartoon is worth a look. It is an excellent illustration of this whole fiasco and one truly worthy of the old “thousand words” cliché: As for the larger question, I continue to be of the belief that news coverage must be neither timid nor slanted. For the major news outlets to refuse to show the controversial cartoons – a mistake they continue to make – is for them to subtly condemn the Danish press for publishing these images in the first place. Moreover, such is an act of wanton paternalism, classically typical of a hyperbolically liberal, anti-libertarian press. This is roughly tantamount to proclaiming that those who work in newsrooms may view these troubling images, as media employees are grown-ups and mature enough to handle radical pictures, but the public at large – the media's clientèle – is either too juvenile or volatile or appreciate the same images. It is protectionism in its most hideous of shades and should offend all of those who consume print and broadcast journalism. I am not interested in opining on the original Danish cartoons. I can see how they have been deemed ultra-offensive, and I can also see how some may perceive the views they express to be applicable to a certain minority of the populace. It is ironic that the reaction to these drawings has almost been an affirmation of their legitimacy. But I am interested in the ensuing controversy. And as a journalist, I simply cannot understand how it is that so many of my peers are unwilling to share incredibly news-worthy images with their readers and viewers.

Necessary roughness

2006-02-07T23:15:00.000-06:00

The University of Wisconsin football team – a squad that has gone to great lengths to embarrass this school off the field over the past several months – took a major step forward late last week. Then, predictably, four steps backward. Kudos to new coach Bret Bielema for tossing Booker Stanley off the team in wake of his continued run-ins with the law and alleged issues with anger management. Barry Alvarez was never one to take such decisive action when it came to athlete discipline and Mr. Bielema, of whom I have been publicly skeptical at times, has certainly started his new job with the right tone. But, alas, much is still rotten in the state of Denmark. Four more UW football players found themselves in trouble with law enforcement once again the other evening, as citations were dished out in one of the school's residence halls. Leading the pack is Parrish “P.J.” Hill. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Hill and three UW other players were involved in a disturbance outside a residence hall at 2:15 a.m. Jan. 26. Hill allegedly brandished a baseball bat and was cited for disorderly conduct while armed. Linebackers Jonathan Casillas and Elijah Hodge and tight end Jaevery McFadden, all freshmen, were also allegedly involved. They were cited by UW police for violating the UW administrative code, a non-criminal offense. That offense is not a violation of UW's student-athlete discipline policy and those players have not been suspended from the team.

Perhaps most stirringly, the same article reports:

Including this incident, eight UW players have been arrested or cited by police since Dec. 16.

Mr. Bielema took the proper first step by throwing Mr. Stanley off the squad. A fleeting glance of dignity has returned to the UW program accordingly. Now, if he is serious about sending a message that class is more than just those pesky lectures players sometimes attend, he'll extend the boot to Messrs. Hill, Casillas, Hodge and McFadden as well. It is a privilege to be a UW athlete. And it should take more than mere talent to attain such an honor and represent this university on the field.

Cruise control

2006-02-06T22:44:00.000-06:00

I'm not a fan of dragging families into elections or politics in general. It's one thing when a candidate's husband or wife makes a conscious effort to insert themselves into the media, but it is altogether another matter when the private indiscretions of someone's son or daughter make their way into the headlines. There are, of course, limits to this. When Gwen Moore's son decided it was high time to engage in voter fraud, helping dear mom claim an ill-gotten seat in the US House of Representatives, the media should have paid even more attention. When John Kerry raised the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter in a presidential debate, Americans were rightly outraged. But in between there is a vast shade of gray. And while the general rule is to leave families alone, it is hard to obey by these standards when a politician's son or daughter endangers the public at large. Such is exactly what Jim Doyle's son, Augustus, is alleged to have done the other evening, as WKOW notes:

27 News has learned Governor Jim Doyle's son, Augustus "Gus" Doyle, was arrested on a charge of first offense drunken driving during the early morning hours of Feb. 5. Fitchburg Police Lieutenant Chad Brecklin told 27 News, a passing motorist called authorities with concerns over a man in another car. Brecklin told 27 News that man was Doyle, 30, and that the car, a 1998 Buick Century was on Fish Hatchery Road at County Highway M. A source with knowledge of this investigation told 27 News, Doyle refused to submit to a test for blood alcohol when it was requested by responding officers. Brecklin refused comment on the testing. Brecklin told 27 News Doyle was driving without a valid license.

As a friend of mine notes, this is the type of public recklessness that would end up in the local police blotter anyway. That the alleged criminal is the son of a man whose attorney general seems to have a fetish for the same offense is merely a sickening coincidence. Then again, when the chief law enforcement officer in the state is a convicted drunk driver with an apparently decent shot at re-election, I suppose it is difficult to say that the son of the same state's top politician should be held to any sort of a different standard.

Locksmith!

2006-02-06T14:12:00.000-06:00

The Nobel Peace Prize has dropped in value over time as the list of past recipients has grown to include the likes of Jimmy Carter, Yassar Arafat and Kofi Annan. Who would want to be grouped with those three monsters? But Detroit may have an even larger problem on its hands. Traditionally, one of the highest honors a city can give is the symbolic key to its gates. And last week, Detroit bestowed one such key upon Jerome Bettis, the Pittsburgh Steelers' running back, on the occasion of his homecoming and likely retirement from the sport. It was quite the kudo, especially considering Detroit has not handed out a key in over a quarter of a century. But there was one slight hitch. The Indianapolis Star sums up the problem:

It should also be mentioned the last person to receive that honor was -- get this -- Saddam Hussein, who got it in 1980. "They've changed the locks on that one," Bettis joked.

Depending on when they changed those locks, we might want to dispatch some folks to check the basement of Motown records for the missing WMDs.

Erotic comedy made in Madison, banned from TV

2006-02-05T22:45:00.000-06:00

The steamy Godaddy.com ad you saw during the second quarter of the Super Bowl wasn't the first one the company submitted to ABC for approval. Nor, apparently, was it the second. Or third. No, it was the fourteenth. And every one of them were made by a Madison-based company. As the Mercury News reports, the Internet firm had some trouble getting the Disney-owned network to accept the notion that professional football fans might also enjoy a little cleavage:

For the second year in a row, Godaddy.com and Super Bowl ads are synonymous. Last year, the Web services got one ad into the Super Bowl and then Fox yanked the second one for broadcast. It seemed the network didn't like the steamy ad featuring a lovely, scantily clad woman testifying before Congress. This year, according to the blog of CEO Bob Parsons, the company submitted 13 ads to ABC that were rejected.

Godaddy.com, for its part, has created one of the funniest and saddest webpages on the Internet, documenting this whole ordeal. All 14 ads are available for download (except for the ones that got canned before they were even shot – there are storyboards for those) and some of them are downright hilarious. My favorite commercials of the batch would certainly be the “Godfather”-themed ones, which the site aptly describes:

Inspired by a classic film, Go Daddy's marketing team decides to make the network "an offer they can't refuse" (in the commercial, that is). Unfortunately, the network did refuse and we went back to the studio...

There are several variations on this one – each, apparently, scrapped before it could air – and the highlight would surely have to be the entry that features the Godaddy.com girl popping out of bed whilst wearing a horse's head. Now, to be sure, this is not government censorship. ABC is a private company and no one is claiming that the FCC engaged in prior-restraint. But what isn't clear is whether these ads were yanked because ABC didn't like them, the NFL didn't like them or, in a post-”wardrobe malfunction” era, someone working for one of the two was afraid of incurring the wrath of Kevin J. Martin. Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, this website is hosted by Godaddy.com. And, yes, I purchased the company's services after learning about them on a commercial during last year's Super Bowl.

Professional football's 10 greatest dynasties

2006-02-05T13:37:00.000-06:00

This space is normally reserved for political and media commentary, but seeing as how ABC News will be taking a backseat to ABC Sports today, this would seem an opportune occasion to delve into the world of professional football. And so, as we prepare to watch Super Bowl XL this evening and see the crowning of a new NFL Champion, consider this, my list of the 10 greatest professional football dynasties of the modern (post-1920) era to have completed their journeys (IE, no New England yet – still not sure where that squad will one day rank): 10. 1993-1996 Dallas Cowboys: Won three Super Bowls with a team that included Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith and Michael Irvin. An offensive powerhouse with a genuine double-threat. 9. 1950-1957 Cleveland Browns: Otto Graham under center, six consecutive NFL championship appearances, winning half of them. 8. 1958-1960 Baltimore Colts: With Johnny Unitas as the helm, this squad won two of the last NFL Championship games (the Super Bowl would be created a few years later), including a 23-17 overtime victory over the New York Giants at Yankee Stadium that some stubbornly insist upon calling “The Greatest Game Ever Played.” 7. 1982-1992 Washington Redskins: Not so much a single dynasty as the crowding of great teams under the helmsmanship of Joe Gibbs. Four Super Bowl appearances with three victories each coming with a different quarterback under center. 6. 1990-1994 Buffalo Bills: If Scott Norwood hadn't botched the most famous kick in football history – a shank that would later ignite Jim Carrey's acting career – this squad would have enjoyed a championship. But, as is, they ventured to the top of the AFC for four straight years, every time ending up in the big game against an NFC East opponent who was simply too much for them to handle. 5. 1960-1967 Green Bay Packers: Won five national championships in seven years, including the first two Super Bowls ever played. Bart Starr brilliantly led the squad through each victory. Perhaps most memorably, the team claimed the 1967 “Ice Bowl,” the match I would consider to be the “Greatest Game Ever Played.” 4. 1936-1945 Boston/Washington Redskins: What people don't necessarily realize about Sammy Baugh, arguably the only man to ever play quarterback with the same level of skill as Joe Montana, is that he didn't just line up on offense. He was the team's punter and often made a cameo on defense as well. But all of that playing time didn't stop him from leading the team to six championship games in 10 years, a streak unbothered by the team's relocation from Boston to Washington. 3. 1974-1980 Pittsburgh Steelers: Those “Terrible Towels” you'll see at tonight's game are not exactly originals. It was the flying yellow dish rags in the stands for these years that guided the Pittsburgh team to four Super Bowl victories, with the “Steel Curtain” - one of the greatest defensive squads ever assembled – shutting down opposing offenses as Terry Bradshaw stretched the field. 2. 1922-1923 Canton Bulldogs: Think the 1972 Miami Dolphins (who didn't make this list because a year is not a franchise) were the first undefeated squad? Not quite. This team didn't lose a single game over the course of two consecutive seasons, and even managed to claim the league title a year later, in 1924, after their owner moved them to Cleveland. In that last season, they lost one match, but from 1922-1923, the team never came out on the losing end of a game. 1. 1981-1990 San Francisco 49ers: Four titles. Joe Montana. 'nuff said.

Betty Friedan: 1921-2006

2006-02-04T19:53:00.000-06:00

A little over five years ago, I had the privilege of meeting Betty Friedan. I was working for the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington on a cultural program allowing the elderly to enjoy a good meal and notable speaker for a reasonable price. She was one of the speakers. Ms. Friedan was fragile, had trouble finding her bearings and, frankly, gave a horrible speech. But that mattered so very little. She was then – as she is now and always will be – a giant of the social equality movement. It was largely on her shoulders that women moved beyond suffrage and into the workplace. It was, too, on her shoulders that radicalism never became the norm for such a weighty movement. And as it is being reported today, Ms. Friedan has passed away on her 85th birthday. For my generation, it is difficult to grasp the world before Ms. Friedan and Gloria Steinem. The anachronistic women's textbook passages about how to always have your husband's slippers ready at the door, as you greet home clothed in nothing more than saran wrap, strike of a purely humorous note to so many of us, devoid of the inherent historical horror such texts genuinely represent. “The Feminine Mystique,” Ms. Friedan's landmark cultural book, was a big part of moving those textbooks from the shelves of ladies' classrooms to those of coeducational history classrooms. With equal grace, though, Ms. Friedan earned a reputation for dodging radicalism in her pursuit of social equality. A year after Ms. Friedan founded the National Organization for Women (NOW), Valerie Solanas published the SCUM Manifesto (“SCUM” being an acronym for “Society for Cutting Up Men” - Ms. Solanas would go on to shoot Andy Warhol). The treatise famously observed:

The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.

Ms. Friedan would have nothing to do with such hyperbole. She never burned her bra in public and everything she did was through either peaceful advocacy or her masterful command of the written word. Some 40 years after she started NOW alongside 27 other women, Ms. Friedan has departed a world that sure looks different than the one she was brought into. She sought equality for her gender, she fought for equality for her gender and she achieved equality for her gender. And it is for that reason I will always consider it a privilege and honor to be able to say that on one summer day in 2001, I met Ms. Friedan.

FCC, you ignorant slut

2006-02-03T23:10:00.000-06:00

For the first time since he departed FM radio and went to Sirius, I made a point of listening to Howard Stern yesterday morning. And it was shocking. Not because of the language he used, the profanity he employed or the excess of scatological humor. No, it was shocking for much the opposite reason: the show sounded, frankly, the same. I've never been a frequent listener of Mr. Stern's, but as best I can remember his FM show, it really wasn't all that different. In the time I listened to Sirius yesterday, he didn't seem to push the envelope any further than he was a year ago. In fact, he didn't use a single one of the so-called “seven dirty words” by my unofficial count. But, then again, I am beginning to wonder if even this maintenance of the status quo isn't pushing the envelope in a certain regard. According to Broadcasting & Cable, a trade magazine, the Super Bowl pre-game, halftime and post-game shows will all be on taped delay:

Fox did not delay its broadcast of the game last year, however, telling CBS News at the time that it was treating the broadcast as a news event. The half-time performer was Paul McCartney. CBS probably wishes it had delayed the game the year before that, however, when the Jackson reveal at halftime of the 2004 contest helped prompt the ensuing wide-scale tape delays of "live" programming (with an assist from the FCC's decision that Bono's f-word on the live Golden Globes awards telecast was indecent). The delay gives monitors a chance to bleep audio or snip video that might offend viewers or legislators.

Now, busting out a nipple in the middle of a live sporting event certainly seems to be over the line. And having Bono drop the f-word isn't really any grayer of a topic. But what is troubling is that nudity and the “seven dirty words” aren't really the applicable definition anymore. Consider George Carlin's legendary sketch:

There are some people that aren't into all the words. There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions. And words, you know the seven don't you? ... Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.

But the problem for Mr. Stern and ABC censors is that merely keeping a list of those seven words (and I will avoid using them here, though it is nice to know that I do have the freedom to print them should I so elect) on the wall, ready to be bleeped, really isn't going to do the trick. In this era, the sexualization of just about anything can draw the FCC's wrath. Along with the rest of the Badger Herald editorial board, I host a weekly talk show on a college radio station. In jest, during our live broadcast last week, I referred to one of my colleagues as an “ignorant slut,” subtly paying tribute to Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin's famed sketches on NBC in the 1970s. I've been advised to not do so again. When I used to offer film reviews on commercial radio, I was advised to avoid any sexualization. Sure, if the flick was about Viagra, I could use the word “penis,” but I better not go accusing anyone of having a “hard on” for someone else. And then, for people like Mr. Stern and shows like the Super Bowl, there is of course the double standard. A discussion of lesbianism on the old FM talk show would surely test the FCC. Yet when Oprah Winfrey decided to host a seminar on salad tossing – and I don't mean the sort involving greens and dressing – it was just dandy. The natural evolution of media has been toward more openness. Watch “Dragnet” from the 1960's. Then watch “Law & Order.” It's no coincidence that there's blood in one and not the other. This is a healthy evolution for a country that adores freedom of speech and believes in the openness of expression. The government doesn't regulate films' ratings and admissions (the MPAA is a private trade group), nor should it. But for the first time in the history of modern media, we may well be seeing a reversal of this sliding scale. What was once acceptable and tolerated – dirty FM radio, live television gaffes – is now grounds for fines and penalties. What Mr. Stern could once do on public airwaves is now really only okay on private satellites. And at this rate of prudish regression, television may well become what Newton Minnow once errantly declared it to already be: a vast wasteland.

Rough waters, bad beef

2006-02-02T13:03:00.000-06:00

STEVENS POINT, Wis. - As the old saying goes, it's not impropriety so much as the appearance of impropriety. And while Governor Doyle may or may not be actually guilty of any criminal or unethical behavior, he sure has become good at acting like a guilty man. Just a week after “Adelman Travel” became a household name in Wisconsin, Mr. Doyle is doing his best to distance himself from another peculiar circumstance. The Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter notes:

MANITOWOC - Gov. Jim Doyle has returned $10,000 in campaign donations from Burger Boat owners David Ross and Jim Ruffolo, according to a campaign finance document filed Tuesday. Two days after each man made a $5,000 donation, a Department of Transportation advisory committee accepted the company's $1.1 million grant proposal for a boat ramp.

Quid pro quo? You decide. But if this was an ethical deal, one sure does have to wonder just why Mr. Doyle is giving the campaign cash back. Then again, is he? The same article has a peculiar notation buried in the boilerplate:

Doyle's campaign will not return $5,000 donations that Ross and Ruffolo made in 2003, spokeswoman Melanie Fonder said. Those donations came six months after Burger Boat won $2.1 million in state grants and loans for a company expansion and two months before Doyle appeared at the company's groundbreaking on the project.

Payola in the Capitol? With Mr. Doyle in office, it is like watching a looped rerun of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but with an alternate ending seemingly out of “The Manchurian Candidate.”

Did the court's webmaster get the memo?

2006-02-02T00:52:00.000-06:00

I wonder when the Supreme Court will take to updating the biographies of its nine justices on its official website. I realize Samuel Alito has only been on board for a day or so, but he is already casting votes and that means Sandra Day O'Connor is not. The newest justice even had a ceremonial swearing-in at the White House today. And it made for quite an interesting visual image. There was John Roberts giving the oath to Mr. Alito as George Bush looked on. Arlen Specter watched from the front row, and Ed Gillespie was thanked in Mr. Alito's speech: If ever one wanted proof that Mr. Bush has indeed been an influential and effective leader, at least vis a vis the judiciary, this was it. All of the major players in the legal branch of the government were assembled, and the man of the hour was nominated by Mr. Bush, sworn in by someone else put atop the bench by Mr. Bush, overseen by a Senate Judiciary Chair in Mr. Bush's party and ushered through that confirmation process in part by the man who got Mr. Bush elected to a second term in office. Now if the Supreme Court's website could just catch on.

A justice in a sheep's robes?

2006-02-01T23:49:00.000-06:00

Judging someone based on their first day of work seems hardly fair, and initial impressions oftentimes prove wrong. So let's hope that such is the case here. But for now, I am starting to become afraid that John Kerry will soon regret his attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito – not because of the political ramifications, but because Mr. Alito may just be a touch more liberal than most figured. It took the man barely a day to break ranks with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts – the trio of justices conservatives hoped he would mimic – and vote with a more liberal block. The Associated Press reports:

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservative Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection. Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

Digging a little deeper – actually, digging far between the lines – one might read into Mr. Alito's behavior during the State of the Union address last night as well. As the Washington Post notes:

At times, Alito followed the lead of the other three justices who sat with him in the front row. When Bush said "We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it," Thomas looked at Roberts, who looked at Breyer, who gave an approving shrug; all four gentlemen stood and gave unanimous applause. At other times, Alito showed independence from his senior colleagues. When Bush delivered the stock line "The state of our union is strong," Alito dissented while the other three robed justices in the front row applauded.

Though, in the interest of full disclosure, it also appears as though Mr. Alito may have been the sole ovation of the four justices for some of the evening's other, more conservative lines. So the level of applause emerging from the front row of the House chamber may not be the best of indicators after all. The true tests will, of course, come later. No one in the Senate voted for Mr. Alito or against him based on a single Missouri case that was yet to even emerge as a serious issue. Besides, it even took David Souter a few years to show his true colors.